Pardue v. Johnson
Decision Date | 21 January 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 12507,12507 |
Citation | 307 So.2d 682 |
Parties | Eva PARDUE et al., Plaintiff-Appellees, v. Raymond JOHNSON et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Carl F. Walker, Monroe, for defendants-appellants Raymond Johnson, James D. Rockett and Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau.
James M. Dozier, Jr., Farmerville, for plaintiffs-appellees Eva Pardue and Eunice Gillum.
Davenport, Files & Kelly by Mack J. Marsh, Monroe, for third party defendants-appellees Mrs. Eva Pardue and The Continental Ins. Co.
Before AYRES, HALL and DENNIS, JJ.
This appeal is from a judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellees for damages arising out of an accident in which an automobile occupied by plaintiffs was struck from behind by a truck driven, owned and insured by defendants-appellants.
After carefully reviewing the record, we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of the district court as expressed in the following comprehensive written opinion:
'LIABILITY
right lane of traffic.
'The general rule concerning the duty of the driver of a following vehicle is enunciated by LSA-R.S. 32:81 as follows:
'The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.'
'The Louisiana Supreme Court in the case of Burns v. Evans Cooperage Company (1945) 208 La. 406, 23 So.2d 165, elaborated upon this rule of law as follows:
'There is an exception to this rule that the following motorist is presumed negligent where a rear-end collision occurs. The exception is operable when the lead vehicle negligently and without warning stops or suddenly slows down, thereby creating a hazard for the following driver. Calvert Fire Insurance Company v. Barlow, supra; Porter v. Barron (La.App.1966) 185 So.2d 304. The burden of proving the exceptional circumstances is upon the following motorist who makes this allegation.
'Since it was established that the Mack truck ran into the rear end of the Pardue car, it is presumed that the truck driver was negligent. Defendants then had the burden of proving the allegation that Mrs. Pardue made a sudden stop without signaling in front of the truck. They sought to sustain this burden by showing that Mrs. Pardue made an admission to this effect immediately after the accident to Sgt. A. C. Buckley, the investigating officer, Jerry Antley, a bystander, and Jerome McKenzie the ambulance driver who picked up the injured parties. However, no one of these witnesses testified upon the trial that Mrs . Pardue admitted making a sudden stop. Mrs. Pardue did tell them that she had passed a road, just before reaching Kennedy's store, upon which she had planned to turn. However, upon realizing her mistake, she proceeded on to Farmerville.
'It developed at the trial that the only witness who could testify as to the accident itself was Rockett, the truck driver. At the time of the trial, Mrs. Pardue was 61 years of age and Mrs. Gillum was 67 years of age. Both suffered from shock immediately after the accident and neither could remember any details of the accident. As a matter of fact, Mrs. Gillum's memory in general has deteriorated as a result of her injuries.
'It is particularly noteworthy that nowhere in his testimony does Rockett state that Mrs. Pardue stopped suddenly in front of his truck. To say the least, the truck driver's testimony taken as a whole does not present a very coherent picture of the circumstances surrounding the collision. When questioned by Sgt. Buckley concerning the position of the Pardue vehicle prior to the accident, Rockett never states that he saw the car come to a stop. He merely claimed that it was stopped when he saw it. The following colloquy between one of the counsel and Rockett is particularly significant (Transcript pages 91 & 92):
Q. In other words, it was stopped or barely moving?
A. Right.
Q. And you don't remember ever saying that it was backing up, do you?
A. No, sir.
Q. How far were you back from the Pardue vehicle immediately prior to this accident?
A. Sir, I don't know. I don't know how you would say that.
Q. Didn't you previously testify that during the entire time that you had been following the Pardue vehicle that your distance behind the vehicle had varied from three car lengths to five car lengths and maybe sometimes a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nami v. Peninsular Fire Ins. Co.
...La. 1974, 295 So.2d 782; State v. Kaufman, La. 1974, 304 So.2d 300; State v. Williams, La. 1976, 331 So.2d 467; Pardue v. Johnson, La.App. 2 Cir. 1975, 307 So.2d 682, writ refused, La., 310 So.2d We apply the impeachment rule by analogy in our circumstances, so that at least the grandfather......
-
Pardue v. Johnson
...Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Union. 307 So.2d 682. Application denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error in its ...