Porter v. Barron
| Decision Date | 04 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 6613,6613 |
| Citation | 185 So.2d 304 |
| Parties | John C. PORTER et ux. v. Guy E. BARRON et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Joel B. Dickinson, Baton Rouge, for appellant.
Harry D. Simmons, of Seale, Hayes, Smith & Baine, Baton Rouge, George W. Liskow, Lake Charles, for appellee.
Before ELLIS, LOTTINGER, LANDRY, REID and BAILES, JJ.
Plaintiffs John C. Porter and his wife Fedil C. Porter brought this suit for damages against Guy E. Barron and his liability insurer United Services Automobile Association for damages in the amount of $16,997.00 as a result of an accident which happened on Saturday morning, June 29, 1963 at about 11:55 A.M. on Louisiana State Highway near Kinder, Louisiana on the Calcasieu River Bridge.
Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant Barron was negligent in stopping his car on the Calcasieu River bridge in violation of the Highway regulations, and in addition stopping his car on the bridge just past the top span of said bridge where it was impossible for it to be seen from a car traveling in the same direction, until it had topped the uppermost span and started down.
Defendants filed an answer admitting the accident but alleged that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the Porter car, Mrs. Fedil C. Porter, and further alleged that she had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, and plead in the alternative that in the event the Court found negligence on the part of Barron that Mrs. Porter was guilty of contributory negligence.
They further assumed the position of plaintiff in reconvention and brought suit for the sum of $269.90, the amount of damages, less deductible which Mr. Barron's car received as a result of the wreck.
Defendants further alleged negligence on the part of Mrs. Porter in that she failed to observe the Highway and the vehicles thereon in the direction toward which defendants in reconvention were traveling, failed to slow her vehicle on approaching the Calcasieu River bridge, failed to maintain control of her vehicle, and failed to stop the vehicle in sufficient time to avoid the accident. Plaintiffs and defendants in reconvention filed an answer to the reconventional demand alleging that Mrs. Porter was not negligent in any way whatsoever and further alleged the same affirmative allegations in defense of the reconventional demand as were contained in the original petition.
The Trial Court for oral reasons dictated and transcribed in the record rendered judgment rejecting plaintiffs' damand and granting judgment in reconvention, in favor of United Services Automobile Association and against the defendants in reconvention, John C. Porter and Mrs. Fedil C. Porter, in solido in the sum of $269.90 with legal interest from judicial demand until paid and all costs. From this judgment the plaintiffs and defendants in reconvention have brought this appeal.
The facts show that both, plaintiffs in a 1960 Chrysler Imperial automobile and the defendant in a 1959 Buick station wagon, were traveling in an easterly direction with the Barron car in the lead. Mrs. Porter was driving the car and her husband was the only possenger.
The accident happened on the Calcasieu River bridge a few miles west of Kinder, Louisiana. This bridge is approximately 450 feet long and has an approximate six and a half foot rise in the middle, sloping upward from the east and west direction with a very gradual ascent in both directions.
Mr. Barron, according to his testimony, had passed over the hump and had gone about 60 feet down the eastern slop of the bridge when he saw a big chemical truck approaching from the east, and he stated that the rear wheels were about two feet across the white line in his lane of traffic. He hit his brakes, slowed down until the truck got into the proper lane of traffic and then when he was about opposite the rear wheels of the truck stepped on the accelerator to speed up his car. It was at this time he was hit from the rear.
Mrs. Porter and Mr. Porter testified that they had been following the Barron car for some time, and that when they got on the bridge they could not see over the hump in the middle and did not know that the Barron car had slowed down or stopped. They both contended that the Barron car had stopped. They slowed their car from about 55 miles an hour down to 40 or 45 as they ascended the approach to the bridge, and when they passed over the hump they saw the Barron car about 50 or 60 feet ahead of them and contended that the car was stopped. Mrs. Porter, the driver of the car, applied her brakes but was unable to stop and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. King
......State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, La.App., 1970, 238 So.2d 774; Prudhomme v. Dore, La.App., 223 So.2d 474; Porter v. Barron, La.App., 185 So.2d 304; Dominique v. Insurance Company of North America, La.App., 195 So.2d 312. . King, instead of ......
-
Malone v. Hartford Ins. Co.
......Dore, La.App., 223 So.2d 474; Porter v. Barron, La.App., 185 So.2d 304 and Dominique v. Insurance Company of North America, La.App., 195 So.2d 312. To the general rule ......
-
Pardue v. Johnson
...... Calvert Fire Insurance Company v. Barlow, supra; Porter v. Barron (La.App.1966) 185 So.2d 304. The burden of proving the exceptional circumstances is upon the following motorist who makes this allegation. ......
-
Strother v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...... See Prudhomme v. Dore, La.App., 223 So.2d 474; Porter" v. Barron, La.App., 185 So.2d 304, and Dominique v. Insurance Company of North America, La.App., 195 So.2d 312, and cases therein cited. \xC2"......