Martin v. State Through Dept. of Highways

Decision Date03 May 1965
Docket NumberNo. 1736,1736
PartiesWilliam M. MARTIN v. STATE of Louisiana, through the State DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, et al.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Emile J. Dreuil, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jesse S. Guillot, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

Before REGAN, SAMUEL and CHASEZ, JJ.

SAMUEL, Judge.

Plaintiff filed this suit against the State of Louisiana and the Department of Highways, State of Louisiana, for damages resulting from the death of his 18 year old daughter in an automobile accident. Institution of suit was authorized by a state legislative resolution. The trial court rendered judgment on the merits in favor of the defendants, dismissing plaintiff's demand. Plaintiff has appealed therefrom.

The pertinent facts are not in dispute. The accident happened on April 30, 1960, a clear day, at approximately 1:45 p.m. During a late lunch period plaintiff's daughter had taken a ride with a young man who worked with her at a local market. She was the only passenger in his 1950 model automobile. They were traveling on a two lane highway, known as Woodland, on the right descending bank of Orleans Parish in the direction of the Algiers Cut-Off Bridge, a vertical lift draw bridge spanning the Intracoastal Canal on the boundary line between Orleans and Palquemines Parishes. The young man was unfamiliar with the highway, which forms an 'S' curve through a wooded area about a half mile before reaching the bridge on the Orleans Parish side and then straightens out 850 feet away from the bridge's wooden guard barricades. The barricades are a distance of 234 feet from the nearer end of the bridge which is open when the draw is lifted.

As the car emerged from the curve the bridge was open. Another car, with an attached trailer carrying a boat and which also had been traveling towards Plaquemines Parish, was stopped in its right lane near the lowered barricades. The plaintiff vehicle was traveling at a speed of 50 miles per hour. Its driver saw the parked car and moved into the left lane for the purpose of passing it. According to his testimony, it was at that time, when he was about 40 or 50 yards from the bridge barricades, that he first realized the bridge was open. He attempted to apply his brakes and found he had none. He had repaired the brakes the day before but a later examination of the car, itself in very poor condition throughout, revealed it was without brakes due to a defect in the master cylinder and a resultant absence of brake fluid. The driver then turned off the ignition and attempted to shift gears in an effort to slow the vehicle but the car crashed through the left wooden barricade, continued forward the full distance of 234 feet to the open end of the bridge and plunged into the canal. In doing so it went over fender pilings 10 feet from the open end of the bridge and into the canal near the center thereof, a distance of approximately 50 feet from the open end. In some unexplained manner the driver was forced from the vehicle and escaped; but plaintiff's daughter was trapped in the car and drowned.

As the car had rounded the curve and approached the open bridge various safety measures were present and several warning devices were in full operation. A clearly visible sign reading 'DRAW BRIDGE' was on the right shoulder of the highway more than 500 feet from the bridge. Another sign, also on the right shoulder and about 500 feet from the bridge, stated the speed limit was 25 miles per hour. There were yellow stripings on the surface of the highway in the right lane next to the yellow center line, signifying a no passing zone. The two wooden safety barricades, one on each side of the highway and each three quarters of an inch thick with a width of eight inches narrowing to three inches, were in the down position completely across the highway. Each barricade was painted with broad black and white diagonal stripes and on each was a red light which was flashing. On the right lane barricade there was a sign marked 'STOP' in large letters. On the right shoulder of the highway a short distance in front of the base of the barricade on that side was a post 9 feet in height with four vertical lights each ten inches around flashing the word 'STOP', another flashing light above those four, and a ringing bell on top of the last mentioned light; all of these lights were visible to an approaching motorist.

The bridge was equipped with an additional safety feature not in operation at the time of the accident. The device is known as a Sawyer barrier and consists of steel cables operated on a series of springs. Within certain limitations as to vehicular speed and weight, it is designed to bring a moving vehicle to a stop. Wnen in operation it extends across the roadway approximately 74 feet from the open end of the bridge. Ten days before the accident in suit the Sawyer barrier had been dismantled for repairs due to a defect in its operating mechanism. It had not been repaired and placed in operation at the time the accident occurred.

Testimony in the record shows that the Sawyer barrier, if functioning properly, would have stopped the vehicle in which plaintiff's daughter was riding. The testimony is also to the effect that the occupants of the car would have been injured, perhaps fatally, as a result of running into the barrier.

The Algiers Cut-Off Bridge was built in 1953 partially with Federal funds and the Sawyer barrier was included in the construction plans as a result of a Federal requirement. While it has never been an established policy of the highway department to construct its bridges with the Sawyer or other similar type barrier, in later years such a barrier has been included in construction for the purpose of being consistent. Probably 25 of '40 some-odd' bridges in the nine parishes comprising the highway district in which Orleans Parish is located are equipped with some type of positive barrier.

The Sawyer...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Forest v. State, Through Louisiana Dept. of Transp. and Development
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • September 8, 1986
    ...writ denied, 217 So.2d 415 (La.1969); Hall v. State, Dept. of Highways, 213 So.2d 169 (La.App.3d Cir.1968); Martin v. State, Dept. of Highways, 175 So.2d 441 (La.App. 4th Cir.1965); Davis v. State, Dept. of Highways, 68 So.2d 263 (La.App.2d Cir.1953); Rosier v. State, Dept. of Highways, 50 ......
  • Merritt by Southeast Nat. Bank v. City of Chester
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • August 9, 1985
    ...accidents occurring on them." Wasser v. Northampton County, supra at 27, 94 A. at 445. See also: Martin v. State Department of Highways, 175 So.2d 441 (La.Ct.App.1965), cert. denied, 248 La. 359, 178 So.2d 653 (1965); Smith v. Sharp, 82 Idaho 420, 354 P.2d 172 (1960); Swain v. City of Nashv......
  • 97-1422 La.App. 3 Cir. 9/23/98, Deville v. Louisiana Dept. of Transp. & Development
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • September 23, 1998
    ...the standard of care recognized today. The "ordinary care" language appears in Coleman as a quote from Martin v. State, Through Department of Highways, 175 So.2d 441 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ refused, 248 La. 359, 178 So.2d 653 (1965). However the language used from Martin further stated that ......
  • Wall v. American Emp. Ins. Co., s. 7464--7467
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • November 12, 1968
    ...marked intersection. Hall v. State Department of Highways, La.App., 213 So.2d 169 (3rd Cir. 1968); Martin v. State, Department of Highways, La.App., 175 So .2d 441 (4th Cir. 1965); Davis v. Department of Highways, La.App., 68 So.2d 263 (2d Cir. 1953); Rosier v. State, La.App., 50 So.2d 31 (......
  • 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