Carlino v. New Orleans Public Service Inc.

7 La. App. 615, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 72
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 12, 1928
DocketNo. 10,558
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 La. App. 615 (Carlino v. New Orleans Public Service Inc.) 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
Carlino v. New Orleans Public Service Inc., 7 La. App. 615, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 72 (La. Ct. App. 1928).

Opinion

JONES, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment for seven hundred fifty ($750.00) dollars, based upon the verdict of a jury, by a 9 to 3 vote.

Plaintiff sued for twenty-two thousand, six hundred and sixty-five ($22,665.00) dollars damages for personal injuries sustained August 23, 1924, in a collision between the automobile in which he was riding as a guest of the driver and a Laurel street car, at the corner of Annunciation and Sixth Streets.

Plaintiff avers (about ten o’clock at night) the automobile was going in Sixth Street from the river and the electric car was going up Annunciation Street toward Audubon Park; plaintiff’s left leg was broken and permanently shortened and he claims the following damages:

For the permanent shortening of his leg --------“---------------------$13,000.00

For the impairment of his constitution and weakening of his nervous system ...... 2,000.00

For pain and suffering endured 7,000.00 For loss of wages ________________________ 665.00

$22,665.00

[616]*616The negligence of defendant is set forth as follows:

1st. That defendant had torn up the street between the rails of its track in the course of certain construction work at or near Annunciation and Sixth Streets, and had piled material and dirt at the corner in such way as to leave a passageway over Annunciation wide enough for only one automobile to cross at a time, the piles of material and dirt being sufficiently high to obstruct the view of an automobile driver coming from the river and prevent his seeing vehicles approaching Sixth Street from the Canal Street side.

2nd. That, disregarding a sign to go slow, the motorman ran the car over Sixth Street at a speed in excess of thirty miles an hour.

3rd. That the motorman gave no signal whon approaching Sixth Street.

4th. That the brakes of the car were defective.

Defendant denied the allegations of damage and of fault, and averred that the cause of the collision was the negligent operation of the automobile in which plaintiff was riding; defendant also charged that plaintiff was himself negligent, and, therefore, was himself responsible for the injuries he received in that he did not warn the driver of the automobile of the danger of crossing the tracks in violation of the city ordinance, and in that he had his leg extended beyond the body of the automobile.

We briefly summarize the testimony of the. various witnesses:

J. H. Graham, on behalf of plaintiff, driver of the old Ford touring car, Model 1921 or 1923, which was owned by Sydney Casserino, said that he was driving in Sixth Street toward river, stopped with front wheels on first rail, heard someone shouting, looked for car, saw it about fifty feet distant, .coming at twenty-five miles per hour, didn’t back off but tried to beat the car across when auto was struck at rear end and thrown against post at upper lake corner. Car, which was crossing track about ten miles per hour, stopped with rear end at property line, uptown side Sixth Street. Could not see down Annunciation before getting on rail because of the piles of dirt and a shed, dirt pile five feet high, shed eight feet from ground. Eyes of driver of auto about five feet from ground. Annunciation Street is about twenty-five feet wide; about eight feet from curb to first rail of track; from driver’s seat to front of radiator is about four and one-half feet, one length of cross ties had been placed between the rails, even with the tracks, so as to form a level crossing.

Albert Hoffman, a friend of the owner of the automobile, said that he was standing under the shed at the corner of Sixth and Annunciation Streets, saw the automobile come and check speed for the crossing, and that when they saw the car it was on top of them, but they tried to “make it over.” Dirt was piled about five feet high; motorman did not give any signal. He and friend were walking along downtown side of Sixth Street and were waiting for the automobile to cross Annunciation Street so that they could go on to Magazine Street. When they started to cross the automobile was near Chippewa Street and when they were ready to cross the automobile was near Annunciation Street. The driver of the automobile brought the car to a stop two feet from the car track and then went ahead; he did not see the street car until the moment of collision. He could see the top [617]*617of the street ear over the mud piles; the car was lighted.

Max Piegler, friend of Hoffman and of the owner of the automobile, said that he was talking with Albert Hoffman under the shed at Annunciation and Sixth Streets. He saw the automobile coming out Sixth Street, it stopped for the crossing and wen't over; it was not going fast. There was some dirt piled in the street on the riverside of the car track, the piles were about four or five feet high. He and Hoffman did not stop under the shed any appreciable time; the street car was coming up Annunciation Street and the automobile coming out Sixth Street. As they started across Annunciation, the street car was at Washington Avenue. Had no difficulty in seeing the street car over the piles of mud. The car was coming at a speed of twenty to twenty-five miles an hour. When he saw the car at Washington Avenue the automobile was about a half block from Annunciation Street coming about ten miles an hour. When the auto was about eighteen feet from Annunciation Street he blew his horn; he stopped the automobile eighteen feet from Annunciation Street, blew the horn and went on, went over the car track at ten to twelve miles an hour; the automobile had not reached the corner when the street car was about at the lower side of Sixth Street, and he saw there was bound to be an accident. The automobile was hit in the side in the back where the door opens. The car stopped, partly blocking Sixth Street. When the automobile was crossing Annunciation Street the car was moving about fifteen miles an hour.

Eug. Lapouble, District Superintendent in Department of Public Works, said he was walking along the lower side of Sixth Street toward Annunciation Street. The automobile passed him at the lake corner of Chippewa Str.eet and he had reached about one hundred feet when he heard the noise of the collision. There was a fourteen-foot (or the length of two cross-ties) bridge over the open track work at Annunciation and Sixth Streets.

Harold Raymond, a friend of Carlino, said he was on the right side of the rear seat of the automobile, with Car-lino on the left side of the seat. They were travelling out Sixth Street and when they reached Annunciation the driver brought the automobile practically to a stop and then crossed at about five miles per hour; as he was crossing the tracks the street car struck the automobile; the car was running fifteen to eighteen miles an hour. He did not see the street car until it was practically on top of the automobile; when stopped, the rear end of the car was ten feet past the upper side of Sixth Street.

The automobile was crossing the tracks at two to three miles an hour; it had been brought to that speed when about four feet from the track; at that speed it can be stopped in a foot.

Sidney Casserino, the owner of the automobile, said that he was seated with the driver on the right hand side. When he reached the corner of Annunciation they stopped. The driver could not see the street car because of the dirt piled in the street on the riverside- of the car track.

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

Related

Favaza v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
154 So. 457 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 La. App. 615, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlino-v-new-orleans-public-service-inc-lactapp-1928.