Groom v. T. E. Mercer Trucking Co.

Decision Date22 October 1971
Docket NumberNo. 3583,3583
Citation253 So.2d 586
PartiesCarl GROOM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. T. E. MERCER TRUCKING COMPANY and Transport Insurance Company, Defendants- Appellants.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Plauche, Sanders, Smith & Hebert, by Thomas W. Sanders, Lake Charles, for defendants-appellants.

R. Keith Findley, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FRUGE , MILLER and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.

MILLER, Judge.

Defendants appeal from the award of damages to plaintiff whose vehicle was rear-ended by the defendant Mercer's truck. Defendants contend that the truck driver was confronted with a sudden emergency not of his own making and alternatively that the award is excessive. Plaintiff answered the appeal seeking an increase in the award. We affirm.

At about 3:00 p.m. on the clear dry day of November 26, 1969, John N. Rachal, Sr.'s automobile was stalled and parked in the outside lane of the two westbound lanes at a point about one-third the way up the eastern approach to the Interstate 10 Calcasieu River Bridge. The two westbound lanes are separated from the two eastbound lanes by a concrete barrier. Traffic in both westbound lanes had slowed to allow traffic from both lanes to proceed around the disabled vehicle.

Plaintiff Carl Groom was driving in a westerly direction up the eastern bridge approach. He was in the right or outside lane, driving in second gear and was in the process of deciding whether the slow moving (Arceneaux) vehicle to his left would allow him to enter the left lane to proceed around the stalled vehicle. At that time he saw (in his outside rear view mirror) the overtaking defendant T. E. Mercer Trucking Company truck rapidly overtaking him . Seeing that he would be hit from the rear, Groom sped up at the same time Arceneaux slowed or stopped, and Groom was almost in the passing lane when the front left fender of the truck struck the right rear end of Groom's Ford. The impact occurred in the outside lane. The relatively light impact caused $345.97 in damages to Groom's Ford.

Arceneaux verified Groom's version of the accident and testified that he was moving at about the same or a slower speed than Groom and was slightly behind Groom. Arceneaux had been in the left lane for at least a mile or two before reaching the approach to the bridge.

Roy Crelia, the driver of the Mercer truck, had loaded about 27 joints of 7-inch casing oil field pipe early that morning. He departed Morgan City about 7 a.m. with another truck following him. They were delayed because of motor trouble (repaired by Crelia while on the road) and a stop for lunch near Lafayette. Crelia drank two beers at lunch. The other truck driver was no longer employed by Mercer, but Crelia knew where he was employed. Defendants did not call him to testify although according to Crelia, the second truck was only some 300 feet behind him as Crelia started up the bridge approach.

Crelia testified that he had been in the inside lane of Interstate 10 for a mile or so prior to this accident. He started up the bridge approach in the inside lane at 45 miles per hour. After the upgrade had slowed him to about 40 miles per hour and when he was 100 feet to the rear of the stalled vehicle, he first noticed the stalled vehicle. At the same time an unidentified vehicle passed him on the right and cut in front of him making an emergency stop. Crelia then applied his brakes and entered the right lane to avoid striking the unidentified vehicle. After hitting the rear of Groom's Ford, Crelia brought his truck to a stop without hitting the disabled vehicle.

It is defendants' contention that Crelia could have avoided an accident except for the sudden emergency created by the unidentified motorist. Rachal's testimony, although vague and 'very confusing', generally supported Crelia's testimony that an unidentified motorist switched lanes immediately before the accident.

The trial judge considered the versions of Crelia and Rachal, but concluded that he 'was more favorably impressed with the testimony of the plaintiff and Mr. Arceneaux.' The trial judge noted that even if there was another car in the area, the accident resulted from inattention on the part of the truck driver. He failed to observe the stalled vehicle, and the slow moving vehicles in both lanes attempting to pass, until he was only 100 feet from the stalled vehicle. At that time he was driving his heavily loaded truck at 40 miles per hour. If he had not rear-ended plaintiff's Ford, he would have rear-ended Arceneaux's vehicle which was being properly operated in the inside lane.

The trial court's conclusions are well supported by the evidence.

The operator of the following vehicle must keep his vehicle under control. He must closely observe the forward vehicles and follow at a safe distance. If a rearend collision occurs, he is presumed to be negligent. Barnes v. Toye Brothers Yellow...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Simmons v. King
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 12, 1973
    ...vehicle in a rear-end collision who bears the burden of exculpating himself from this inference of negligence. Groom v. T. E. Mercer Trucking Co., La.App., 1971, 253 So.2d 586; Barnes v. Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Company, La.App., 4 Cir., 1967, 204 So.2d 83; Strother v. State Farm Mutual Aut......
  • Rodriguez v. Trebitz
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • April 22, 1974
    ...with another from the rear must show unusual circumstances to exculpate himself from a presumption of negligence. Groom v. T. E. Mercer Trucking Co., 253 So.2d 586 (La.App.); Calvert Fire Ins. Co. v. Barlow, 215 So.2d 392 With these two rules in mind, we must consider the jury's verdict. Si......
  • Dunlap v. Armendariz
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • June 20, 1972
    ...error committed, the jury's verdict is affirmed. All costs are to be borne by appellants. Affirmed. 1 Groom v. T. E. Mercer Trucking Co., 253 So.2d 586 (La.App.3d Cir. 1971); Maurer v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York, 244 So.2d 260 (La.App.3d Cir. 1971); Guy v. Egano, 236 So.2d 542 (L......
  • Eubanks v. Brasseal
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • March 31, 1975
    ...award to the plaintiff. 1 See, e.g., Williams v. State Farm Ins. Co., 273 So.2d 680 (La.App.1st Cir. 1973); Groom v. T. E. Mercer Trucking Co., 253 So.2d 586 (La.App.3d Cir. 1971); Barnes v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., 204 So.2d 83 (La.App.4th Cir. 1967).2 Dixie Drive It Yourself Sys. v. Ame......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT