Foreman v. Maryland Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 2744,2744 |
| Citation | 224 So.2d 553 |
| Parties | Deanne C. FOREMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Mouton, Roy, Carmouche & Hailey, by H. Purvis Carmouche, Jr., Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellant.
Mouton, Champage & Colomb, by Welton P. Mouton, Sr., Lafayette, for defendant-appellee.
Before TATE, SAVOY and CULPEPPER, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the district court granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing her suit.
In the landmark case of Kay v. Carter, 243 La. 1095, 150 So.2d 27 (1963), our State Supreme Court held that a summary judgment should only be granted if there is a showing by the mover that there is no genuine issue of fact, and the burden of proof is on the mover.
In the instant case plaintiff filed an action in tort against Roy R. Breaux, minor through his father, Roy C. Breaux, administrator; the Breaux vehicle liability insurer, Travelers Insurance Company; the City of Lafayette, and its insurer, Maryland Casualty Company.
For a cause of action plaintiff alleged that on October 7, 1967, she was driving a vehicle owned by the community in a southerly direction on Breaux Street in the City of Lafayette; that Roy R. Breaux was driving his father's car in an easterly direction on Dulles Street toward its intersection with Breaux Street in the City of Lafayette, Louisiana; that the governing authority of the City of Lafayette, by ordinance or code, designated Breaux Street as a through street and Dulles Street as a stop street and erected a stop sign on the easterly side of Breaux Street facing the traffic approaching from Dulles Street, but failed to erect a stop sign on the westerly side of Breaux Street, facing the traffic approaching on Dulles Street. Plaintiff further alleged that the lots on the northwest and southwest quadrants of the intersection involved herein contained high grass and weeds growing well in excess of two feet high; that the City failed to cut, destroy or remove the noxious weeds and grass as provided for in Section 13--26 et seq. of the 'Code of Ordinances, City of Lafayette, Louisiana'. Mrs. Foreman also alleged that when she reached the intersection of Breaux and Dulles Streets, her vision on Dulles Street was blocked by the high grass and weeds mentioned above; and as she was entering the intersection, the Breaux vehicle suddenly drove into the intersection at a high rate of speed, directly in her path. She then blew her horn and applied her brakes, but was unable to avoid the accident, resulting in the front of her vehicle striking the left front portion of the Breaux vehicle. Plaintiff alleged the City of Lafayette to be negligent in the following non-exclusive particulars:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dora Tp. v. Indiana Ins. Co.
...(1972), 261 La. 358, 259 So.2d 876; Andrus v. Police Jury of Parish of LaFayette (La.App.1972), 270 So.2d 280; Foreman v. Maryland Casualty Co. (La.App.1969), 224 So.2d 553. We consider that Sherwood most closely resembles our case. There the plaintiff, whose husband was killed in an automo......
-
Snell v. Stein
...may be inapplicable, we distinguish the two decisions relied upon by the court as holding to the contrary: Foreman v. Maryland Casualty Company, 224 So.2d 553 (La.App.3d Cir. 1969) was based upon a broader exclusion claue 6 than the present one, in holding noncoverage for an accident caused......
-
Andrus v. Police Jury of Lafayette Parish, 4024
...exclusions were stated clearly and contained no ambiguity. This court construed a similar exclusion in Foreman v. Maryland Casualty Company, 224 So.2d 553 (La .App. 3 Cir. 1969), a case involving similar facts. We held then as we do now that the exclusion applied. Clear and unambiguous poli......
-
Dora Tp. v. Indiana Ins. Co.
...first made a part of the policy. Apart from Brady, the parties cite and argue the relative persuasiveness of Foreman v. Maryland Casualty Company (1969), La.App., 224 So.2d 553; Andrus v. Police Jury of Parish of LaFayette (1972), La.App., 270 So.2d 280, and Snell v. Stein (1972), 261 La. 3......