Hassell v. Colletti

• Decision Date: 15 February 1943
• Docket Number: 17880.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: HASSELL v. COLLETTI ET AL.

12 So.2d 31

HASSELL v. COLLETTI ET AL.

No. 17880.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Orleans.

February 15, 1943

St Clair Adams & Son, of New Orleans, for appellants.

H W. & H. M. Robinson, of New Orleans, for appellee.

McCALEB Judge.

This is a suit for damages wherein the plaintiff, Marion B. Hassell seeks to recover from the defendant, Ross Colletti, and his liability insurance carrier, Highway Insurance Underwriters of Austin, Texas, for the personal injuries and property damage sustained by him as a consequence of an automobile accident which occurred in Jefferson Parish on November 26th 1940, when a large freight truck and trailer owned by Colletti, and driven by his employee Henry Green, ran into the rear of plaintiff's automobile.

The facts of the case are not in dispute and are shown by the record to be as follows: Just prior to the accident, plaintiff had driven his automobile over the Huey P. Long bridge from the east bank of the Mississippi River to the west bank thereof. On reaching the foot of the descending ramp of the bridge, plaintiff brought his car to a complete stop at the entrance of a traffic circle in order to permit the passage of on-coming vehicles travelling within the circle. While he was thus positioned, the truck and trailer owned by the defendant, Colletti, and driven by Green, his employee, descended the west ramp of the bridge at a speed of 45 miles per hour and struck plaintiff's car a violent blow from the rear which caused it to lunge forward for a distance of some 60 feet before it came to rest. As a result, plaintiff sustained personal injuries and his automobile was damaged.

In spite of the foregoing facts, the defendants seek to avoid any liability in the premises on the ground that the accident resulted from a sudden failure of the brakes of the truck and trailer which, they maintain, "were kept in good condition, were regularly inspected and had worked properly up to the time of the accident" and that neither Colletti nor the truck driver had reason to apprehend that the brakes would fail to hold upon their timely application by the driver. In other words, the defendants rely upon the doctrine of latent or concealed defects in the brakes of the truck and trailer and assert that, under the circumstances, the accident must be regarded as unavoidable.

After a trial in the lower court, defendants' contention was rejected and judgment was rendered in plaintiff's favor for the sum of $1,500. Wherefore, this appeal.

An examination of the record discloses that the evidence submitted by defendants in support of their plea, that the accident was solely attributable to a hidden defect in the brakes of the truck and trailer, falls far short of the type required to sustain the defense. The main witness testifying in their behalf was Henry Green, the driver of the truck and trailer. The sum and substance of his testimony is that the brakes on the trailer had been relined approximately a month and a half before the accident; that the brakes were checked every other week; that, on the day of the accident and prior thereto, they had been in perfect working condition and that when he was descending the west ramp of the Huey P. Long bridge, they suddenly failed to respond to his timely application. If this testimony should be deemed sufficient to exonerate the defendants, it would indeed be an easy matter for any defendant in an accident of this kind to avoid the consequences of his neglect. While the doctrine of latent defects in automobiles has been recognized as a valid defense by the courts in actions of this kind, it is manifest that the proof submitted by the alleged tort-feasor must be of a most convincing nature. In fact, we think that the evidence should be such as to exclude any other reasonable hypothesis in respect to the cause...