Hudson v. Jackson Brewing Company

• Decision Date: 24 May 1926
• Docket Number: 10,105
• Citation: Hudson v. Jackson Brewing Company, 4 La.App. 549 (La. App. 1926)
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana
• Parties: HUDSON v. JACKSON BREWING COMPANY

4 La.App. 549

HUDSON v. JACKSON BREWING COMPANY

No. 10,105

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Orleans

May 24, 1926

Appeal from Civil District Court, Division "A", Hon. Hugh Cage, Judge.

Action by James M. Hudson against Jackson Brewing Company.There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed.

Judgment amended and affirmed.

Woodville and Woodville, of New Orleans, attorneys for plaintiffappellee.

J. C Henriques and Frank T. Doyle, of New Orleans, attorneys for defendant, appellant.

OPINION

WESTERFIELD, J.

This is a suit for damages for physical injuries, resulting from a collision between a Hudson automobile and a motor truck.

There was judgment for plaintiff, in the sum of $ 2000.00, and defendant has appealed.

The collision occurred at the intersection of North Peters and Jefferson streets.The Hudson automobile, driven by plaintiff, was travelling down N. Peters street in the direction of Esplanade avenue, and the truck owned by defendant was proceeding in the same direction.The driver of the truck, intending to drive in a garage of the defendant company on Jefferson street, turned his truck for that purpose and came in contact with the Hudson automobile driven by plaintiff.The manner in which the turn was made is an important consideration in the case.Plaintiff contends that as he approached Jefferson street he blew his horn, as an indication of his intention to pass the truck, increased his speed, and drove to the left of the truck, when the truck without any signal, or warning changed its course and started diagonally across his path, toward the corner of Jefferson street, forcing plaintiff toward the curb, and, in danger of collision with several iron posts along the edge of the curb whereupon, to avoid hitting the posts, he turned sharply to the right, in an effort to pass in the rear of the truck, but, due to the wet pavement his car skidded against the truck's rear end.

Defendant, on the other hand, denies that the truck took a diagonal course, and insists that the turn was attempted in a proper manner, and claims that the accident was caused by plaintiff's negligence, in that he was on the wrong side of the street, and attempted to pass the truck without sounding his horn and, was driving too fast.

The municipal ordinance, which is in evidence, requires all vehicles, in turning to left, into an intersecting street, to pass the center of the intersection on the extreme right, before turning.The ordinance also expressly prohibits all vehicles taking a diagonal course into the intersecting street, giving illustrations of both methods of turning to the left, as the right and wrong way to turn.As to plaintiff being on the wrong side of the street, if, as he claims, he was passing the truck, it was proper to do so on the left side of the truck, where all witnesses say he was at the time of the accident."Vehicles passing other vehicles moving in the same direction shall pass to the left".Art. 1, Sec. 3, Traffic Ordinance.

The speed limit, as established by the ordinance, on N.Peters Street is fifteen miles per hour.Plaintiff admits that he was going from seventeen to twenty miles and defendant insists that the accident was due to that fact.Estimates of speed of automobiles are merely guesses, and, it must be conceded, that when an accident happens, the drivers of the automobiles concerned, are prone to be too conservative in guessing.Therefore we accept counsel's statement that plaintiff was very likely travelling nearer twenty than seventeen miles per hour.This excess of speed, however, is not sufficient to charge plaintiff with recklessness, and moreover, it is only of consequence, if it contributed to the accident.In Belden vs. Roberts,3 La.App. 338, we said in speaking of a similar violation of...