Harmon v. Palmer

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Harmon v. Palmer

111 So. 2d 357, 1959 La. App. LEXIS 903

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 3, 1959

DocketNo. 8992

StatusPublished

This text of 111 So. 2d 357 (Harmon v. Palmer) 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

Harmon v. Palmer, 111 So. 2d 357, 1959 La. App. LEXIS 903 (La. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

AYRES, Judge.

This is likewise an action in tort. The plaintiffs are Frank W. Harmon and wife, Mrs. Betty W. Harmon, and the Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Harmon’s collision insurer. The defendants are L. G. Palmer and his public liability insurer, Firemen’s Insurance Company.

This action is predicated upon the saiiie state of facts as was the case of Henderson v. Central Mutual Insurance Co., La.App., 111 So.2d 351, with which it was consolidated for the purpose of trial, this day decided. There was judgment in favor of the defendants in the instant case and the plaintiffs devolutively appealed. In the companion case the conclusion was reached that the negligence of plaintiff, Mrs. Betty W. [358]*358Harmon, constituted a proximate cause of the accident. It, therefore, follows that the judgment rejecting plaintiffs’ demands was correct and must be affirmed.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed is affirmed at appellants’ cost.

Affirmed.

HARDY, J., absent.

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

AYRES, Judge.

This is likewise an action in tort. The plaintiffs are Frank W. Harmon and wife, Mrs. Betty W. Harmon, and the Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Harmon’s collision insurer. The defendants are L. G. Palmer and his public liability insurer, Firemen’s Insurance Company.

This action is predicated upon the saiiie state of facts as was the case of Henderson v. Central Mutual Insurance Co., La.App., 111 So.2d 351, with which it was consolidated for the purpose of trial, this day decided. There was judgment in favor of the defendants in the instant case and the plaintiffs devolutively appealed. In the companion case the conclusion was reached that the negligence of plaintiff, Mrs. Betty W. [358]*358Harmon, constituted a proximate cause of the accident. It, therefore, follows that the judgment rejecting plaintiffs’ demands was correct and must be affirmed.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed is affirmed at appellants’ cost.

Affirmed.

HARDY, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 So. 2d 357, 1959 La. App. LEXIS 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harmon-v-palmer-lactapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack