Hall v. Ferguson

• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana
• Writing for the Court: McBRIDE
• Citation: Hall v. Ferguson, 88 So.2d 489 (La. App. 1956)
• Decision Date: 25 June 1956
• Docket Number: No. 20630,20630
• Parties: Mr. and Mrs. Hubert HALL v. Carl E. FERGUSON, Globe Indemnity Company and Elyah Williams.

Page 489

88 So.2d 489

Mr. and Mrs. Hubert HALL v. Carl E. FERGUSON, Globe Indemnity Company and Elyah Williams.

No. 20630.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Orleans.

June 25, 1956.

Harry R. Cabral, Harry R. Cabral, Jr. and King F. Nungesser, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Porteous & Johnson, New Orleans, for defendants and appellees.

McBRIDE, Judge.

On July 5, 1954, at approximately 4:30 p. m., in a steady downpour of rain which rendered visibility poor, with heavy automotive traffic moving along U. S. Highway 90 toward New Orleans from the Mississippi line, an automobile owned by Hubert C. Hall and driven by his minor son, Hubert B. Hall, was forced to come to a sudden stop about three-quarters of a mile from the Pearl River Bridge, and it was thereupon struck in the rear by a vehicle owned and driven by Elijah Williams. The sudden stop made by Hall was necessitated by the fact that the automobile ahead had come to an abrupt stop. Mrs. Hubert C. Hall, who was riding with her son, sustained injuries as a result of the collision aforestated.

Mr. and Mrs. Hubert C. Hall are the plaintiffs in this suit. Hall seeks to recover the sum of $6,000 for grief and mental anguish and for doctor bills and medical expenses in connection with his wife's injuries, and Mrs. Hall endeavors to recover the sum of $35,500 for her personal injuries. Impleaded as defendants are Elijah (or Elyah) Williams, Carl E. Ferguson, and the latter's liability insurance carrier, Globe Indemnity Company, and a judgment in solido against the three defendants is prayed for.

Plaintiffs allege that an automobile owned and driven by Carl E. Ferguson struck the rear of the Williams car, and that the impact forced the Williams car forward causing it to collide with the rear end of the Hall vehicle inflicting upon plaintiffs the damages complained of. Both Ferguson and Williams are charged with having been negligent in several enumerated respects and the petition alleges that the accident was caused through their concurrent negligence. It is averred, among other things, that Ferguson was negligent in having followed the Williams car too closely, in driving at an excessive rate of speed, in not keeping a proper lookout, and in not having his car under proper control at all times.

After a trial below, there was judgment dismissing plaintiffs' suit against all defendants and plaintiffs have prosecuted this appeal therefrom. Prior to argument of the case before us, plaintiffs specifically abandoned and withdrew their claims for damages against Williams and this defendant, of course, is not now before the court, and the only concern we have is: Did any negligent action of Ferguson cause damage to the plaintiffs?

The three automobiles in question formed links in an almost continuous chain of traffic on the highway, and there is no doubt that the Ferguson automobile collided with Williams' car and there is no contention at all that it did not. What Ferguson and his insurer contend is that the Williams car had already run into the Hall vehicle and caused the damage before the collision occurred between the Ferguson and the...