Washington Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Firemen's Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1957
• Docket Number: No. 43097,43097
• Citation: Washington Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 94 So.2d 295, 232 La. 379 (La. 1957)
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: WASHINGTON FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. FIREMEN'S INSURANCE COMPANY.

Page 295

94 So.2d 295

232 La. 379

WASHINGTON FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v.FIREMEN'S INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 43097.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 25, 1957.

Rehearing Denied April 1, 1957.

Roy M. Fish, Springhill, for plaintiff-applicant.

Jackson, Smith, Mayer & Kennedy, Shreveport, for defendant-respondent.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

We granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, reversing the district court's judgment and dismissing the suit of plaintiff, Washington Fire & Marine Insurance Company, subrogee of its insured, Mr. Jewell Nix, against defendant, Fireman's Insurance Company, the public liability insurer of Mr. Dewey Butts, to recover the amount of property damage sustained by Nix in an automobile collision between his car and one owned and driven by Butts, due to the alleged negligence of Butts in making a left-hand turn across the path of the Nix car--the Court of Appeal having reached the conclusion that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the Nix car, which negligence was the proximate cause of the collision.SeeLa.App., 88 So.2d 402.

The undisputed facts are that shortly after midnight on June 19, 1955, the Nix car, being driven by Jimmy Nix, the 19 year old son of the owner, was proceeding south on South Main Street in Springhill, Louisiana, while the Butts car was traveling north on the same street, and that Butts by directional signal light indicated his intention to make a left turn into the parking lot of a drive-in restaurant located on the west side of South Main Street; that an intersection, some 35 to 50 yards north of said restaurant, is controlled by a traffic light which was in operation; that South Main Street runs north and south, is without curves for some distance in both directions, young Nix saw the blinker light indicating a left turn and Butts saw the Nix car on the far side of the intersection; and that the collision occurred when Butts had almost completed the left turn, the right front fender of the Nix car having struck the rear right fender of the Butts car with sufficient force to knock it several feet and into auother stationary vehicle preparing to leave the restaurant driveway.The only conflict arises with respect to the contributory negligence charged to Nix and urged by special plea, i.e., that he failed to heed the traffic light at the intersection, which was red for traffic on South Main Street; and, in any event, had he been keeping a proper lookout and not been driving at an excessive and unlawful rate of speed, he could have avoided the accident.

The trial judge, in summarizing the testimony at the conclusion of the trial, stated that as to the color of the traffic light he did not know what to believe; the only persons who were able to testify with any positive recollection were the occupants of the vehicles involved--Nix and a lady passenger, Butts and another man who rode with him--and their testimony was completely contradictory.The judge expressed dissatisfaction with the remaining proof offered by the defendant, finding it 'pretty hazy' and not made out with sufficient certainty.The Court of Appeal was in accord with those conclusions, stating that 'After reviewing the record we are unable to determine with legal certainty that Nix ran the red light or that he was traveling at an excessive rate of speed.'(88 So.2d 405)On the other hand, that Court thought it 'clear that Nix was negligent * * * in that after observing the left turn signal being given from a distance of thirty yards or more, he did nothing...