Latta v. New Orleans & N.W. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 20 May 1912 |
Docket Number | 19,310 |
Citation | 131 La. 272,59 So. 250 |
Parties | LATTA v. NEW ORLEANS & N.W. RY. CO. In re NEW ORLEANS & N.W. RY. CO |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1912.
Certiorari to Court of Appeal, Parish of Ouachita.
Action by G. H. Latta against the New Orleans & Northwestern Railway Company. Application by the defendant for certiorari or writ of review to the court of appeal, parish of Ouachita. Judgment amended and affirmed.
Hudson Potts & Bernstein, for relator.
Ellis & Dorsett, for respondent.
The case presented by the evidence is as follows: At the little village of Wisner, in the parish of Franklin, defendant's main track runs north and south; upon the east side of it stands the depot; to the northward of the depot, 25 or 30 feet distant, is an open platform upon which, on the night of the fire, there were a number of bales of cotton awaiting shipment; to the eastward of the depot, within 10 or 12 feet, there is a siding or "house track" which connects with the main track to the northward of the cotton platform and to the southward of the depot, the distance at the depot between it and the main track being 50 feet; the two cars that were burned were box cars which had been loaded and sealed during the day preceding the night of the fire and left standing on the house track alongside the depot; on the same track, about 100 feet below the depot, there was a seed house, and plaintiffs' staves, as also a lot of staves belonging to Mr. Humble, were piled on the right of way between the depot and the seed house, about 8 feet from the track -- the staves belonging to Mr. Humble constituting the north end of the pile. In the early part of the night a local train with a partly disabled engine, after switching some cars on the house track, including, probably, those containing the cotton, had left the station, and at 8:20 o'clock a freight train had arrived which departed about 9 o'clock; about midnight Mr. J. Johnson, living some 300 yards down the track, saw the light or blaze of the fire, and immediately proceeded to the scene, followed by his son, B. F. Johnson, and they at once aroused Mr. Rhodes, the agent, whose testimony as to the condition existing during the day and night prior to that time is, in substance, as follows, to wit: There were 30 or possibly 35 bales of cotton on the platform; he was at the station when the local train went down; they made one switch on the house track; he does not know whether they moved the cotton cars or whether the cars were moved by the men who loaded them, but they had been moved about a car length (meaning from where they stood before they were loaded); the cars were loaded in the forenoon or early part of the afternoon, and the doors were closed and sealed as soon as they were loaded, say about 3 o'clock in the afternoon; they were offered to the local train, but, on account of disabled engine, they could not handle them; thinks it more probable that a spark from a locomotive would have ignited the cotton on the open platform than that in the closed box car; was asked, "Do you think, Mr. Rhodes, that it is more likely the cotton was on fire when loaded in the car," and replied, "Well, I understand cotton will smolder a long time, but I have no idea as to how the cotton caught on fire."
He says further:
Mr. J. Johnson testifies that the cars were pushed down the track, near plaintiff's staves, "to save the depot and cotton on the platform," by probably 7 or 8 persons, of whom all save the agent and the track foreman were citizens not employed by the defendant. He further says that "some" of the staves would have been burned if the cars had not been moved. B. F. Johnson's testimony is much to the same effect; he also, making the distinction between all of the staves and a portion of the staves by saying that "somebody's" staves would have been burned whether the cars were moved or not. He further testifies as follows:
Mr. Gilbert reached the scene in time to assist in moving the cars, and he says that, when the cars had about cleared the depot, he blocked their further progress with a stave in order to protect his seed house in which he had a great deal of freight. He further says:
Mr. Latta arrived after the cars had been moved and had burned through and the roof or roofs had fallen. He testifies further (in part) as follows:
* * *"
It is not shown at what hour the local train did the switching on the house track and went down the road, nor is it shown that the engine of the freight train emitted sparks. It is shown that the citizens united with the agent and section foreman in their efforts to save the depot and the cotton on the platform. It is not shown that there was freight of any value in the depot, nor is there any evidence as to the value of the depot building or the cotton on the platform. Plaintiff has testified to the value and number of his staves.
Opinion.The learned judge of the district court says in the written opinion filed by him:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Sumner Gin Co
...v. Electric Imp. Co. (Cal.), 48 Am. St. 114; Allen v. Schultz (Wash.), 6 A.L.R. 676; Southall v. Smith (La.), 92 So. 402; Latta v. Ry. Co. (La.), 59 So. 250. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the facts of this case. 8 Ec. Ev. 891; 29 Cyc. 591, note 94; Griffin v. Manice (N.Y.), 8......
-
Skinner v. Ochiltree
... ... cause of action. This was error. In tort actions, interest ... runs from the judgment. Latta v. New Orleans & N. W. Ry ... Co., 131 La. 272, 59 So. 250, Ann.Cas. 1914A, 988. Lawful ... ...
-
Kelly & Son v. Yellow Cab Co.
... ... amended and affirmed ... Miller ... & Fletchinger, Gordon Boswell, of New Orleans, attorneys for ... plaintiff, appellee ... David ... Sessler, of New Orleans, attorney ... Stern is ... correct. See the squib case Scott vs. Shephard, 2 W ... Bl. 892; Latta vs. N. O. & N.W. Ry., 131 La. 272, 59 ... The ... only question left is the amount of ... ...
-
Swan-Finch Oil Corp. v. Warner-Quinlan Co.
...1277, No. 12,767; Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co., 109 Minn. 456, 124 N. W. 221, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 312; Latta v. New Orleans & N. W. R. Co., 131 La. 272, 59 So. 250, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 988. There appears to be no New Jersey decision in support of this principle of If the principle b......