Arnold v. Byrne

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Arnold v. Byrne

251 So. 2d 55, 1971 La. App. LEXIS 5557

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 15, 1971

DocketNo. 4345

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 So. 2d 55 (Arnold v. Byrne) 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

Arnold v. Byrne, 251 So. 2d 55, 1971 La. App. LEXIS 5557 (La. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing her suit for herself and her minor son for damages from a night-time accident between an automobile and an unlighted bicycle.

The testimony of the car driver and that of the investigating police officer supports the conclusion that the minor, rushing in the rain and not seeing the car, ran into the side of the car at an intersection. The testimony of an independent eye-witness (persuasive at times but also confusing) and, to a lesser extent, that of the 16-year-old minor would support the conclusion that the car ran irjto the rear of the bicycle “a house and a half” from the intersection. The policeman did testify the vehicles were 20 to 30 feet from the intersection, which appellant argues supports plaintiff’s view and is more consistent with plaintiff testimony. But that stopping point is also consistent with stopping distance of a slow-moving car.

The trial judge accepted the defense testimony. Our reading of the record does not afford us a basis to reverse his conclusion.

Affirmed.

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

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing her suit for herself and her minor son for damages from a night-time accident between an automobile and an unlighted bicycle.

The testimony of the car driver and that of the investigating police officer supports the conclusion that the minor, rushing in the rain and not seeing the car, ran into the side of the car at an intersection. The testimony of an independent eye-witness (persuasive at times but also confusing) and, to a lesser extent, that of the 16-year-old minor would support the conclusion that the car ran irjto the rear of the bicycle “a house and a half” from the intersection. The policeman did testify the vehicles were 20 to 30 feet from the intersection, which appellant argues supports plaintiff’s view and is more consistent with plaintiff testimony. But that stopping point is also consistent with stopping distance of a slow-moving car.

The trial judge accepted the defense testimony. Our reading of the record does not afford us a basis to reverse his conclusion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 So. 2d 55, 1971 La. App. LEXIS 5557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-byrne-lactapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack