Inez M. Oubre v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Fifth Circuit

Inez M. Oubre v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

302 F.2d 593, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5257

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 27, 1962

Docket19088

StatusPublished

This text of 302 F.2d 593 (Inez M. Oubre v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Inez M. Oubre v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 302 F.2d 593, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5257 (5th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This was a typical intersection automobile collision. The suit was brought under the Louisiana Direct Action Statute and tried by a Louisiana-trained Judge without a jury. Whether the defendant driver became aware of the likelihood that the plaintiff car would not respect the duty to stop at the intersection protected by a stop sign was the crux of the whole controversy. With an evident awareness of the applicable Louisiana legal standards, expounded in such cases as Gautreaux v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Co., La.App., 1955, 83 So.2d 667; Janice v. Whitley, La.App., 1959, 111 So.2d 852; Patterson v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co., La.App., 1961, 131 So.2d 147; cf. Kientz v. Charles Dénnery, 1945, 209 La. 144, 24 So.2d 292; Koob v. Cooperative Cab Co., 1948, 213 La. 903, 35 So.2d 849; Henderson v. Central Mutual Ins. Co., 1959, 238 La. 250, 115 So.2d 339; Youngblood v. Robinson, 1960, 239 La. 338, 118 So.2d 431, the trial Judge held that the defendant was not negligent in failing to ascertain at an earlier time and distance that the plaintiff car would not stop.

*594 What we might have done had we seen and heard these witnesses is not now the question. It is our obligation to test it solely within the concept of the clearly erroneous standard of F.R.Civ.P. rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A. The evidence amply warrants the conclusion reached. The fact is found. There it ends.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This was a typical intersection automobile collision. The suit was brought under the Louisiana Direct Action Statute and tried by a Louisiana-trained Judge without a jury. Whether the defendant driver became aware of the likelihood that the plaintiff car would not respect the duty to stop at the intersection protected by a stop sign was the crux of the whole controversy. With an evident awareness of the applicable Louisiana legal standards, expounded in such cases as Gautreaux v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Co., La.App., 1955, 83 So.2d 667; Janice v. Whitley, La.App., 1959, 111 So.2d 852; Patterson v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co., La.App., 1961, 131 So.2d 147; cf. Kientz v. Charles Dénnery, 1945, 209 La. 144, 24 So.2d 292; Koob v. Cooperative Cab Co., 1948, 213 La. 903, 35 So.2d 849; Henderson v. Central Mutual Ins. Co., 1959, 238 La. 250, 115 So.2d 339; Youngblood v. Robinson, 1960, 239 La. 338, 118 So.2d 431, the trial Judge held that the defendant was not negligent in failing to ascertain at an earlier time and distance that the plaintiff car would not stop.

*594 What we might have done had we seen and heard these witnesses is not now the question. It is our obligation to test it solely within the concept of the clearly erroneous standard of F.R.Civ.P. rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A. The evidence amply warrants the conclusion reached. The fact is found. There it ends.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 F.2d 593, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inez-m-oubre-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-ca5-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack