Piland v. Maryland Casualty Co.

• Decision Date: 13 July 1949
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 2043.
• Citation: 85 F. Supp. 31
• Parties: PILAND v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

85 F. Supp. 31

PILAND v.MARYLAND CASUALTY CO.

Civ. A. No. 2043.

United States District Court E. D. Louisiana. New Orleans Division.

July 13, 1949.

Gordon Boswell, New Orleans, La., Stanley E. Loeb, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.

Rosen, Kammer, Wolff, Hopkins & Burke, New Orleans, La., Alfred C. Kammer, New Orleans, La., for defendant.

CHRISTENBERRY, District Judge.

This is an action against the insurer of one Wilbur J. Melancon, for damages resulting from an accident in which plaintiff ran an automobile which he was driving into the rear of a cane truck and semi-trailer owned by Melancon.

In his complaint plaintiff alleges that the accident occurred on November 29, 1946, at approximately 5:45 P.M., well after dark; that the insured's truck and semi-trailer were parked in the traffic lane being traversed by the plaintiff without any lights visible from the rear, and that there were no flares or other warning devices displayed near said parked truck and semi-trailer to warn plaintiff of their presence on the highway.Plaintiff alleges further that his vision was impaired, and that he was momentarily blinded by the glare of headlights of motor vehicles travelling toward him on the highway, which prevented his seeing the truck and semi-trailer parked on the highway until he was too close thereto to avoid colliding with the rear end of the semi-trailer.Defendant denies that its insured was negligent, and, in the alternative, pleads plaintiff's contributory negligence.The case was tried to a jury.At the close of all of the evidence defendant moved the Court to direct a verdict in its favor, and the Court reserved its ruling on the motion.The jury found for the plaintiff in the sum of $7,500.00, and the matter is now before the Court on defendant's motion to set aside the verdict and to enter judgment in accordance with its motion for a directed verdict, and, in the alternative, to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.

Briefly, the evidence in the case is as follows: In the late afternoon, the exact time being in dispute, of November 29, 1946, a cane truck and trailer owned by Melancon, travelling south or toward Raceland, Louisiana, on Louisiana Highway 29, came to a stop on the highway because of the presence of a peddler's truck which had stopped on and blocked a portion of the southbound traffic lane of the highway.Shortly thereafter, a second cane truck and trailer owned by Melancon, which was following the first truck and trailer, came into slight collision with the first cane truck and trailer.The driver of the second vehicle, one Davis Foret, immediately dismounted, proceeded to the front end of his truck, and, upon examination, discovered that one of its headlights had been damaged.The first truck sustained no damage, and soon after the collision proceeded on its way.The driver of the second truck testified that after removing the damaged headlight he returned to the cab of his vehicle, believing that he, too, would be able to proceed, but that when he tried to start the motor he discovered it would not start.He testified that as soon as he found that his motor would not start, he began to get out his flares preparatory to placing them on the highway, but that while so engaged his vehicle was struck in the rear by the automobile driven by plaintiff.

Plaintiff testified that shortly before the accident he was travelling at about 50 miles per hour; that when some distance from the parked truck and trailer, with which he subsequently collided, an ambulance approached him, going in the opposite direction; that this ambulance crossed in front of him into a church yard, and that to permit it to do so he reduced his speed to 35 or 40 miles per hour.He testified that the road between the point at which the ambulance turned off and the point at which the truck and trailer were parked was straight, but that there was a slight curve to the right, about a quarter of a mile beyond the parked truck and trailer; and that no cars coming from the opposite direction passed him between the time that he met the ambulance and the time that he struck the trailer.He testified further that soon after the ambulance pulled off the highway, and when he was about 250 feet from the parked truck, he was blinded by the headlights of approaching automobiles; that while so blinded he continued on his course and did not see the parked truck and trailer in his path until he was about 25 or 30 feet from them, too late to avoid colliding with the rear end of the trailer.

We shall first consider the state highway regulatory statutes pertinent to the issues here.ActNo. 286 of 1938, Par. 3, Rule 15, makes it unlawful to park or leave standing any vehicle upon a paved or improved or main travelled portion of any highway, outside of a business or residence district, when it is practicable to park or leave such vehicle standing off of the paved or improved or main travelled portion of such highway.The statute provides further that if any vehicle is left parked at any time one-half hour after sunset or one-half hour before sunrise, the person in charge of the vehicle must display appropriate signal lights thereon, sufficient to warn approaching traffic of its presence on the highway.

An exception to the provisions of this rule is made with respect to the driver of any vehicle which is disabled on...