Wood v. Manufacturers Cas. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 8940,8940 |
| Citation | 107 So.2d 309 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
| Parties | Mrs. Eunice C. WOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MANUFACTURERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
Dhu & Lea S. Thompson, Monroe, for appellant.
Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, Monroe, for appellee.
This is an action in tort. The damages sought are for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident January 29, 1957, on U.S. Highway 165, about seven miles north of Monroe, Louisiana. From an adverse judgment plaintiff appealed.
The locale of the accident may be first described. The highway, of concrete paving twenty feet wide, alongside of which are the usual shoulders of six feet in width, runs in a general north and south course. It constitutes a main thoroughfare between Bastrop and Sterlington and Monroe, and is level and straight except for a slight curve to the right beginning a few hundred feet north of the scene of the accident.
Involved were two vehicles. One was a Chrysler Sedan owned and operated at the time by James R. Wood, plaintiff's husband, who was accompanied by plaintiff and a minor daughter occupying the rear seat and a minor son seated beside him on the front seat. They were returning to their home in Delhi, Louisiana, from a visit with relatives in Camden, Arkansas. The other, a Plymouth automobile, was driven by one Ivory Dotson, who was also accompanied by several persons, the exact number not being shown. The vehicles were proceeding in opposite directions, the Chrysler to the south, the Plymouth toward the north.
At the time of the accident, about 5:45 to 6:00 o'clock p.m., the highway was wet from a rain which had been, and was then, falling. Made defendant is the Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company, the liability insurer of the Wood automobile.
The negligence charged to James R. Wood in the operation of his automobile as constituting a proximate cause, or as a contributing cause, of the accident, consists of his excessive speed and of his failure to keep his automobile under proper control, or to materially reduce his speed, or to stop, or to take effective action to prevent the accident, such as by timely driving to the shoulder of the road. Defendant denied that plaintiff's husband was negligent, in any respect, in either causing or contributing to the occurrence of the accident, and alleged that the accident resulted solely from the gross carelessness and negligence of Ivory Dotson, notwithstanding Wood's best and timely efforts to avoid the same.
These facts are undisputed. There was no southbound traffic in the vicinity of the accident other than the Wood car. Northbound traffic included a dairy truck in the lead, driven by Luther Ray Williams at a speed of about forty-five miles per hour, followed closley by two pulpwood trucks and two automobiles, the latter of which was the Dotson Plymouth, approximately 150 feet behind the lead vehicle. Wood was driving 55 to 60 miles per hour. The Dotson car crossed the center line of the highway, ostensibly to pass the vehicles in his front. To avert a head-on collision in the Wood car's traffic lane, both Chrysler and Plymouth, almost simultaneously, took to the west shoulder of the road with the result of that which they attempted to avoid--a head-on collision occurring on the shoulder. Both cars were demolished. The Chrysler came to rest in the ditch on its right-hand side of the highway--the Phymouth near the center of the road. The motor of the Plymouth however, was completely severed from the car and knocked into the ditch on the east side of the highway. The battery landed in a field beyond the highway right-of-way. Dotson was killed and the other occupants of his car were scattered along the pavement. The occupants of the Wood car, all injured, remained in the car.
A dispute exists, however, as to some of the material aspects of the accident. For instance, plaintiff contends that her husband saw the Dotson car when a quarter of a mile away in its left-hand lane, attempting to pass a line of vehicles. Notwithstanding, he failed to reduce his speed, apply his brakes, or turn to the shoulder of the road until it was too late to do anything effective to prevent the collision. She further contends her husband saw, or, with reasonable diligence should have seen, the Dotson car in a position of peril and realized, or should have realized, on account of the line of cars to his right, that Dotson could not bring his car back in line in his right-hand lane. Thus, it is contended Wood had the last clear chance to avoid the accident which he allegedly failed and neglected to do when he had both time and opportunity to do so. On the other hand, defendant contends that Dotson suddenly came out into Wood's lane of traffic so near in front that Wood had no opportunity to do more than he did, which was to apply his brakes and take to the shoulder of the road. The gravamen of plaintiff's contention is that Wood saw the oncoming car in his lane of travel for a quarter of a mile and, therefore, knew that if such a course was continued, a head-on collision would occur, notwithstanding, no action was taken to avoid the impending accident.
This position, however, is not supported by the evidence, at least, not by a preponderance of the evidence. Wood gave an account of the occurrence in answer to a series of questions:
Mrs. Wood, according to her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Continental Cas. Co. of Chicago, Ill.
...La. 273, 82 So.2d 8; Bourgeois v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, La.App. 1 Cir., 102 So.2d 532; Wood v. Manufacturer's Casualty Insurance Company, La.App. 2 Cir., 107 So.2d 309; Wiley v. Sutphin, La.App. 2 Cir., 108 So.2d 256; Woodard v. American Indemnity Company, La.App. 1 Cir., 118......
-
Newton v. Pacillo
... ... 28; Segreto v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 239 F.2d 641; Id., D.C., 137 F.Supp. 194; Maryland Casualty ... Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 209 La. 144, 24 So.2d 292; Wood v. Manufacturers Casualty Co., La.App., 107 So.2d 309; Henderson v ... ...
-
Thibodeaux v. Arvie
...cause of every accident."); Fontenot v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 130 So.2d 462 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1961) (same); Wood v. Mfrs. Cas. Ins. Co., 107 So.2d 309 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1958) (finding excessive speed does not necessarily give rise to liability).7 Bond v. Jack, 387 So.2d 613, 615 (La.App. 3 Cir......
-
Platt v. Scarborough
...his vehicle at a lawful speed and in its proper lane of travel. Appropriate here is the observation made in Wood v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co., La.App., 107 So.2d 309, 314: 'In gauging the fault which may be attributable to a motorist who was operating his vehicle in obedience to ......