Hamrick v. Occidental Chemical Corp.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Hamrick v. Occidental Chemical Corp.

606 So. 2d 5, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 1714, 1992 WL 113661

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 15, 1992

DocketNo. 91-CA-791

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 606 So. 2d 5 (Hamrick v. Occidental Chemical Corp.) 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

Hamrick v. Occidental Chemical Corp., 606 So. 2d 5, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 1714, 1992 WL 113661 (La. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinions

GAUDIN, Judge.

Appellant Joseph N. Hamrick contends that the following issues should be resolved only after a trial.

(1) Was the placing of the sign, directly in the path of vehicles approaching the cross roadway, negligence?

(2) Was the rigid construction of the sign negligence?

(3) Should the sign, placed where it was, have been installed with warning lights or devices?

Apparently there is little jurisprudence on these issues. There are reported cases involving telephone poles, light standards and obstructions necessary to the flow and control of vehicular traffic but we are unaware of any eases dealing with a rigid metal sign just beyond and directly facing motorists entering a T-intersection from the intersecting (not the cross) roadway. In any event, as Louisiana now has comparative negligence, the issues raised by Hamrick are of enough substance to defeat summary judgment.

We set aside the summary judgment in Occidental Chemical Corporation’s favor and we remand for further proceedings with costs of this appeal to be determined by the district judge in due course.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT SET ASIDE; REMANDED.

BOWES, J., dissents with written reasons. WICKER, J., dissents for reasons assigned by BOWES, J.

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

GAUDIN, Judge.

Appellant Joseph N. Hamrick contends that the following issues should be resolved only after a trial.

(1) Was the placing of the sign, directly in the path of vehicles approaching the cross roadway, negligence?

(2) Was the rigid construction of the sign negligence?

(3) Should the sign, placed where it was, have been installed with warning lights or devices?

Apparently there is little jurisprudence on these issues. There are reported cases involving telephone poles, light standards and obstructions necessary to the flow and control of vehicular traffic but we are unaware of any eases dealing with a rigid metal sign just beyond and directly facing motorists entering a T-intersection from the intersecting (not the cross) roadway. In any event, as Louisiana now has comparative negligence, the issues raised by Hamrick are of enough substance to defeat summary judgment.

We set aside the summary judgment in Occidental Chemical Corporation’s favor and we remand for further proceedings with costs of this appeal to be determined by the district judge in due course.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT SET ASIDE; REMANDED.

BOWES, J., dissents with written reasons. WICKER, J., dissents for reasons assigned by BOWES, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

606 So. 2d 5, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 1714, 1992 WL 113661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamrick-v-occidental-chemical-corp-lactapp-1992.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack