Broadway v. Purdue
| Decision Date | 02 February 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 8949,8949 |
| Citation | 108 So.2d 805 |
| Parties | Willie E. BROADWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray J. PURDUE and Firemens Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
G. F. Thomas, Jr., Julian E. Bailes, Natchitoches, for appellant.
Stafford & Pitts, Alexandria, for appellees.
This is an action in tort by Willie E. Broadway against Ray J. Purdue and Firemen's Insurance Company to recover for personal injuries and property damage occasioned by an automobile collision on March 18, 1957, which occurred on State Highway No. 120, between Robeline and Marthaville in Natchitoches Parish. After a trial, judgment was rendered in favor of defendants rejecting plaintiff's demands, and the latter has appealed.
On the above mentioned date at about 2:30 P.M. the defendant Purdue was traveling south on State Highway No. 120, and when about three miles north of Robeline the Chevrolet automobile which he was driving collided with a Ford pick-up truck driven by plaintiff who was approaching the highway from the west on a private driveway at the home of C. F. Berry. Following the collision the Purdue car came to a rest seventy feet south of the point of impact and was facing east, and the truck was six or eight feet south of the point of impact facing south on the west side of the highway. The accident was witnessed by both drivers and L. F. Berry and C. F. Berry, both of whom were passengers in the Ford truck. After the accident Trooper Herman Q. Byrd appeared on the scene and made an investigation before the cars were moved.
Plaintiff alleges Purdue was negligent in driving his vehicle at an excessive rate of speed, in not maintaining proper control over his vehicle, and in driving under the influence of liquor. Charges of contributory negligence were made by the defendants who aver plaintiff was negligent in driving suddenly from private driveway into a superior public highway without warning and at a time when it was unsafe to make such a maneuver.
This legal controversy involves principally factual issues, of which probably the principal and controlling one is whether or not plaintiff's truck had been driven onto the highway as Purdue approached. It is the contention of plaintiff no portion of the truck extended to or over the blacktop surface, an assertion which Purdue denies and says that at the time he made application of his brakes the truck was in such proximity to the highway and was moving at such speed a collision between the vehicles was imminent. The testimony on this point, although conflicting, was resolved by the district court in favor of the defendants.
Trooper Byrd testified that highway on either side of the locus of the collision was straight and level for some distance except that to the north at a point farther than 350 feet from the Berry driveway there was an incline in the highway which, to some extent, obscures the vision of motorists traveling south until they top this hill or elevated surface of the thoroughfare. Defendant estimated the crest of the hill at about 450 feet distant from the Berry driveway and others estimated this distance to be 522 feet. A finding of the exact distance is not important. The evidence indicates that at a point approximately 74 yards north of the point of impact Purdue applied his brakes which locked and caused his car to skid. Before reaching the Berry driveway the car turned sideways and was skidding in this manner when its right side struck the left front part of the Ford truck. The automobile then continued on its own momentum and knocked over a signpost before coming to a stop. Trooper Byrd did not measure the skid marks of the Purdue automobile, but testified the tire marks indicated the car was making a side sweep as it traveled sideways with its brakes locked. He testified the westernmost evidence of skid marks was three feet east of the west edge of the blacktop. L. F. Berry, a passenger in the truck, testified no portion of the truck had entered on the highway but the front wheels of the truck stopped about eighteen inches west of the edge of the blacktop, and that the bumper of the Purdue car extending over the shoulder of the highway attached itself...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Odom v. Texas Farm Products Co.
...right of way * * * to all approaching vehicles so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.' As pointed out in Broadway v. Purdue, 108 So.2d 805, 807 (La.App., 2d Cir. 1959): 'It is a well-recognized and familiar rule in our jurisprudence that it is the duty of motorists before entering a......
-
Veal v. Audubon Ins. Co. of Baton Rouge
...until he sees, or should see, that the other car has not observed, or is not going to observe, the law.' And in Broadway v. Purdue, La.App., 108 So.2d 805, 807 in which the Second Circuit Court of Appeal applied the recognized rule in rejecting plaintiff's demands as follows: 'It is a well-......