Prudhomme v. Dore
| Decision Date | 26 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 7691,7691 |
| Citation | 223 So.2d 474 |
| Parties | Claude PRUDHOMME, Jr.; Claude Prudhomme, Individually and for and on behalf of his minor son, Ronald Charles Prudhomme v. John H. DORE, and the Travelers Insurance Company. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Lawrence A. Uter, Baton Rouge, for appellants.
Taylor, Porter, Brooks, Fuller & Phillips, Baton Rouge, for appellees.
Before LANDRY, SARTAIN and MARCUS, JJ.
This action results from a rear end automobile collision between a 1959 Ford belonging to plaintiff Claude Prudhomme, Jr. and being driven by his minor brother, Ronald Charles Prudhomme, and a 1966 Ford owned and being operated by defendant John Dore, insured of Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers).
The accident occurred at approximately 4:00 P.M., November 1, 1966, at the intersection of Eugene Street (a north-south roadway) and Main Street (an east-west thoroughfare), Baton Rouge, Louisiana, during a rain of sufficient intensity to impair vision to some extent. The intersection was controlled by a traffic light.
Defendant Dore, driving westerly along Main Street was 'caught' in the intersection during a light change because of the inability of forward traffic to move ahead for some unexplained reason. Finding himself in this predicament, defendant attempted to back in an easterly direction to clear the intersection after the light changed from green to red. As he was attempting this maneuver, he was struck from behind by the westbound vehicle being driven by young Prudhomme.
Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court rejecting their claims for damages to the Prudhomme vehicle, personal injuries to the Prudhomme youth and medical expense incident to treatment therefor. In particular plaintiffs urge the trial court erred in finding Ronald Prudhomme guilty of negligence constituting a proximate cause of the accident, namely, failure to maintain a proper lookout. We concur in the results reached by the trial court and affirm the decision rendered below.
Defendant's testimony is to the effect he was proceeding along Main Street at a slow rate of speed, the last vehicle in a long line of westbound motorists. As he entered the intersection at Eugene Street the light began to turn from green to red and the traffic ahead stalled for some reason unknown to defendant. Finding himself thus 'trapped' in the intersection and unable to proceed, defendant elected to back his automobile out of the intersection to permit passage of motorists north and southbound on Eugene Street. Defendant stated he first checked traffic to the rear by consulting both his inside and outside rear view mirrors. Observing no westbound traffic to his rear, he proceeded to back up and when he had traveled an estimated distance of half a car length, his vehicle was struck from behind.
Young Prudhomme testified he was proceeding westerly on Main Street at a relatively slow rate of speed. He conceded it was raining at the time but maintained visibility was good. He acknowledged recognizing the congestion prevailing at the time and slowing the speed of his vehicle because of this condition. Prudhomme summarized the ensuing events as follows:
'Q. Well, in your own words will you tell the Court how this accident occurred?
A. It was real sudden. All I remember is seeing Mr. Dore's car backing up and I was trying to stop and I wasn't going but about 15 or 20 miles an hour at the most. I was trying to stop and it was misty and all I know we hit together and my head hit the windshield and I just--you know just--I was stunded (sic).'
The testimony of Officer J. W. Dabadie, City Policeman, adds little light considering the falling rain obliterated all physical evidence of the point of impact prior to his arrival upon the scene. His report, however, predicated upon statements obtained from the parties involved and certain eye witnesses accords in large measure with the version of the mishap related by the drivers involved.
Mrs. Beverly Lacey testified she was northbound on Eugene and the first car stopped at the intersection in obedience to an unfavorable traffic signal. She further testified defendant was stopped virtually in the center of the intersection when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. King
...4 Cir., 1967, 204 So.2d 83; Strother v. 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 King, instead of hel......
-
Craker v. Allstate Ins. Co.
... ... Meligan, 245 So.2d 782 (La.App.3d Cir. 1971), Prudhomme v. Dore, 223 So.2d 474 (La.App.1st Cir. 1969), Sutton v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 210 So.2d 186 (La.App.2d Cir. 1968), and Viator v. Gilbert, 206 ... ...
-
Malone v. Hartford Ins. Co.
...from the rear is presumed negligent and bears the burden of exculpating himself from the inference of negligence citing 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 To the general ......
-
Strother v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...from the rear is presumed negligent and bears the burden of exculpating himself from the inference of negligence. 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 t......