Peterson v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co.

Decision Date03 January 1918
Docket Number22658
PartiesPETERSON v. NEW ORLEANS RY. & LIGHT CO
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied February 7, 1918

SYLLABUS

(Syllabus by the Court.)

It is negligence on the part of a motorman, approaching a street crossing, not to reduce the speed of his car and have it under such control as to be able to avoid colliding with a heavily loaded auto truck crossing the track slowly in front of the car in plain view and at an apparently safe distance.

Negligence on the part of the chauffeur operating an auto truck is held not imputable to his employe seated beside him on the truck.

Provosty J., dissenting.

Dart, Kernan & Dart, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Woodville & Woodville, of New Orleans, for appellee.

PROVOSTY J., dissents.

OPINION

O'NIELL, J.

The plaintiff sued the New Orleans Railway & Light Company and the Jackson Brewing Company for $ 7,500 damages for personal injuries which he alleged he had suffered in a collision between an electric car of the railway company and an auto truck of the brewing company. During the trial before a jury he abandoned his case against the brewing company. The jury rendered a verdict in his favor for $ 1,500, and judgment was rendered against the railway company accordingly. The defendant prosecutes this appeal, and the plaintiff, answering the appeal, prays for an increase of the judgment to the amount sued for.

The plaintiff was employed by an employe of the brewing company, named Charles Kuhne, to assist him in his work of delivering beer to the customers of the brewery. The plaintiff's wages were paid by Kuhne personally. The two men were engaged in their work at the time of the accident. Kuhne was operating a three-ton motor truck, carrying a load of beer in barrels or kegs, weighing 2,000 or 3,000 pounds. The plaintiff sat beside Kuhne on the chauffeur's seat, but had nothing to do with running the truck.

The collision occurred at the intersection of Dauphine and Desire streets. The auto truck had entered Desire street from Burgundy, one block from Dauphine, running on second speed. The mechanism was set or 'sealed' so that it could not go faster than 10 miles an hour on high speed. Its maximum rate on second speed was less than 5 miles an hour. Desire street being paved with large granite blocks, it was impossible for the truck to travel faster than 4 miles an hour on that street. The truck was going at that speed until it came into Dauphine street, when Kuhne reduced his speed to about 3 miles an hour, preparing to cross the railway track. A building at the corner of Dauphine and Desire streets flush with the sidewalk, obstructed the view of the approaching trolley car from the position of the men on the truck until they entered Dauphine street. The trolley car was then about 200 feet from the crossing and coming at a high rate of speed. Believing the car to be at a safe distance, Kuhne proceeded to cross the track without having shifted his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Quillin v. Colquhoun
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • May 26, 1926
    ... ... 928; ... Maritzky v. Shreveport Ry. Co., 144 La. 692, 81 So ... 253; Peterson v. New Orleans Ry. & S. Co., 142 La ... 835, 77 So. 647; Brennan v. Metropolitan St. Ry ... ...
  • Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Smith
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1936
    ... ... City of ... Dublin v. Ogburn, 83 S.E. 939; Miss. Power & Light ... Co. v. McCormick, 166 So. 534 ... Eagle & ... Laub, and W. A. Geisenberger, of ... McDonald ... v. Moore, 159 Miss. 326; Peterson v. New Orleans ... Co., 77 So. 647: Gulf Refining Co. v. Miller, ... 153 Miss. 741; Bufkin v ... ...
  • Robinette v. Old Republic Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • October 4, 2017
    ...1012, 86 So. 477 (1920) ; Maritzky v. Shreveport Rys. Co., 144 La. 692, 81 So. 253 (1919) ; and Peterson v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co., 142 La. 835, 77 So. 647 (1918). A driver's negligence is not imputable because it is unrealistic to hold that a guest passenger factually has any control ......
  • Robinette v. Old Republic Ins. Co., CA 17-79
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • October 4, 2017
    ...La. 1012, 86 So. 477 (1920); Maritzky v. Shreveport Rys. Co., 144 La. 692, 81 So. 253 (1919); and Peterson v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co., 142 La. 835, 77 So. 647 (1918). A driver's negligence is not imputable because it is unrealistic to hold that a guest passenger factually has any contro......
  • 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