Palmer v. State
Decision Date | 17 December 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 7990,7990 |
Citation | 393 So.2d 427 |
Parties | William M. PALMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Louisiana et al, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Brittain & Williams, Jack O. Brittain, Natchitoches, for plaintiff-appellant.
Thomas & Dunahoe, Edwin Dunahoe, Natchitoches, William J. Doran, Jr., Baton Rouge, Watson, Murchison, Crews, Arthur & Corkern, Ronald E. Corkern, Jr., Natchitoches, Gist, Murchison, Hughes & Munsterman, David A. Hughes, Alexandria, for defendant-appellee.
Before FORET, CUTRER and LABORDE, JJ.
This is a tort action. William Palmer (Plaintiff) seeks to recover for personal injuries he sustained in a vehicular collision. The defendants are Wilfred Sepulvado, the driver of the other vehicle, and his liability insurer, Insured Lloyds. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development; Albert Cohen, Allie Cohen, and Claude Mason, individually and d/b/a Buckeye Landing and their liability insurer, Houston General Insurance Company (Houston); L. J. Ernest and Company and its employee, Richard Bruce, are also named defendants.
The trial court rendered judgment on December 14, 1979, in favor of plaintiff and against Wilfred Sepulvado in solido with his liability insurer, Insured Lloyds, in the sum of $5,000.00, and against Wilfred Sepulvado, individually, in the sum of $45,000.00. The trial court also rendered judgment against plaintiff, dismissing his demands against the remaining co-defendants with prejudice.
William Palmer filed a motion for a new trial and/or rehearing on March 10, 1980, which was denied. Insured Lloyds appealed suspensively. Wilfred Sepulvado and William Palmer appealed devolutively.
There are two major issues presented by the parties on appeal:
(1) Whether Wilfred Sepulvado was guilty of negligence for which he should be held liable to plaintiff, and
(2) Whether the negligent placing of the Buckeye Landing sign in the highway right-of-way was a cause-in-fact of the injuries suffered by plaintiff.
This suit arose out of a vehicular collision which occurred on March 3, 1977, at approximately 8:35 A.M. in the intersection of La. 476 and La. 3129 in the southern part of Sabine Parish. Louisiana 3129 begins at this intersection. (See attached sketch prepared by plaintiff.)
The collision occurred between a 1976 Chevrolet pickup truck owned by Ed Jones, Jr., Inc. and being operated by William M. Palmer, and a 1973 two-ton pulpwood truck owned and operated by Wilfred Sepulvado.
Palmer approached the intersection from the east on a gravel road (parish road), and was required to stop by a stop sign located on the right side of that road. Wilfred Sepulvado was approaching that same intersection from the north of La. 476, which is the favored road at this point.
The only eye-witness to the accident is Wilfred Sepulvado 1. He testified that as he was approaching the intersection, traveling south, approximately 40 miles per hour, he saw Palmer go up to the stop sign on the parish road and stop.
There was a distance of some 43 feet between the stop sign and the east edge of the hard surface of La. 476. It appears that Palmer came to a full stop within this 43-foot area and then proceeded onto La. 476 intending to go through the intersection and continue southwest along La. 476. He did this without looking to his right again after having stopped. Sepulvado's vehicle struck Palmer's vehicle broadside in the west (south-bound) travel lane of La. 476, and plaintiff was severely injured.
Plaintiff alleges that Wilfred Sepulvado was guilty of negligence, proximately causing this accident, for failing to see what he should have seen and for failing to keep his vehicle under proper control.
There is no evidence in the record regarding the posted speed limit on La. 476, in the vicinity of the intersection, and there is some dispute as to how fast Sepulvado was traveling at the time of the accident. However, plaintiff makes no argument that he was speeding.
Plaintiff contends that Sepulvado failed to see what he should have seen, i. e., that plaintiff was moving into the intersection and that a collision was imminent. He notes that Sepulvado testified that after he saw plaintiff stop for the stop sign on his left, he then glanced off to his right for approximately one to two seconds. Plaintiff argues that Sepulvado's glancing off to the right during this period of time constitutes negligent conduct.
The trial court agreed and found Sepulvado to have been negligent. That finding, as set out in the trial court's reasons for judgment, was:
We disagree with the trial court's finding. Our Supreme Court in Koob v. Cooperative Cab Company, 213 La. 903, 35 So.2d 849 (1948), at page 851, stated the duty of care which must be exercised by the motorist on a favored road. It is:
See also Henderson v. Central Mutual Insurance Company, 238 La. 250, 115 So.2d 339 (1959); Dorty v. Zurich Insurance Company, 236 So.2d 837 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1970).
As the driver on the favored thoroughfare, Sepulvado had the right to assume the vehicle on the intersecting street would stop and yield the right of way, and he could continue under this assumption until such time he saw or should have seen that the other vehicle was ignoring the stop sign. Koob v. Cooperative Cab Company, supra; Bourgeois v. Francois, 245 La. 875, 161 So.2d 750 (1964); Fontenot v. Lucas, 228 So.2d 211 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1969), writ denied, 255 La. 279, 230 So.2d 587 (1970); Otillio v. Dolese, 236 So.2d 646 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1970); Clark v. Allstate Insurance Company, 279 So.2d 237 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1973); Triche v. Commercial Union Insurance Company, 329 So.2d 784 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1976).
Furthermore, it is only in the exceptional case where the right-of-way motorist could have avoided the accident by the exercise of the very slightest degree of care that he will be considered guilty of negligence. Bourgeois v. Francois, supra; Otillio v.Dolese, supra; Clark v. Allstate Insurance Company, supra; Triche v. Commercial Union Insurance Company, supra.
The evidence shows that Sepulvado saw plaintiff bring his vehicle to a complete stop before entering the intersection. Sepulvado then glanced to his right for approximately one to two seconds. He testified that his reason for doing this was to check for anything that may have been approaching the intersection from that direction. Upon seeing nothing, Sepulvado then turned his attention to La. 476 and saw plaintiff entering the intersection. He hit his brakes, but was unable to stop, and skidded some 57 feet before colliding with plaintiff's vehicle. We find that Sepulvado was unable to avoid the accident by the exercise of the very slightest degree of care.
In Mauthe v. Gibson, 367 So.2d 1280 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1979), writ denied, 369 So.2d 156 (La.1979), this Court stated, on page 1282, that:
See also Lafleur v. City of Ville Platte, 367 So.2d 121 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1979), writ denied, 368 So.2d 124 (La.1979).
We...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martin v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., Civ. A. No. 79-988.
... ... See, Knockum v. Amoco Oil Co., 402 So.2d 90, 100 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1981).8 ... In Palmer v. State, 393 So.2d 427, 432 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1981) the Court notes that, ... "A cause in fact is a substantial factor in the chain of events ... ...
-
Valin v. Barnes
...and Blashfield, Automobile Law and Practice, Sec. 120.27 (1970), and Louisiana cases cited therein." Additionally, in Palmer v. State, 393 So.2d 427 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1980), writ denied, 399 So.2d 601 (La.1981), a panel of this court "... the driver on the favored thoroughfare, Sepulvado had......
-
Starks v. Kelly, 82
... ... Jenkins v. Dearie, 405 So.2d 1141 (La.App. 1st Cir.1981); Palmer v. State, 393 So.2d 427 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1980), writ denied 399 So.2d 601 (La.1981). Since we have found that the jury correctly determined that ... ...
-
Palmer v. State
...17, 1981. In re William M. Palmer, applying for writ of certiorari, or review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Sabine. 393 So.2d 427. DENNIS, J., would grant the writ. ...