Squyres v. Baldwin
Citation | 185 So. 14,191 La. 249 |
Decision Date | 31 October 1938 |
Docket Number | 34894 |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Parties | SQUYRES v. BALDWIN et al |
Rehearing Denied November 28, 1938
Writs recalled and judgment affirmed.
Hudson Potts, Bernstein & Snellings, of Monroe, and Hawthorn Stafford & Pitts, of Alexandria, for applicant.
Cleveland Dear and Ward T. Jones, both of Alexandria, for respondent.
OPINION
William Squyres instituted this suit against L. W. Baldwin and Guy A. Thompson, trustees for the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, to recover damages in the amount of $ 2,590.50 for injuries sustained by him when the car in which he was riding as a guest collided with the company's train of fifteen gravel cars which were being operated and switched by the defendant company across Louisiana Highway No. 165 on the spur track of the Alexandria Gravel Company near the town of Woodworth, in Rapides Parish, Louisiana.
Upon a showing that L. W. Baldwin had resigned his trusteeship, the suit, as to him, was dismissed by consent of counsel. The remaining defendant excepted to the mode of citation and excepted to the petition as disclosing no cause and no right of action. These exceptions were overruled and defendant answered denying liability and negligence on its part. In the alternative defendant pleaded, as a bar to recovery, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.
The case was tried on its merits and the trial judge dismissed plaintiff's demand at his cost. On plaintiff's appeal, the Court of Appeal of the Second Circuit reversed and set aside the judgment of the trial court and gave judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $ 2,065.50. We now have the case for review on writs granted by us on defendant's application.
The facts of the case, as found by the Court of Appeal, and which, from our review of the record, we find to be correct, are as follows, 181 So. 586:
Relator has assigned numerous specific errors to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which are, in substance, that it found, contrary to the law and the evidence, (1) that relator's employees were negligent and that this negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries complained of, and (2) that the plaintiff was not guilty of such independent negligence as would bar his recovery.
As to the first ground, defendant contends that the presence of a railway car obstructing a crossing is in itself sufficient warning of the danger and that the railroad company is not negligent in failing to give additional warning of the obstruction, and cites in support thereof the following cases: Aaron v. Martin, 188 La. 371, 177 So. 242; Patterson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., La.App., 175 So. 164; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dimond v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis
... ... 796; Wink v. Western Md. Ry. Co., ... 116 Pa.Super. Ct. 376, 176 A. 60; So. Ry. Co. v ... Lambert, 160 So. 262; Sheets v. Baldwin, 146 ... Kan. 596, 73 Pa. (2d) 37; Dolan v. Bremner, 263 N.W ... 798; McParlan v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 273 Mich. 527, ... 263 N.W. 734; ... Christensen v. Willamette Valley Ry. Co., 139 Ore ... 666, 11 P.2d 1060; Licha v. N. P. Ry. Co., 201 Minn ... 427, 276 N.W. 813; Squyres v. Baldwin, 191 La. 249, ... 185 So. 14. (2) The court erred in permitting the witness ... Toensfeldt to express to the jury his conclusions upon ... ...
-
Senegal v. Thompson
...in the operation of the defendant's trains while carrying on its legitimate business. * * *' The holding in the case of Squyres v. Baldwin, 191 La. 249, 185 So. 14, 17, with Chief Justice Fournet as organ of the Court, gave an exhaustive review of the law with full recognition of the genera......
-
Whittington v. Sowela Technical Institute
...an equal right, express or implied, to direct and control the conduct of each other in the operation of the vehicle. Squyres v. Baldwin, 191 La. 249, 185 So. 14 (1938). As discussed in Frazell v. United States, 213 F.Supp. 457 (W.D.La.1963) reversed on other grounds 335 F.2d 487 (5th Cir.19......
-
Boyd v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 37888
...931; Hofstedt v. Southern Pac. Co., Cal.App., 1 P.2d 470; Richard v. Maine Central R. Co., 132 Me. 197, 168 A. 811; Squyres v. Baldwin, Trustee, 191 La. 249, 185 So. 14. We are fully cognizant of the fact that in a few cases this court has held that the negligence of a railroad company in f......