Mese v. Summers
| Decision Date | 07 November 1936 |
| Docket Number | 1650 |
| Citation | 170 So. 510 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
| Parties | MESE v. SUMMERS et al |
Rehearing denied Dec. 10, 1936.
Johnson & Kantrow, of Baton Rouge, for appellants.
J. O Bouanchaud and Starring & Walsh, all of Baton Rouge, for appellee.
The suit is against Vernon B. Summers, a taxicab driver, and his employer, the Baton Rouge Yellow Cab Company, Inc. for damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff in an intersectional collision on December 11, 1935, in the city of Baton Rouge between 6 and 7 o'clock p. m. The total amount of damage claimed is $ 3,748.50, part of which is for damage to plaintiff's car and the remainder for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff and expenses incurred by him on account thereof.
The negligence charged to the cab driver is that he was driving west on Florida street in the city of Baton Rouge on the above date at a dangerous and excessive rate of speed, in excess of 45 miles per hour, when the visibility was poor on account of the rain and darkness; that plaintiff was driving his car on Fifth street in a northerly direction across Florida street on his right-hand side of Fifth street, and, before reaching Florida street, he brought his car almost to a stop, looked both ways, sounded his horn, and entered the intersection of Florida and Fifth streets in a slow and cautious manner and proceeded across Florida street; that, when his car had passed the center of the intersection, the car driven by the cab driver, coming from the east on Florida street at an excessive rate of speed, ran into the right front fender of plaintiff's car, near the northeast corner of the intersection, knocking his car some 150 feet west, and causing the damage claimed.
Defendants deny that the cab driver was guilty of any negligence, and, in the alternative, allege that the accident was caused by the negligence and carelessness of the plaintiff in driving across Florida street on Fifth street at an excessive rate of speed, in failing to observe and respect the cab driver's right of way on Florida street, and in failing to see the cab approaching the intersection, and in failing to stop his car. Defendant, the Yellow Cab Company, filed a reconventional demand for damage to the cab. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff against both defendants, in solido, for $ 541.50, interest and cost. The defendants have appealed.
Florida street is a right of way street, running east and west, and is 35 feet wide from curb to curb at the intersection; Fifth street, crossing Florida at right angle, is 23.3 feet wide at this intersection. The speed limit on both of these streets, fixed by ordinance, is 15 miles per hour. Besides the drivers of the two cars involved in the wreck, there were only two other witnesses who saw the accident, one called by plaintiff and the other called by defendants.
Plaintiff testified that on approaching Florida street he slowed down his car to about 10 miles per hour and when he was within 20 to 25 feet of the intersection that he looked both ways on Florida street and saw some lights about a block east on Florida street coming toward the intersection; that he then proceeded north across Florida street about 11 miles per hour, and, when he had gotten over the old rails of the street car track on Florida street, the yellow cab, coming from the east at a rapid rate of speed, ran into the right front fender of his car, knocking it some 150 feet west on Florida street.
Mr Felps, a witness for plaintiff, testified that he was driving behind the plaintiff; that plaintiff slowed down to about 10 miles per hour on approaching the crossing, then started on across at about 15 miles per hour; that, as plaintiff entered the intersection, another car was coming toward the intersection about 150 to 200 feet east on Florida street; that, when plaintiff had about cleared the north track of the old street car line, the cab ran into the plaintiff's car and knocked it down Florida street to the west about 150 feet. He says the impact occurred to the north of the old street car track on Florida and somewhat to the right on Fifth street, and that the cab was coming at a rapid rate of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Civ. A. No. 2873.
... ... 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. 601 ... Headnote 3 of the syllabus by the Court in Borell ... ...
-
Wyche v. Brian
... ... The actions ... of the defendant in this case are strikingly similar to those ... of the plaintiff in the case of Mese v. Summers et al., ... La.App., 170 So. 510, 512, in which the Court made the ... following observation: ... 'Although ... plaintiff was ... ...
-
Browne v. Hall
... ... 2, Section 1038; Page v. R. P. Hyams Coal Co., La.App., 144 So. 515; Driefus v. Levy, La.App., 140 So. 259; Mese v. Summers, La.App., 170 So. 510. We recently held, in the case of Miller v. Abshire, La.App., 68 So.2d 143, that an automobilist driving through an ... ...
-
Anderson v. Carter
... ... In support of this contention appellant cites ... and relies upon several cases. Bejach v. Colby, 141 ... Tenn. 686, 214 S.W. 869; Mese v. Summers, La.App., ... 170 So. 510; Blinder v. Monaghan, 171 Md. 77, 188 A ... 31; St. Mary's Academy v. Newhagen, 77 Colo ... 471, 238 P. 21, ... ...