Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Crow

• Decision Date: 20 March 1956
• Docket Number: No. 4195,4195
• Citation: Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Crow, 86 So.2d 212 (La. App. 1956)
• Parties: AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO., Automobile Insurance Company, Substituted Plaintiff, v. Troy CROW.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana

Page 212

86 So.2d 212

AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO., Automobile Insurance CompanySubstituted Plaintiff, v.Troy CROW.

No. 4195.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

March 20, 1956.

Gordon Goodbee, Covington, for appellant.

Reid & Reid, Hammond, for appellee.

ELLIS, Judge.

Plaintiff brought this suit as subrogee of Vincent Dantoni, whose automobile was involved in an accident on U. S. Highway 190 between Ponchatoula and Madisonville, Louisiana, with a log truck owned by defendantTroy Crow.

It was admitted at the time of the trial that Automobile Insurance Co. was the true plaintiff rather than Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., and should a judgment for plaintiff be granted that it be rendered in favor of the former.

Judgment below was in favor of the plaintiff as prayed for and from this judgment the defendant has appealed.

The petition herein alleges that the defendant was driving his log truck in an easterly direction along U. S. Highway 190 and at the same time, plaintiff's insured was driving his car in the same direction; that as the insured vehicle approached the log truck from the rear he steered his car into the left lane of the highway in order to pass the truck but just as he was about to complete this maneuver the defendant, without any warning, attempted to make a left turn across the left lane of the highway in order to turn into a small road that came into the highway upon defendant's left; that the insured vehicle tried to pass around the truck but was unsuccessful and the right front fender of his car hit the left rear wheel of the log truck, which resulted in the damage to the insured automobile.

Further allegations charge the defendant with gross negligence in attempting to turn left across the public highway, giving no signal of his intention, and not making sure the highway was clear to allow such a maneuver; that the insured car was being driven at a reasonable and proper rate of speed and that he was guilty of no negligence whatsoever.

The answer denied any acts of negligence on the part of the defendant and alleged that he signalled his intention to make the turn, but that the insured was negligent in that he was driving at an excessive rate of speed, not keeping a proper look-out, and attempting to pass the defendant at an intersection, and failing to bring his car to a stop when he saw the defendant's signal to turn to the left.Contributory negligence was also plead.

The lower court, with written reasons for judgment, found that immediately prior to the collision the defendant was proceeding in an easterly direction and that a Mr. Stanga was seated beside him in the cab of the truck and that when he gave the signal for the left hand turn he did not give it in time to...