Roby v. Peter Graham, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana
• Writing for the Court: CLAIBORNE, J.
• Citation: Roby v. Peter Graham, Inc., 3 La.App. 521 (La. App. 1926)
• Decision Date: 01 February 1926
• Docket Number: 9699
• Parties: LEE ROBY, Appellant, v. PETER GRAHAM, INC

3 La.App. 521

LEE ROBY, Appellant, v. PETER GRAHAM, INC

No. 9699

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Orleans

February 1, 1926

Rehearing Refused February 15, 1926.

Appeal from Civil District Court, Hon. Hugh C. Cage, Judge.

This is a suit in damages resulting from a collision between a motorcycle and a truck. There was judgment for defendant and plaintiff appealed. Judgment affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

J. J Wingrave of New Orleans, attorney for plaintiff, appellant.

Henry Mooney and J. C. Foster of New Orleans, attorneys for defendant, appellee.

OPINION

CLAIBORNE, J.

This is a suit in damages resulting from a collision with an automobile.

The plaintiff alleged that on November 9, 1923, defendant's employee operating a truck belonging to the defendant collided with petitioner, who was riding a motorcycle, and inflicted upon him a double fracture of his right leg; that the injury sustained by petitioner was wholly the fault of the colored chauffeur and employee of defendant company, and was due to the negligence and violation of the automobile traffic laws by the said servant of the defendant; that on the uptown side of Dumaine Street and the rear side of Prieur Street and about 20 feet from Prieur Street the automobile truck of defendant was parked; that as petitioner approached the Prieur and Dumaine intersection the chauffeur of defendant cut diagonally across from the upper side of Dumaine Street in order to follow traffic down Prieur Street; that had the chauffeur of defendant come to the intersection of the streets and followed traffic the collision and injury sustained by petitioner could have been averted; that when defendant's chauffeur cut diagonally across petitioner's path in violation of the traffic laws, defendant, its agent and employee was negligent and because of said negligence on the part of defendant and their servant petitioner sustained the injury to his right limb and lacerations of the head and body, etc.

Petitioner prayed for $ 10,000 damages.

The defendant admitted the accident, but denied all the other allegations of the petition. Further answering, it alleged:

That defendant company is engaged in the wholesale grocery business; that its truck was driven on that day by one Moore and was engaged in delivering groceries to customers; that Moore is an experienced chauffeur; that Moore had stopped at the grocery of one Weixel on the uptown side of Dumaine Street...