American Road Insurance v. Cherokee Insurance Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

American Road Insurance v. Cherokee Insurance Co.

380 So. 2d 152, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3365

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 27, 1979

DocketNo. 12915

StatusPublished

This text of 380 So. 2d 152 (American Road Insurance v. Cherokee Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Road Insurance v. Cherokee Insurance Co., 380 So. 2d 152, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3365 (La. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PONDER, Judge.

Defendants appealed from a judgment for damages arising from a collision between a tractor trailer and a horse. The issues are the negligence of the owner of the animal and the contributory negligence of the driver of the tractor trailer.

We affirm.

The applicable law is found in LSA-R.S. 3:2803 which prohibits the owner from knowingly, willingly, or negligently permitting livestock to roam at large on certain highways. The scene of the accident was on such a highway.

The burden is on the owner of the animals to prove he did not knowingly, willingly or negligently allow his livestock to roam on the highway. Young v. Sentry Ins. Co., 315 So.2d 93 (3rd Cir. 1975), Cornish v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Const. Corp., 304 So.2d 361 (1st Cir. 1974).

The owner of the horse and his son testified as to the measures taken to keep the horses properly fenced and as to the adequacy of the latches they used. However, the son admitted that the horses had escaped the previous day and he had replaced the latch. We do not believe defendants have borne this burden.

The defendants also have the burden of proving the contributory negligence of the driver of the tractor trailer. Pointing to some discrepancies in testimony and to some skid marks in a photograph purportedly of the scene, defendants assert that they have borne this burden. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that they have not. The discrepancies do not convict the driver of negligence. The skid marks in the photograph, even if the latter be admissible, were not proved to have been left by the tractor trailer involved in the collision.

For these reasons we affirm the judgment at appellant’s costs.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PONDER, Judge.

Defendants appealed from a judgment for damages arising from a collision between a tractor trailer and a horse. The issues are the negligence of the owner of the animal and the contributory negligence of the driver of the tractor trailer.

We affirm.

The applicable law is found in LSA-R.S. 3:2803 which prohibits the owner from knowingly, willingly, or negligently permitting livestock to roam at large on certain highways. The scene of the accident was on such a highway.

The burden is on the owner of the animals to prove he did not knowingly, willingly or negligently allow his livestock to roam on the highway. Young v. Sentry Ins. Co., 315 So.2d 93 (3rd Cir. 1975), Cornish v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Const. Corp., 304 So.2d 361 (1st Cir. 1974).

The owner of the horse and his son testified as to the measures taken to keep the horses properly fenced and as to the adequacy of the latches they used. However, the son admitted that the horses had escaped the previous day and he had replaced the latch. We do not believe defendants have borne this burden.

The defendants also have the burden of proving the contributory negligence of the driver of the tractor trailer. Pointing to some discrepancies in testimony and to some skid marks in a photograph purportedly of the scene, defendants assert that they have borne this burden. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that they have not. The discrepancies do not convict the driver of negligence. The skid marks in the photograph, even if the latter be admissible, were not proved to have been left by the tractor trailer involved in the collision.

For these reasons we affirm the judgment at appellant’s costs.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 So. 2d 152, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-road-insurance-v-cherokee-insurance-co-lactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack