Marcotte v. Centanni

• Decision Date: 19 June 1973
• Docket Number: No. 5308,5308
• Citation: 279 So.2d 796
• Parties: Marion MARCOTTE v. Lewis R. CENTANNI, Sr., and Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 796

279 So.2d 796

Marion MARCOTTE v. Lewis R. CENTANNI, Sr., and Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company.

No. 5308.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

June 19, 1973.

John G. Miller, Jr., George W. Reese, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Hammett, Leake & Hammett, Craig R. Nelson, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

Before STOULIG, BOUTALL and SCHOTT, JJ.

STOULIG, Judge.

This appeal is brought by plaintiff, Marion Marcotte, seeking an increase in the quantum of damages awarded against the defendants, Louis R. Centanni, Sr., and his insurer, the Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company, for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Appellant urges that the trial court erred in awarding only $500 for his injuries and only $50 of his $485 physician's bill. Appellees have answered the appeal, urging that the contributory negligence of the plaintiff bars his right to recovery and therefore the judgment of the trial court should be reversed.

The accident occurred on Christmas Day, 1970. Both vehicles were proceeding on Fifth Street in Gretna, Louisiana, with the Marcotte vehicle being followed by the defendant's automobile, operated by his minor son, Louis R. Centanni, Jr. As plaintiff was making a turn onto Lavoisier Street, his vehicle was struck from the rear by the defendant's vehicle. Young Centanni testified that the plaintiff gave no turn signal, either by indicator or by hand, and that the plaintiff abruptly stopped in the middle of his turn for no apparent reason. According to defendants, this constituted contributory negligence. Plaintiff categorically denied the allegations.

Commenting on the issue of negligence, the trial judge reasoned as follows:

'* * * In the matter of rear end collisions there is a great burden to be overcome by the defense by reason of the general laws of the State of Louisiana and the jurisprudence.

'There is a difference of opinions as to the condition of the streets at the time. I heard the young man testify that it was wet, that they were slick. On the other hand, I heard the plaintiff testify that he doesn't remember. * * *

'I do feel that the young, Mr. Centanni, was following too close behind plaintiff's vehicle. We said he was stopped behind it at the light, a block before the place where the right turn was to be negotiated. He followed the car down the street, and I would think that it was his obligation to keep his car under control; that is defensive driving. It would have enabled him to avoid this accident, as he knew the street was slick and he was responsible to assume that stopping was somewhat more hazardous.

'* * * It seems to me that this young man was not using proper judgment in evidently following too close when this plaintiff attempted to negotiate the turn. When Mr. Centanni, Jr., applied his brakes, his car skidded into the back of plaintiff's automobile.'

The record does not disclose any error in the trial court's reasoning or findings of liability.

As result of the accident Mr. Marcotte sustained the following injuries: a damaged tooth, a minor hemorrhage of the eye, a perirectal abscess, moderately severe strains of the cervical and lumbar sacral spinal regions, a contusion of the left elbow, and hematoma of the left little finger and thumb. For these injuries the trial court awarded $500 for pain and suffering and medical...