Fontaine v. Dorsey

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Fontaine v. Dorsey

131 So. 506, 15 La. App. 282, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 712

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 15, 1930

DocketNo. 13,499

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 131 So. 506 (Fontaine v. Dorsey) 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

Fontaine v. Dorsey, 131 So. 506, 15 La. App. 282, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 712 (La. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, J.

Lawrence Fontaine, Jr., on whose behalf his father brings this action, was knocked down by a truck owned and operated by the defendant at the intersection of Gov. Nicholls and Bourbon streets.

From a judgment awarding plaintiff damages in the sum of $455, defendant has appealed.

The accident occurred on the 28th day of June, 1929, in broad daylight, when the Fontaine boy, who was ten years old, had almost succeeded in crossing the intersection from the lake to the riverside corner of Bourbon street. The defendant’s truck was being driven down Bourbon street in [283]*283the direction of Esplanade avenue. The accident was due, in our opinion, to the failure of the driver of the truck to so regulate its speed after the appearance of the boy in his path to permit the child to cross in safety. The driver was either not looking in front of him, as was testified by one of the witnesses, and therefore did not see the boy in time, or, if he saw him, he did not apply his brakes in time to stop. When children are seen in the pathway of a motorist, extraordinary precaution should be observed to avoid injuring them. Jacoby v. Gallaher, 10 La. App. 42, 120 So. 888.

The driver of the truck testified that the boy ran out from the sidewalk just before he reached the intersection, but his statement is not supported by the evidence, which clearly preponderates to the contrary. As was said by the judge a quo:

“The negligence in this case was the failure of the driver, at the speed he was going, to have kept the proper lookout to be in a position to see these children (Lawrence was with his brother at the time) walking across the street. I cannot assume that the testimony of the driver is correct when it is contradicted by three witnesses.”

As to the quantum, it does not appear to us to he excessive. No bones were broken but the boy suffered a slight concussion of the brain. He was taken to the Charity Hospital, removed to his home, where he was confined to his bed for several days, and was under treatment for several months, incurring a medical expense in the sum of ¡¡>55.

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

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

WESTERFIELD, J.

Lawrence Fontaine, Jr., on whose behalf his father brings this action, was knocked down by a truck owned and operated by the defendant at the intersection of Gov. Nicholls and Bourbon streets.

From a judgment awarding plaintiff damages in the sum of $455, defendant has appealed.

The accident occurred on the 28th day of June, 1929, in broad daylight, when the Fontaine boy, who was ten years old, had almost succeeded in crossing the intersection from the lake to the riverside corner of Bourbon street. The defendant’s truck was being driven down Bourbon street in [283]*283the direction of Esplanade avenue. The accident was due, in our opinion, to the failure of the driver of the truck to so regulate its speed after the appearance of the boy in his path to permit the child to cross in safety. The driver was either not looking in front of him, as was testified by one of the witnesses, and therefore did not see the boy in time, or, if he saw him, he did not apply his brakes in time to stop. When children are seen in the pathway of a motorist, extraordinary precaution should be observed to avoid injuring them. Jacoby v. Gallaher, 10 La. App. 42, 120 So. 888.

The driver of the truck testified that the boy ran out from the sidewalk just before he reached the intersection, but his statement is not supported by the evidence, which clearly preponderates to the contrary. As was said by the judge a quo:

“The negligence in this case was the failure of the driver, at the speed he was going, to have kept the proper lookout to be in a position to see these children (Lawrence was with his brother at the time) walking across the street. I cannot assume that the testimony of the driver is correct when it is contradicted by three witnesses.”

As to the quantum, it does not appear to us to he excessive. No bones were broken but the boy suffered a slight concussion of the brain. He was taken to the Charity Hospital, removed to his home, where he was confined to his bed for several days, and was under treatment for several months, incurring a medical expense in the sum of ¡¡>55.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 So. 506, 15 La. App. 282, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fontaine-v-dorsey-lactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack