Chargois v. Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co

• Decision Date: 12 February 1921
• Docket Number: 23237
• Citation: Chargois v. Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co, 87 So. 499, 148 La. 637 (La. 1921)
• Parties: CHARGOIS v. MORGAN'S LOUISIANA & T. R. & S. S. CO
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

87 So. 499

148 La. 637

CHARGOIS v. MORGAN'S LOUISIANA & T. R. & S. S. CO

No. 23237

Supreme Court of Louisiana

February 12, 1921

Appeal from Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette William Campbell, Judge.

Action by Isaac Chargois against Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

George P. Lessley, of Lafayette, for appellant.

Mouton & De Baillon, of Lafayette, for appellee.

OPINION

MONROE, C. J.

Plaintiff appears here as appellant from a judgment maintaining an exception of no right or cause of action addressed to a petition in which he claims damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of defendant's negligence in the operation of a train of cars on its railroad, some miles out of the town of Lafayette. The circumstances of the accident and of the negligence attributed to defendant are alleged in paragraphs "Third" and "Sixth" of the petition as follows:

"Third. That on the 25th day of December, 1917, petitioner set out on foot to walk from the town of Lafayette to his home in the country near said Mouton's switch; that, at a point about 1 1/2 miles from the said town of Lafayette and within Lafayette parish, and while walking in the direction of Mouton's switch, petitioner was struck by a locomotive drawing a line of freight cars, which approached him from the rear and in the direction of the town of Lafayette, and thrown violently to the ground at the side of the railroad track; that prior to and at the time petitioner was struck by the said locomotive he was walking in the middle of the track, between the rails, and in plain view of the operatives of the said locomotive and train for several minutes, had any of the said train operatives been on the lookout, but that no attempt to stop the train was made by the said operatives in order to avoid striking the petitioner, which petitioner believes might easily have been done; that no warning signal was given by the said train to apprise petitioner of his danger and thus give him an opportunity to save himself that, although it was about dusk at the time petitioner was struck by the said locomotive, no headlight was maintained to illuminate the track ahead, and that, had such headlight been maintained, petitioner would undoubtedly have been warned of the said train approaching him from the rear by the illumination of the track ahead of him; that petitioner did not hear the approaching train nor become aware of its approach in time to save himself by leaping from the track."

"Sixth. Petitioner avers that his said injuries and...