Gray v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
| Decision Date | 06 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 190.,190. |
| Citation | 36 F. Supp. 780 |
| Parties | GRAY et al. v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. (ROBISON et al., Third-Party Defendants). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Dimick & Hamilton, of Shreveport, La., for Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff.
Hollingsworth B. Barret, of Shreveport, La., for Third-Party Defendants.
For the statement of facts of this case and its present status, we refer to the two previous opinions: Gray et al. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (Robison et al., Third-Party defendants), D.C., 31 F.Supp. 299; Id., D.C., 32 F.Supp. 335.
Though we have not yet reached the trial on the merits and this is the third expression from this court, we believe the points adjudged previously were legally material and not frivolous.
The plaintiffs, Mrs. Gray and Mrs. Robison, filed suit on September 8, 1939, within the period of one year from the date of the accident, September 10, 1938. The defendant, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 14(a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, converted itself into a third-party plaintiff and made Mr. Robison and the Aetna Casualty & Surety Company third-party defendants. The two third-party defendants now file the plea of prescription of one year, because it was only on October 25, 1939, more than one year from the date of the accident, that they were brought into the suit.
Because of the two previous decisions in this case, supra, we begin with the adjudged premise that J. A. Robison, the driver of the automobile, and one Colombus F. Ray, the driver of the truck, an employee of the Rothschild Boiler Works, are joint tort-feasors.
It follows that the Aetna, security for Robison, and the Hartford, security for Ray, are in the relation of joint tort-feasors.
Next, we must rule that they are liable solidarily to the plaintiffs, because Article 2324 of the Civil Code of Louisiana says: "He who causes another person to do an unlawful act, or assists or encourages in the commission of it, is answerable, in solido, with that person, for the damage caused by such act." (Italics ours) See, also, Quatray v. Wicker, 178 La. 289, 151 So. 208, at pages 2112, 212 3. This conclusion is elaborated fully in Gray v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., D.C., 31 F.Supp. 299.
Then, we have Article 3536 of the Code, as follows: "The following actions are also prescribed by one year: * * * and that for damages * * * resulting from offenses or quasi offenses."
The beginning of the prescription is given in Article 3537, as follows: "The prescription * * * runs: * * * from the day * * * on which the * * * damage was sustained."
So far, so good, for the mover; but the next question is whether or not this interruption of prescription as to one of the joint tort-feasors is an interruption for all.
Article 2091 of the Civil Code of Louisiana () reads, as follows: "There is an obligation in solido, on the part of the debtors, when they are all obligated to the same thing, so that each may be compelled for the whole, and when the payment which is made by one of them, exonerates the others toward the creditor."
Under the same paragraph is Article 2097, reading thus: "A suit brought against one of the debtors...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shannon v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.
...of our limited capacity, in the cases of Gray v. Hartford Indemnity Co., D.C., 31 F. Supp. 299; Id., D.C., 32 F.Supp. 335; Id., D.C., 36 F.Supp. 780. The three opinions should be read in order to show the practical operation of our rule. It covered all business contingencies and, in truth, ......
-
Pan American Fire & Casualty Company v. Revere, Civ. A. No. 9952.
...Company, 10 Cir., 228 F.2d 75, 82. 32 See Gray v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., D.C.W.D.La., 31 F.Supp. 299, 301; Id., D.C., 36 F.Supp. 780. 33 See LSA-C.C., Arts. 2097, 2324, 3536, 34 See Klaber v. Maryland Casualty Company, supra, where it is implied that the remedy would be availabl......
-
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Busy Electric Co.
...1940, 31 F.Supp. 299; Gray v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., D.C.W.D.La.1940, 32 F.Supp. 335; Gray v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., D.C.W.D.La.1941, 36 F.Supp. 780; and Shannon v. Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Co., D.C.W.D.La. 1945, 62 F.Supp. 532. While by subsequent events ......
-
Francis v. Herrin Transp. Co.
...Farm Bureau Cas. Co., supra; Burch v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 172 So.2d 165 (La.App.1964); Gray v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 36 F.Supp. 780 (W.D.La.1941). However, suit against one tortfeasor or its insurer will not interrupt or toll prescription or peremption as to the ......
-
Chapter §14.6 Analysis
...v. United States, 275 F.2d 167 (D.C. Cir. 1960); Adam v. Vacquier, 48 F. Supp. 275 (W.D. Pa. 1942); Gray v. Hartford Ace. & Indem. Co., 36 F. Supp. 780 (W.D. La. To determine the applicable statute of limitations, carefully research for current cases with facts similar to those in your case......