Youman v. McConnell & McConnel, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 November 1927 |
| Docket Number | 3127 |
| Citation | 7 La.App. 315 |
| Parties | YOUMAN, ET AL. v. McCONNELL & McCONNEL, INC |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Rehearing Refused December 21, 1927.
Appeal from the First Judicial District Court of Louisiana, Parish of Caddo. Hon. J. H. Stephens, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Edith Youman et al. against McConnell & McConnell Inc.
There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
Clifton F. Davis, of Shreveport, attorney for plaintiff, appellee.
J. Fair Hardin, of Shreveport, attorney for defendant, appellant.
This suit was brought by Mrs. Edith Youman and her husband, Harold Youman, against McConnell & McConnell, Inc., a corporation and Strubbe McConnell and others, the incorporators, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of injuries received by Mrs. Youman through the alleged negligence of one of defendants' servants.
On trial Mrs. Youman was awarded damages against the corporation but her demands against the incorporators as well as the demands of her husband were rejected, and the corporation appealed, which appeal has been answered by Mrs. Youman, in which she prays that the judgment be amended and the amount awarded her increased.
The defendant complains of the judgment in that it is urged the evidence failed to establish liability on the part of defendant, and further, that in any event the amount awarded plaintiff was excessive; and, considering these questions in their order:
First, we find the evidence established that while Mrs. Youman was walking along the sidewalk a motor truck belonging to defendant corporation, and being driven by one of its employees in the course of and while engaged in defendant's business, was suddenly turned from the street or roadway onto the sidewalk and struck Mrs. Youman; and the evidence further shows that the driver of the truck was driving so close behind another car and at such speed that when the car in front slowed down or was about to come to a stop the driver of the truck was placed in a situation where he had either to strike the car in front of him or turn and go upon the sidewalk; and although the driver of the truck may be said to have acted in an emergency we think the emergency was created by his negligence in driving at such speed and so close to the car in front of him as to be unable to avoid a collision in event the car ahead of him stopped without driving the truck upon the sidewalk (Henican vs. Woodman, 1 La.App. 281; Blashfield, Automobiles, 454, No. 29); and the defendant cannot escape liability under the theory that its servant acted in an emergency, the emergency being created by his negligence (Southall vs. Smith, 151 La. 967, 92 So. 402; Dill vs. Colley, 3 La.App. 305).
Second, the accident occurred on June 11, 1926, and the evidence establishes that the truck struck the plaintiff, knocking her down, rendering her unconscious, and inflicted upon her body bruises and cuts; that plaintiff was enciente, being about seven months advanced with child, and when she was carried home she began to suffer with pains in her back and abdomen and was confined continuously to her bed for about eleven days under the attendance of a physician, and that she continued to suffer from time to time with such pains until the delivery of the child on or about August 1, 1926.
The physician testified that the pains with which plaintiff suffered were "labor pains" and that the treatment was directed towards relieving the pain and preventing a miscarriage; and it further appears the position of the child in the womb was changed following the accident and that the delivery of the child was more painful than would have been the case had it remained in the position in which it was before the accident.
The date of the delivery of the child was at about the normal period and the plaintiff, after the illness incident to her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Danos v. St. Pierre
...refused 350 So.2d 1224 (La.1977). This court in Wascom, following the lead of a 1927 Second Circuit case, Youman v. McConnell & McConnell, Inc., 7 La.App. 315 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1927), held that Louisiana Civil Code Article 28 precludes recovery for the death of a stillborn child. This write......
-
Danos v. St. Pierre
...the principle that child born dead never acquired "a legal personality distinct from its mother." Youman et al. v. McConnell & McConnell, Inc., 7 La.App. 315, 317 (2d Cir. 1927). Other cases allowing an expectant mother's recovery for damage caused by miscarriages or abortions are consisten......
-
Quatray v. Wicker
...condition, he could not avoid the accident. Dill v. Colley, 3 La.App. 305; Stout v. Lewis, 11 La.App. 503, 123 So. 346, 348. Youman v. McConnell, 7 La.App. 315; Thornhill Yellow Cab Co., 6 La.App. 787. We have come to the conclusion that the accident was caused through the joint and concurr......
-
Valence v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.
...be concluded that nothing has been lost since there can be no loss of anything that has never existed. We note that in Youman v. McConnell & McConnell, Inc., 7 La.App. 315, the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit in a simlar situation said that even if it could be conceded that the 'stil......