Barret v. Caddo Transfer & Warehouse Co., Inc.

• Citation: 165 La. 1075,116 So. 563
• Decision Date: 12 March 1928
• Docket Number: 26883
• Parties: BARRET et al. v. CADDO TRANSFER & WAREHOUSE CO., Inc
• Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana

116 So. 563

165 La. 1075

BARRET et al. v. CADDO TRANSFER & WAREHOUSE CO., Inc

No. 26883

Supreme Court of Louisiana

March 12, 1928

Rehearing Denied April 9, 1928

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; E. P Mills, Judge.

Action by Hollingsworth B. Barret and others against the Caddo Transfer & Warehouse Company, Inc. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Cook &amp Cook and Barksdale, Bullock, Warren, Clark & Van Hook, all of Shreveport, for appellant.

John B. Files, Pike Hall, Jr., and H. B. Barret, all of Shreveport, for appellees.

LAND J. O'NIELL, C. J., dissents.

OPINION

LAND, J.

Plaintiffs sue defendant company for the sum of $ 2,201.66, alleged to be due as damages for injury done to their building by a truck of defendant company.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs for the amount claimed, defendant company has appealed.

Plaintiffs are the owners of a building located at 618-620 Louisiana street in the city of Shreveport. In going south on Louisiana street from Milam street, plaintiffs' building is on the right-hand side near the center of the block and borders on the north, or Milam street side, on an alley which runs at right angles into Louisiana street. The corner of the building at the intersection of the alley with Louisiana street is squared, so as to provide an entrance at that point. This corner, with its superstructure, is supported at the entrance by an iron post, 10 or 12 inches in diameter. There is considerable incline in Louisiana street, beginning at or near Milam street and extending a distance of nearly a half block, until the approach to the alley is reached.

On January 30, 1923, in the daytime, a truck belonging to defendant company was driven by one of its employees down Louisiana street from Milam street, on its way to the warehouse of defendant company which is located on the alley about 75 feet from its entrance into Louisiana street. In attempting to turn to the right out of Louisiana street into the alley, the truck skidded upon and across the sidewalk, and against the iron post supporting the alley corner of plaintiffs' building. The impact was so violent that the iron post was dislocated and knocked down, and the entire squared corner of plaintiffs' three-story brick building, from ground floor to roof, collapsed and toppled to the sidewalk. The driver of the truck was buried in the debris and instantly killed.

There is no dispute, either as to the quantum of damages claimed, or as to the fact that the damages resulted from the collision of defendant company's truck with the building of plaintiffs.

The sole defense to the suit is that the accident was not caused by any fault or negligence on the part of defendant company's employee but resulted from the unavoidable skidding of the truck, due to the slippery condition of the pavement at the point where the accident occurred.

Plaintiffs contend that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the case and, in the alternative, that the specific negligence of defendant company has been sufficiently proved.

It is settled that the mere fact that an automobile skidded is not evidence of negligence. Berry on Automobiles, § 156; Huddy on Automobiles, § 336; Cyc. on Automobile Law, p. 269.

As is well said in Linden v. Miller, 172 Wis. 20, 177 N.W. 909, 12 A. L. R. 665:

"Skidding may occur without fault, and when it does occur it may likewise continue without fault for a considerable space and time. It means partial or complete loss of control of the car under circumstances not necessarily implying negligence. Hence plaintiff's claim that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the present situation is not well founded. In order to make the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply, it must be held that skidding itself implies negligence. This it does not do. It is a well-known physical fact that cars may skid on greasy or slippery roads without fault either on account of the manner of handling the car or on account of its being there."

If, in the present case, the plaintiffs relied solely upon the fact of the skidding of the truck and the resultant injury to their building, their demand for damages would have to be rejected and their case dismissed.

However, plaintiffs charge that the employee of defendant company, in attempting to turn out of Louisiana street into the alley, operated the truck "so negligently, wrongfully, and inexpertly" that the machine left the roadway "and ran, or skidded," over the curb, and crashed into the iron post which supported the building at its corner on the alley.

Plaintiffs allege also that because of the wet condition of Louisiana street at the time of the accident, and the downward grade of the street for more than 100 feet in advance of the point where the employee of defendant company attempted to turn into the alley, a higher than ordinary standard of care was required to insure the safe operation of the truck.

That...