Davis v. Lewis & Lewis
Decision Date | 13 December 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 41927,41927 |
Citation | 78 So.2d 174,226 La. 1064 |
Parties | Louis C. DAVIS v. LEWIS & LEWIS et al. In re: Louis C. Davis, Plaintiff-Appellee, Applying for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, State of Louisiana. |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Anders & Anders, by D. J. Anders, Winnsboro, for Louis C. Davis, relator.
Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, Monroe, for respondent.
A writ was granted to review a judgment of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, which reversed the judgment of the trial court, which rendered a judgment in favor of Louis C. Davis for $10,000, 72 So.2d 612, for injuries sustained in an automobile accident.
Our concern here is on the merits of the case.
In 226 La. 1059, 78 So.2d 173, we affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal which overruled the plea of prescription filed by the Globe Indemnity Company, the defendant. The First Circuit Court of Appeal adopted the facts as found by the trial judge, and we have adopted the same facts in this Court. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in the district court on the application of the law and found that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence--which opinion we do not share, and to which opinion Judge Cavanaugh, one of the Judges of the Court of Appeal, dissented.
The facts are as follows:
The date of the accident was January 1, 1948. It occurred in the Parish of West Feliciana, and it was on the gravelled Woodville-Jackson Road. Plaintiff was driving, with members of his family, a 1937 Chevrolet. They were on their way from Winnsboro, Louisiana to Jackson, Louisiana. At a point about one-half mile south of the Mississippi-Louisiana line, plaintiff and the occupants of his car noticed a truck, heavily loaded with pulpwood, approaching them around a curve in the road of travel north and on the wrong side of the highway. About 300 steps distance from the approaching truck plaintiff sounded his horn to attract the attention of the truck driver, who was giving no heed to the traffic at all. Finally, the truck driver attempted to pull over to his side of the road, but he had waited too long to do what was his duty to do and he failed to get the trailer part of his truck clear. As a result, plaintiff's automobile was sideswiped by the trailer hitting the left front end of his car, causing severe and possible permanent injury to plaintiff. His leg was broken, with the bones protruding through the flesh, and he had to remain in the hospital for a period of fourteen months.
After seeing, hearing and observing the witnesses and the manner of giving their testimony, the trial Judge made the following observations as to the testimony:----
testimony. 'He saw too much in too short a time when suddenly aroused from sleep, for his testimony to be creditable.' (Italics ours.)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thibodeaux v. Parks Equipment Co.
...v. Lewis & Lewis, La.App. 1 Cir., 72 So.2d 612 (certiorari granted, but this issue not discussed, 226 La. 1059, 78 So.2d 173 and 226 La. 1064, 78 So.2d 174).' Furthermore in Murphy v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York, La .App., 165 So.2d 497, the Court 'The prior opinion of this court ......
-
Murphy v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York
...La.App., 72 So.2d 612 (1st Cir. 1954) (cert. granted but this issue not discussed), 226 Ls. 1059, 78 So.2d 173 (1954) and 226 La. 1064, 78 So.2d 174 (1954). In our prior opinion this court thus restricted the effect of its decree by 'The cross contentions of the two defendant insurers that ......
-
Wood v. Manufacturers Cas. Ins. Co.
...negligent upon his failure to exercise the best judgment. Snodgrass v. Centanni, 229 La. 915, 87 So.2d 127; Davis v. Lewis & Lewis, 226 La. 1064, 78 So.2d 174; Hagaman v. Bankers Indemnity Ins. Co., La.App., 7 So.2d 390; Jacob v. Edwards, La.App., 171 So. 165; Lacy v. Lucky, supra; Willis v......
-
Keller v. Thompson
...v. Lewis & Lewis, La.App. 1 Cir., 72 So.2d 612 (certiorari granted, but this issue not discussed, 226 La. 1059, 78 So.2d 173 and 226 La. 1064, 78 So.2d 174). This doctrine thus applies, although a judgment overruling an exception of no cause of action and remanding the suit for trial on the......