Dominick v. Haynes Bros.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana
• Writing for the Court: DREW, J.
• Citation: Dominick v. Haynes Bros., 13 La.App. 434, 127 So. 31 (La. App. 1930)
• Decision Date: 24 March 1930
• Docket Number: 3698
• Parties: DOMINICK v. HAYNES BROS. ET AL

127 So. 31

13 La. App. 434

DOMINICK v. HAYNES BROS. ET AL

No. 3698

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit

March 24, 1930

Rehearing Refused April 10, 1930.

Writs of Certiorari and Review Refused by Supreme Court June 2 1930.

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo. Hon Robert Roberts, Judge.

Action by J. H. Dominick against Haynes Brothers et al.

There was judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appealed.

Judgment affirmed.

C. B Prothro, of Shreveport, attorney for plaintiff, appellant.

Spearing & Mabry, of New Orleans, and Pugh, Grimmet & Boatner, of Shreveport, attorneys for defendants, appellees.

OPINION

DREW, J.

This is an action for damages to plaintiff's truck, received in a collision with defendants' car. Plaintiff alleges, and the facts show, that at the location of the collision the highway was obscured by a heavy smoke from burning grass on the roadside. The petition further alleges, and the facts show, that before entering the smoke both drivers were stopped by road guards and instructed to turn on their lights, drive slowly, and keep to the right side of the road. Plaintiff's car was going north on the road and defendants' car was coming south on the same road. The smoke obscured the road for several hundred feet and the collision occurred about midway. Plaintiff alleges that the collision was due solely to the negligence of defendants in operating their car on the wrong side of the road. Defendants deny liability and plead contributory negligence in bar of plaintiff's recovery.

The road was what is known as a macadam or hard surface road eighteen feet wide, with three-foot shoulders on each side of the macadam. Both cars were burning their headlights and both cars were traveling at about the same rate of speed, that is, fifteen or twenty miles an hour, too fast under the circumstances. The driver of defendants' car testified that he could not see, was blinded by the smoke, and the driver of plaintiff's car testified that he could not see defendants' car, although its lights were burning, until it was ready to collide with his car. It is clear that neither driver could see but a few feet ahead. It is true that the collision occurred on plaintiff's side of the road, the left wheel of defendants' car being about two feet over the center of the road on plaintiff's side. However, there were seven feet of macadam and three feet of gravel shoulder from that point to the ditch on the righthand side of the road and sufficient room for plaintiff to have...