Hughes v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 3419
| Decision Date | 07 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 3419,3419 |
| Citation | 221 So.2d 331 |
| Parties | Elizabeth HUGHES v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, INC. and Leo J. Daigrepont. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Bossetta & Hand, Lawrence J. Hand, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.
A. R. Christovich, Jr., and C. B. Ogden, II, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.
Before YARRUT, SAMUEL and LeSUEUR, JJ.
This is a suit for personal injuries and property damages resulting from a collision between an automobile and a bus. Plaintiff was the owner-driver of the automobile. The defendants are the bus company and its driver. Their answer to plaintiff's petition denies any negligence on the part of the bus driver and alternatively pleads contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. After trial there was judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants, in solido, in the total amount of $2,452.92, $1,750 for pain and suffering and $702.92 for special damages (including the sum of $493 for loss of income).
The defendants have appealed. In this court they contend the trial court judgment should be reversed because there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver or, alternatively, because of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. In the further alternative appellants contend the award for pain and suffering is excessive and the award for loss of income is not warranted by the evidence offered in proof thereof. Plaintiff has not appealed nor has she answered the appeal taken by the defendants.
These are the undisputed facts of the accident: It occurred between 11 and 11:30 on a Sunday morning in the intersection of South Claiborne Avenue and First Street in the City of New Orleans. At the point where they intersect South Claiborne runs generally east and west while First runs generally north and south. South Claiborne is the favored street; it consists of three lanes for moving traffic and one parking lane on each side of a wide neutral ground. First is a two-way street containing two lanes for moving traffic. The bus had been traveling west on South Claiborne. It had been stopped and taking on passengers in the parking lane, the lane farthest from the neutral ground, between 5 and 15 feet from the First Street corner. Plaintiff was driving her automobile on South Claiborne in an easterly direction. She turned left at the intersection for the purpose of proceeding north on First Street. The right front of the bus struck the extreme right rear of the automobile.
Plaintiff produced three eyewitnesses to the accident, herself, a woman who was walking on the sidewalk near the point where the collision occurred, and the driver of a vehicle proceeding south on First Street. The only such witness produced by the defendants was the bus driver.
Plaintiff's version of how the accident occurred was corroborated by her two witnesses in all material respects. She testified: While the bus was parked and taking on passengers she turned left on First Street, crossed the neutral ground area, and stopped before entering the westbound Claiborne lanes. As no vehicle were approaching in those lanes she started to cross them. She was unable to complete the crossing because two vehicles proceeding ahead of her on First Street, and traveling in the same northerly direction as she was, stopped in front of her. She was required to stop behind the second of those vehicles and did so with the rear portion of her car protruding into the South Claiborne parking lane. After she had come to a stop and had remained stopped for a matter of 50 or 60 seconds, the bus suddenly started from its parked position, proceeded forward in a straight line, and struck the right rear of her automobile.
The bus driver testified he had stopped at the corner and taken on several passengers (4 or 5 or possibly as many as 12). After the last passenger had boarded the bus he looked to the front and both sides, saw no approaching traffic in the westbound lanes of South Claiborne or on First Street, and proceeded forward veering to his left so as to enter the traffic lane closest to him. He then saw the plaintiff automobile coming across the neutral ground. It was moving fast and he realized it was coming in front of the bus when the bus was only several feet from First Street. He immediately applied his brakes and swerved in an attempt to avoid hitting the automobile but was unable ot avoid the collision. He took the names and addresses of several of the passengers for witness purposes.
Without the necessity of further discussion, it is quite clear that if the testimony of the plaintiff and her two witnesses is accepted as true, plaintiff is entitled to a judgment. The trial judge did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
96-92 La.App. 3 Cir. 9/25/96, Pierce v. Milford
...corroborating testimony. See, e.g., Charles v. Phoenix Insurance Co., 229 So.2d 467 (La.App. 3 Cir.1969); Hughes v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 221 So.2d 331 (La.App. 4 Cir.1969); Clouatre v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., 193 So.2d 344 (La.App. 4 Cir.1966); Colton v. Hartford Fire Ins. C......
-
Jordan v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...testimony. See, e.g.: Charles v. Phoenix Insurance Co., 229 So.2d 467 (La.App.3d Cir. 1969); Hughes v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 221 So.2d 331 (La.App.4th Cir. 1969); Clouatre v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., 193 So.2d 344 (La.App.4th Cir. 1966); Colton v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 135 S......
-
Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
... ... 1969); Hughes v. New ... Orleans Public Service, Inc., 221 So.2d 331 ... ...
-
Abadie v. Employers Group Ins. Co.
...Company, La.App., 133 So.2d 1, affirmed 242 La. 1006, 141 So.2d 346. * * *' (emphasis added) See aslo: Hughes v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 221 So.2d 331 (La.App.4th Cir. 1969). Thus, an additional requirement is that the loss be proved with reasonable certainty and not be purely spe......