Lehon v. N. O. Pub. Service, Inc., 11,545

CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
Writing for the CourtJANVIER, J.
Citation123 So. 172,10 La.App. 715
PartiesLEHON v. N. O. PUB. SERVICE, INC
Decision Date29 April 1929
Docket Number11,545

123 So. 172

10 La.App. 715

LEHON
v.
N. O. PUB. SERVICE, INC

No. 11,545

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Orleans

April 29, 1929


Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division "D". Hon. W. L. Gleason, Judge.

Action by Dan S. Lehon against New Orleans Public Service Inc.

There was judgment for defendant and plaintiff appealed.

Judgment affirmed.

Weiss, Yarrut & Stich, Lois H. Yarrut and H. W. Robinson, of New Orleans, attorneys for plaintiff, appellant.

Ivy G. Kittredge, of New Orleans, attorney for defendant, appellee.

OPINION

JANVIER, J.

Plaintiff received severe injuries as a result of a collision between his automobile and a street car of defendant company, in the late afternoon of March 8, 1926.

The automobile, operated by the chauffeur of plaintiff, with plaintiff himself seated on the front seat alongside the chauffeur, was proceeding out Metairie Road towards the 17th Street Canal Bridge. For a distance of several hundred yards that road is bordered on one side by a canal and hedge alongside Metairie Cemetery and on the other side by the golf course, border fence and hedge of the New Orleans Country Club. There is a single track street car line of defendant company on the country club side of the roadway, This track parallels the roadway for a distance of some four or five hundred yards and then crosses it at an angle and enters a private right-of-way on the other side. From this point to the 17th Street Canal several hundred yards away the road and street car track again run parallel but there is between them an intervening space of some 30 or 40 feet. The inbound and the outbound street cars use the track alternately.

The street car which collided with plaintiff's automobile was on its way towards the new basin canal. It, and the automobile, were thus proceeding in opposite directions. They met in almost a head on collision.

Plaintiff charges that the street car was being operated at too fast a speed, that no warning signals were given by it, and that the motorman was not looking to the front. Plaintiff also contends that the failure of defendant to erect warning boards or lights at that unusually dangerous traffic intersection, in itself constitutes negligence.

Defendant denies all negligence on its part and charges that the proximate cause of the accident was the excessive speed of the automobile and the fact that the chauffeur, though familiar with the locality, failed to stop or to look or to listen for an approaching car.

It is claimed by plaintiff that the hedge, which borders the roadway, and a large tree and other shrubbery alongside the roadway obstructed the view of himself, his chauffeur and all those in his automobile and interfered with their sight of the approaching car.

According to plaintiff, there are some features which differentiate this case from the usual cases of collisions between street cars and automobiles at street crossings and intersections, and which, so plaintiff's counsel argues, prevent the application of the well recognized principle that, although defendant's employees may have been at fault, nevertheless the injured party cannot recover if, by the exercise of the senses of sight and hearing on his part or on the part of his chauffeur the accident could have been avoided. Plaintiff argues, for instance, that this was not a crossing because the street car tracks did not completely cross the roadway but turned into it and then extended along one side of it.

As authority in support of this contention, our attention is directed to certain decisions to the effect that streets which do not extend across other streets but which connect from only one side do not cross them. We do not think that this reasoning has any application here as it is perfectly plain that the route of plaintiff's automobile would necessarily take it across the car track and it was therefore the duty of the driver to look and to listen to determine whether a car was approaching.

It is quite true that if, as a result of obstructions or of the particular angle at which the track intersected the roadway, an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Allen v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Civ. A. No. 2873.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Louisiana
    • March 5, 1951
    ...negligence, without any reference to the railroad's failure to perform its duty.'" See, also, Lehon v. New Orleans Public Service, 10 La.App. 715, 123 So. 172; Mese v. Summers, La.App., 170 So. 510; Daricek v. Forrest, La.App., 173 So. Headnote 3 of the syllabus by the Court in Borell ......
  • Lucius v. Harris, 31063
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1934
    ...218; Dill v. Smith Lbr. Co., 57 So. 1006; Wiggins v. Standard Oil Co., 141 La. 532, 75 So. 232; Lehon. v. New Orleans Public Service, 123 So. 172, 10 La. App. 715; Thompson v. Morgan, 119 So. 69, 167 La. 335. The master is not responsible for the dangerous situation of the servant, if the d......
  • Mangum v. Reid, 22665
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 29, 1937
    ...Watson v. Mundinger, 144 So. 620; Thompson v. Morgan, 119 So. 69, 167 La. 335; Lehon v. New Orleans Public Service, 123 So. 179, 10 La. App. 715. After careful examination of t:he brief submitted by the appellant, or plaintiff, the defendant says that the cases cited therein are not in poin......
  • Favaza v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc, 14830
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • April 23, 1934
    ...Traction Co., 8 La.App. 715; Benedict v. N. O. Public Service, Inc., 9 La.App. 322, 120 So. 521; Lehon v. N. O. Public Service, Inc., 10 La.App. 715, 123 So. 172; Melun v. N. O. Public Service, Inc., 11 La.App. 338, 123 So. 373; Gaisser v. N. O. Pub. Service, Inc., 12 La.App. 110, 124 So. 6......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Allen v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Civ. A. No. 2873.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Louisiana
    • March 5, 1951
    ...negligence, without any reference to the railroad's failure to perform its duty.'" See, also, Lehon v. New Orleans Public Service, 10 La.App. 715, 123 So. 172; Mese v. Summers, La.App., 170 So. 510; Daricek v. Forrest, La.App., 173 So. Headnote 3 of the syllabus by the Court in Borell ......
  • Lucius v. Harris, 31063
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1934
    ...218; Dill v. Smith Lbr. Co., 57 So. 1006; Wiggins v. Standard Oil Co., 141 La. 532, 75 So. 232; Lehon. v. New Orleans Public Service, 123 So. 172, 10 La. App. 715; Thompson v. Morgan, 119 So. 69, 167 La. 335. The master is not responsible for the dangerous situation of the servant, if the d......
  • Mangum v. Reid, 22665
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 29, 1937
    ...Watson v. Mundinger, 144 So. 620; Thompson v. Morgan, 119 So. 69, 167 La. 335; Lehon v. New Orleans Public Service, 123 So. 179, 10 La. App. 715. After careful examination of t:he brief submitted by the appellant, or plaintiff, the defendant says that the cases cited therein are not in poin......
  • Favaza v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc, 14830
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • April 23, 1934
    ...Traction Co., 8 La.App. 715; Benedict v. N. O. Public Service, Inc., 9 La.App. 322, 120 So. 521; Lehon v. N. O. Public Service, Inc., 10 La.App. 715, 123 So. 172; Melun v. N. O. Public Service, Inc., 11 La.App. 338, 123 So. 373; Gaisser v. N. O. Pub. Service, Inc., 12 La.App. 110, 124 So. 6......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT