Haley v. Badon

Decision Date18 November 1957
Docket NumberNo. 20909,20909
CitationHaley v. Badon, 98 So.2d 109 (La. App. 1957)
PartiesLem HALEY v. James E. BADON.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana

Gamble & Gamble, New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellant.

Jacob H. Sciambra, Gretna, for defendant and appellee.

McBRIDE, Judge.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the lower court maintaining defendant's exception of no cause of action and dismissing the suit for property damages to plaintiff's automobile accruing from a collision with defendant's vehicle on November 5, 1954. Besides the exception of no cause of action, the defendant had also interposed the exceptions of no right of action and res judicata, but these exceptions were overruled. Plaintiff has appealed.

It appears that both plaintiff and defendant were concerned in general with reference to the applicability of the Safety Responsibility Law of this state (LSA-R.S. 32:851 et seq.) in connection with the accident, and each was more particularly concerned with whether the Commissioner of Public Safety would suspend his automotive driver's license.

LSA-R.S. 32:872 provides in part as follows:

'A. If twenty days after the receipt of a report of a motor vehicle accident within this state which has resulted in bodily injury or death, or damage to the property of any one person in excess of one hundred dollars, the commissioner does not have on file evidence satisfactory to him that the person who would otherwise be required to file security under Subsection B of this Section has been released from liability, or has been finally adjudicated not to be liable, or has executed a duly acknowledged written agreement providing for the payment of an agreed amount in installments with respect to all claims for injuries or damages resulting from the accident, the commissioner shall determine the amount of security which shall be sufficient in his judgment to satisfy any judgment or judgments for damages resulting from such accident as may be recovered against each operator or owner.

'B. The commissioner shall, within sixty days after the receipt of such report of a motor vehicle accident, suspend the license of each operator and all registrations of each owner of a motor vehicle in any manner involved in such accident, and if such operator is a non-resident the privilege of operating a motor vehicle within this state, and if such owner is a non-resident the privilege of the use within this state of any motor vehicle owned by him, unless such operator or owner or both shall deposit security in the sum so determined by the commissioner; provided notice of such suspension shall be sent by the commissioner to such operator and owner not less than ten days prior to the effective date of such suspension and shall state the amount required as security. Where erroneous information is given the commissioner with respect to the matters set forth in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of Subsection C of this Section, he shall take appropriate action as hereinbefore provided, within sixty days after receipt by him of correct information with respect to said matters.

'C. This Section shall not apply under the conditions stated in R.S. 32:873 nor:

'(1) To such operator or owner if such owner had in effect at the time of such accident an automobile liability policy with respect to the motor vehicle involved in such accidents;

'(2) To such operator, if not the owner of such motor vehicle, if there was in effect at the time of such accident an automobile liability policy or bond with respect to his operation of motor vehicles not owned by him;

'(3) To such operator or owner if the liability of such operator or owner for damages resulting from such accident is, in the judgment of the commissioner, covered by any other form of liability insurance policy or bond; nor

'(4) To any person qualifying as a self-insurer under R.S. 32:1042, or to any person operating a motor vehicle for such self-insurer.'

Evidently neither plaintiff nor defendant carried liability insurance, and in their design to circumvent the suspension of their operator's licenses, they each agreed to file certificates as provided for in LSA-R.S. 32:872(A) with the Commissioner of Public Safety to the effect that the one had released the other from all liability for damages.

Such releases were executed on February 28, 1955, in the office of the attorney who now represents the defendant in this suit. Haley, the plaintiff, executed his release to defendant, Badon, in the following words and figures:

'Release

(Safety Responsibility Law)

The Undersigned Hereby Certifies That he/she is of the age of 21 years or over and that he/she has released James E. Badon from all claims and causes of action of the undersigned arising from the above described accident, and authorizes the Department of Public Safety to accept this certification as satisfactory evidence of such release from liability as required by the Safety Responsibility Law.

Date Feb. 28, 1955

Lem T. Haley

Box 280 Barataria

Blvd.

Marrero, La.'

Badon, the defendant, executed an identical release unto Haley, the plaintiff. The signatures on the documents were duly acknowledged before a notary...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
11 cases
  • Bielkiewicz v. Rudisill
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana
    • June 29, 1967
    ...claim, simply does not meet the legal requirements of a valid compromise which is res judicata between the parties (see Haley v. Badon, La.App. 4 Cir., 98 So.2d 109): A compromise is defined in LSA-C.C. Art. 3071 as an agreement by which the parties adjust their differences to prevent or to......
  • State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Rossini
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • March 18, 1971
    ...Fidelity Fire Insurance Company v. Richardson, 189 So.2d 486 (Fla.App.1966); Coles v. Johns, 377 S.W.2d 587 (Ky.App.1964); Haley v. Badon, 98 So.2d 109 (La.App.1957). Mr. Rossini was able to read and when he signed the release without reading it, he was charged with the knowledge of its con......
  • Hyatt v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 2692
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana
    • June 12, 1969
    ...210; Dipuma v. Dipuma, 136 So.2d 505 (La.App.1st Cir.1961); Rhodes v. Miller, 189 La. 288, 179 So. 430 (1938); and Haley v. Badon, 98 So.2d 109 (La.App.Orl.Cir.1957). We are aware of the rule which defendants seek to apply here, and we note particularly the following language which was used......
  • Lytle v. Commercial Ins. Co. of Newark, N. J.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana
    • November 5, 1973
    ...succinctly stated: 'While remission need not be in writing and need not be in any particular form (LSA-Civil Code Art. 2199; Haley v. Badon, La.App., 98 So.2d 109; Noto v. Blasco, La.App., 198 So. 429; Mouton v. Noble, 1 La.Ann. 192; see also Gremillion v. Dubea, La.App., 108 So.2d 238), th......
  • Get Started for Free