Donaldson v. Riddling's Succession
| Decision Date | 06 February 1933 |
| Docket Number | 4481,4482 |
| Citation | 145 So. 804 |
| Parties | DONALDSON v. RIDDLING'S SUCCESSION. ADAMS ET AL. v. SAME |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Hawthorn, Stafford & Pitts, of Alexandria, for appellants.
Stephens & Gahagan, of Natchitoches, and Leo Gold, of Alexandria, for appellee Mrs. Johnnie Adams.
Thornton Gist & Richey, of Alexandria, for appellee Mrs. Thelma Williams Donaldson.
These two cases grew out of a horrible accident on Sunday morning May 22, 1932, on the concrete highway near St. Maurice, in the parish of Winn. W. P. Riddling, of Alexandria, La., his wife, and a lady friend, were riding in his Buick car, operated by a negro chauffeur by the name of John Henry Walker. Leslie M. Donaldson and C. W. Adams, in the Reo truck of the former, to which was attached a trailer, were returning from Franklin, La., with a load of sugar for a merchant in Shreveport when the accident happened. The truck and automobile were going in the same direction, The automobile, when passing, or attempting to pass, the truck on a downgrade, in some way not clearly disclosed by the record, in whole or part, crossed the path of travel of the heavily loaded truck and was rammed by it with such violent force that it (the car) was hurled into the ditch on the east side of the road, front end facing south, the direction from whence it came. The truck, partly on and partly off the concrete, turned, at an angle, against the car, and the trailer turned over completely. Instantly all the vehicles were involved in flames. The negro chauffeur extricated himself from the wreckage but Mr. and Mrs. Riddling and their lady friend were either killed outright from the impact of the collision or were burned to death in the car. Donaldson and Adams managed to get out of the truck, with assistance of Walker, with their clothes in flames. Both died during the day, and Walker died in a sanitarium in Natchitoches, after undergoing an operation that night.
Mrs. Thelma Williams Donaldson, widow of Leslie M. Donaldson, instituted suit against Mrs. Leola Hurn, administratrix of the succession of W. P. Riddling, deceased, to recover $ 15,000 damages for the death of her husband.
Mrs. Johnnie Adams, widow of C. W. Adams, individually and as natural tutrix of her four year old child, Mary Wayne Adams, issue of her marriage to her deceased husband, brought suit against said succession to recover damages in the sum of $ 20,000 for the death of the husband and father.
These cases were consolidated for trial in the district court and are in like manner before this court.
The charges of negligence against the deceased W. P. Riddling in both suits are practically identical. In substance these are: That the truck was being driven by Donaldson on its side of the highway immediately prior to and at the time of the accident, at a reasonable rate of speed; that the Buick car, driven by Riddling's chauffeur, with him on the front seat, attempted to pass on the left side of the truck, and while in the act of passing it suddenly swerved immediately in front of the moving truck, causing the truck to strike it, with the result hereinbefore stated. It is alleged, on information and belief, that as the car was passing the truck the said W. P. Riddling grabbed the steering wheel thereof and pulled the car suddenly across the path of travel of the truck, which act of carelessness and negligence was the sole cause of the accident; that the accident was either caused by this act of Riddling, or by the gross fault and negligence of his said driver, with or without Riddling's assistance. The accident and results are admitted by defendant. Negligence on the part of Riddling or his chauffeur is denied. Defendant avers that Leslie M. Donaldson and C. W. Adams were guilty of reckless driving of the heavily loaded truck and that this was the sole, direct, and proximate cause of the collision, or, in the alternative, proximately contributed to it, which contributory negligence is specially pleaded against the plaintiff's right to recover. The facts constituting this alleged negligence are not set out.
Judgment in the lower court went for the plaintiffs for the full amounts sued for. Defendant has appealed.
We have carefully studied the evidence in this case and are convinced that plaintiffs' theory of the cause of this lamentable tragedy is correct. The Buick car was traveling more rapidly than the heavily loaded truck and trailer. It attempted to pass the truck on a downgrade. The position of the vehicles after the collision argues strongly in favor of one or two things: (1) That as the car was about to clear the truck some part of it became engaged with some part of the front of the truck, thereby suddenly reducing the speed of the car and enabling the truck to ram it; or (2) that the car, coming from its extreme left side, undertook to regain the center or right side of the road abruptly and in doing so partially crossed the path of travel of the truck too close to escape contact with it. The first of these possibilities could have taken place in the doing of the second. The accident occurred as a result of one or both of these acts. In either case, the Riddling car would be negligent. Section 14 of Act No. 296 of 1928.
There were no eyewitnesses to the tragedy, save the occupants of the car and truck. Several persons a quarter of a mile distant heard the crash of the collision and immediately hurried to the scene. To some of these, and within a few minutes after the accident, Donaldson and Walker made statements explanatory of its cause. These statements were made while these injured victims were suffering intensely. There is also evidence to the effect that Adams also told some of the persons present how the accident happened. But to other witnesses he stated that he was asleep when the collision took place and did not know how it happened. None of the witnesses knew any of the parties in the accident. It is not unlikely that, in the confusion and excitement prevailing at the scene of the accident, when the witnesses were talking to the injured parties, that a mistake as to the identity of the one making the statements occurred. However, it is not material to a proper decision of the case to take into consideration the statements some of the witnesses accredit to Adams.
Mr. C. D. Willard was a quarter of mile from the accident. The smoke attracted his attention and he immediately hurried to the scene. Two other white man and three negro boys reached there before he did. Donaldson talked to him about the accident. The following is his testimony on the subject:
This witness says that Donaldson also referred to some money he had in his pockets. Witness was certain Donaldson well knew what he was saying.
To Mr. J. G. Hughes, Donaldson made substantially the same statement as he made to Willard. Mr. Hughes also lives one-fourth of mile away and hurried to the scene of the accident.
Walker also made a statement to this witness as to how the collision happened. In substance it is this: That he started to pass the truck, and saw another car coming towards him and the "only chance he had was a head-on collision or try to get between the cars" (the truck and car approaching).
Ivey Rogers, one of the colored boys reaching the scene first, testified that Donaldson said to him, or in his hearing:
"The accident would not have happened but that colored driver turned before him about three feet, and it were too late for him to put on the brakes but he put on his brakes anyhow and hit the back end of his car."
Mingo Brown, another of the colored boys, testified that Donaldson said to him:
Roosevelt Holmes, the last of the three colored boys reaching the accident first, stated that Walker, the Buick chauffeur, said: "His boss man was the cause of the wreck."
This witness also testified that one of the white men (either Donaldson or Adams) stated:
All of these statements by Donaldson and Walker were made within a few minutes, not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Micheli v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co.
...Owners' Automobile Ins. Co. of New Orleans, La.App., 155 So. 780; Davis v. Texas Lumber Co., La.App., 146 So. 788; Donaldson v. Riddling's Succession, La.App., 145 So. 804; Day v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 8 La.App. To say the least, the statement is self-serving; by the time the investigato......
-
Fontenot v. Pan Am. Fire & Cas. Co., 2270
...or under circumstances which would reasonably preclude the possibility of design, deliberation and fabrication. Donaldson v. Riddling's Succession, La.App., 145 So. 804; Holland v. Owners' Automobile Insurance Company, La.App., 155 So. 780; Micheli v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Company et al., L......
-
Manuel v. American Emp. Ins. Co.
...v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Company, La.App., 174 So.2d 168 (4th Cir. 1965); Ellis v. Edwards, La.App., 183 So. 116; Donaldson v. Riddling's Succession, La.App., 145 So. 804; Bionto v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 125 La. 147, 51 So. 98, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., ...
-
Breaux v. Roussell
... ... the Breaux truck is legally at fault under well-settled ... principles of law. Succession of Brown, 2 La.App. 704; ... Bonnette v. Flournoy, 9 La.App. 467, 119 So. 736; ... Sparks v ... Stevens v. Dean, 6 La.App. 537; Hart v. Bonura & ... Co., 12 Orleans App. 171; Donaldson v ... Riddling's Succession (La.App.) 145 So. 804; Act No ... 296 of 1928, §14 (a). It is ... ...