Boyd v. Service Drayage Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Boyd v. Service Drayage Co.

137 So. 768, 18 La. App. 360, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 343

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 30, 1931

DocketNo. 13905

StatusPublished

This text of 137 So. 768 (Boyd v. Service Drayage 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

Boyd v. Service Drayage Co., 137 So. 768, 18 La. App. 360, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 343 (La. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, J.

This is an action ex delicto. Plaintiff claims to have been injured due to the negligence of defendant’s employees, in that the driver of a large drayage truck, to which was attached a trailer, prematurely started it at a time when plaintiff was assisting in the uncoupling of the trailer, with the result that plaintiff’s leg was fractured. The defendant denied that plaintiff had anything to do with the uncoupling of the trailer from the truck, and maintains that, as the truck started off, the plaintiff made a run for it with the intention of climbing upon it, placing his foot upon one of the springs, which was covered with grease, causing him to slip and fall under the truck.

The sole issue, one of fact, was decided adversely to plaintiff in the court below, and, after carefully considering the testimony in the record, we see no reason to disturb the judgment, since it seems to be amply supported by the record.

■ For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

WESTERFIELD, J.

This is an action ex delicto. Plaintiff claims to have been injured due to the negligence of defendant’s employees, in that the driver of a large drayage truck, to which was attached a trailer, prematurely started it at a time when plaintiff was assisting in the uncoupling of the trailer, with the result that plaintiff’s leg was fractured. The defendant denied that plaintiff had anything to do with the uncoupling of the trailer from the truck, and maintains that, as the truck started off, the plaintiff made a run for it with the intention of climbing upon it, placing his foot upon one of the springs, which was covered with grease, causing him to slip and fall under the truck.

The sole issue, one of fact, was decided adversely to plaintiff in the court below, and, after carefully considering the testimony in the record, we see no reason to disturb the judgment, since it seems to be amply supported by the record.

■ For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 So. 768, 18 La. App. 360, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-service-drayage-co-lactapp-1931.