Pierrotti v. Huff Truck Lines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 3640,3640 |
| Citation | 63 So.2d 886 |
| Parties | PIERROTTI v. HUFF TRUCK LINES, Inc. et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
L. C. Parker and Philip K. Jones, Baton Rouge, for appellant.
Taylor, Porter, Brooks, Fuller & Phillips and Robt. Vandaworker, Baton Rouge, for appellee.
Bezar A. Pierrotti sues Huff Truck Lines, Inc. and its insurer for $300.26 being the amount of damages allegedly done to plaintiff's car in a collision with one of defendant's trucks on August 17, 1951. The collision occurred on Choctaw Road in the City of Baton Rouge at or near the intersection of that Road and Sorrell Street. Plaintiff's car, a 1950 Ford, was at the time travelling west on Choctaw Road. It was being driven by Nat Manuel with plaintiff riding on the front seat with him and with their respective wives riding on the rear seat. These parties had driven from their homes at Mamou, in Evangeline Parish, and were en route to Our Lady of the Lake Sanitarium where plaintiff's daughter (and sister-in-law of Manuel) was to have or already had an operation. The collision occurred between 4 and 5 p. m.; it was raining at the time, and traffic on Choctaw was heavy. The Huff vehicle, which was a tractor and trailer combination about 48 to 50 feet long, approached Choctaw from the north and made a left turn off of Sorrell Street in the face of plaintiff's approaching car. The Ford struck the rear wheel of the trailer, damaging the car in the front center.
The case went to trial on February 29, 1952. On July 22, 1952 judgment was rendered rejecting plaintiff's demands and dismissing his suit. In October, 1952 plaintiff took an appeal.
Only six witnesses testified at the trial: plaintiff, Manuel, two State police officers who investigated the accident, the driver of the Huff truck, and an insurance adjuster who took pictures of the scene a short time before the trial. This case presents the usual amount of contradictory testimony between the two sides. For example, plaintiff and his driver both stated they did not and could not (or thought they could not) see the truck until they were within about 25 feet of it, this being due to the presence of a store in the northeast corner of the intersection located close to the road, with a sign sitting on the sidewalk in front, and a chinaball tree growing somewhere close to the corner; but the driver of the Huff truck said that he looked down Choctaw from his position on Sorrell before he pulled into Choctaw and he claimed he was able to see plaintiff's car down past the railroad track about one and 1/2 blocks off. Of course, if he could see plaintiff's car, the plaintiff and his driver should have been able to see the front of the truck. Again, plaintiff and Manuel both testified that they had been driving along Choctaw at about 25 miles an hour; but Jones, the truck driver, estimated that when he saw them they were travelling about 45 miles per hour.
In addition to these and other contradictions, this case features also some obvious mistakes made by most of the participants. For instance, Willie Jones, the truck driver, said at one point that he had seen plaintiff's car when it was beyond the railroad, about one and 1/2 blocks away; at another point he stated that the railroad was 4 to 5 blocks away. Then plaintiff and Manuel both declared that they arrived to within 25 or 30 feet of Sorrell Street before they saw the truck, and they didn't believe anyone could have seen it sooner. However, this entirely disregards the fact that about 44 feet of the tractor-trailer passed through their lane before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.
...Johnson, La.App., 5 So.2d 582; Riggs v. Strauss & Son, La.App., 2 So.2d 501; see also Note, 12 La.Law Review 323; Pierrotti v. Huff Truck Lines, La.App. 1 Cir., 63 So.2d 886. Thus, under the circumstances herein, plaintiff's sister's negligence causing the accident is imputed to plaintiff a......
-
Service Fire Ins. Co. v. Johnson
... ... In the case of Coltharp v. Hearin Tank Lines, Inc., 239 La. 445, 118 So.2d 881, the Supreme Court was ... persons who were involved in towing the defendant's truck to ... New Orleans. The Court adopted the testimony of ... 2 So.2d 501, see also Note, 12 La.Law Review 323; Pierrotti v. Huff Truck Lines, La.App. 1 Cir., 63 So.2d 886; ... ...
-
Gaines v. Hardware Mut. Cas. Co.
...La.App., 5 So.2d 582; Riggs v. F. Strauss & Son, La.App., 2 So.2d 501; see also Note, 12 La. Law Review 323; Pierrotti v. Huff Truck Lines, La.App. 1 Cir., 63 So.2d 886. Thus, owner-passenger Gaines, plaintiff herein, is barred from recovery if any contributory negligence of his driver, Lat......
-
Gaspard v. Lemaire
... ... 2 So.2d 501, see also Note, 12 La.Law Review 323; Pierrotti v. Huff Truck Lines, Inc., La.App. 1 Cir., 63 So.2d 886; ... ...