Jamison v. Dier

36 So. 2d 865, 1948 La. App. LEXIS 561
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedOctober 5, 1948
DocketNo. 3022.
StatusPublished

This text of 36 So. 2d 865 (Jamison v. Dier) 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
Jamison v. Dier, 36 So. 2d 865, 1948 La. App. LEXIS 561 (La. Ct. App. 1948).

Opinion

On May 31, 1946, at about 3:30 P.M., a collision occurred between an automobile driven by the minor son of defendant, Blanche Dier, and a bicycle being ridden by Richard Jamison, Jr., the minor son of the plaintiff herein. The collision occurred in East Baton Rouge Parish, at the northwest corner of the intersection of Evangeline Drive, formerly known as North Highland Drive, a paved street running east and west, and Walnut Street, a street running north and south, gravelled on the north of Evangeline Drive. The petition alleges that the minor son of defendant was driving an automobile west on the right-hand side of Evangeline Drive and that the plaintiff's minor son was riding his bicycle on the north side of said Evangeline Drive, to the right and north of the paved portion thereof, and that the bicycle was struck by the automobile throwing Richard Jamison, Jr., into the ditch on the right of the north side of the street, causing serious and permanent personal injuries to him; that the collision was caused entirely by the gross negligence of the driver of the automobile and specifically (a) in failing to keep a proper lookout, (b) in driving the automobile along the extreme north side with the right part of the automobile extending over onto the shoulder, (c) in failing to see the Jamison boy on his bicycle on the right side when he should have seen him, or having seen him, failing to avoid striking the bicycle, (d) in failing to avoid striking young Jamison and continuing on his way after striking him without making any effort to stop until someone yelled to him, (e) that the driver of the car did not have the car under his control or by his inexperience did not know how to avoid striking the Jamison boy, (f) in operating an automobile at a dangerous and reckless rate of speed and without keeping a proper lookout. Petitioner alleges that as a result of the accident petitioner's minor son has suffered damage for injuries, disability, pain and suffering, etc., in the amount of $5,000, and that petitioner, as father of the minor son, has suffered damage in the amount of $318.05; $25 for damage to the bicycle and the remainder for hospital and medical expenses.

The answer is to the effect that the accident was caused solely by the petitioner's minor son, Richard Jamison, Jr., in entering the intersection of Walnut Street and Evangeline Drive without keeping a proper lookout and with disregard of the traffic *Page 866 thereon; that the driver of the automobile was driving in a careful and proper manner and was free from any negligence whatsoever, and that the accident was caused by plaintiff's minor son in running into defendant's automobile. In the alternative, the defendant pleads that if any negligence is found on the part of his minor son, which is denied, it should be found that plaintiff's minor son was guilty of contributory negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident and which bars recovery herein.

After due hearing of the case the District Court, without assigning any written reasons, dismissed the case at plaintiff's costs and plaintiff has appealed.

[1] The case involves questions of fact only and it is fundamental that the judgment below should not be reversed unless manifest error is found in the conclusion of facts of the trial judge. Since the trial judge has not submitted written reasons, we are unable to tell what specific conclusions he reached, but, since the testimony is highly contradictory and irreconcilable, it is obvious that he must have believed the defendant's witnesses.

On the question of liability the plaintiff's case is based on the testimony of Richard Jamison, Jr., Willie Lemings, Edwin Whitaker, Robert Haley and Mrs. E.E. Vick.

Richard Jamison, Jr., a 12-year boy, testified that prior to the accident he left his home on the south side of Evangeline Drive, a distance of about a block and a half from the scene of the accident, there being one intersecting street besides Walnut Street between his home and the scene; that he travelled west on Evangeline Drive and went over to see his friend, Jerry Vick, another little boy who lived on the north side of Evangeline Drive about 200 feet West of Walnut Street; that when he arrived at the Vick house he knocked and found that no one was there, and thereupon turned back and went to the Lambert store located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Evangeline Drive and Walnut Street; that the said Lambert store faces north and has a shed in front, with gasoline pumps on the front thereof; that at this store he met two of his friends, Edwin Whitaker, bearing the nickname of "Honky," and Robert Haley. He states that besides "Honky" Whitaker and Robert Haley, that he saw Willie Lemings, who worked at the store, and also some other people. He testifies that he talked to young Whitaker and young Haley for some five minutes and that he thereupon decided to go back to the Vick home; that during his conversation with the other two boys they sat on boxes underneath the shed and he sat on his bicycle; that as he left the store he rode out on the cast side of the shed and then across over to the north of Evangeline Drive and was riding on the north or right-hand side of said Drive, having gone about eleven yards on the north side after crossing Evangeline Drive, when he was struck by the automobile and thrown in the ditch at the northwest corner of the intersection of Walnut and Evangeline Drive. He states that he arrived at the figure of 11 yards by having stepped off on the morning of the trial from the point where he started west on the north side of Evangeline Drive to the point of contact.

Young Haley and young Whitaker corroborated the Jamison boy's testimony with reference to his visit at the Lambert store, but their testimony as to how long he stayed there is uncertain and indicates that he was under the shed for a period of much longer than five minutes, or approximately half an hour. They both testified that he left the shed on the cast side and circled into Evangeline Drive towards the north side, but neither saw the actual accident and neither saw the Dier automobile until after the accident. They both testified that the bicycle and the boy were thrown on the north shoulder of Evangeline Drive some few feet from the western edge of Walnut Street.

Lemings, a young man who was working for the Lambert store, testified that he was standing underneath the shed, near the pumps, talking to a Mr. Kohler (defense witness) at the time of the accident for approximately a half hour before; that as he came out of the store he saw young Jamison sitting on his bike talking to Whitaker and Haley, who were sitting on boxes; *Page 867 that young Jamison left the shed and rode to the north side of Evangeline Drive, and as he was proceeding west thereon, the Dier automobile approached from the east on the south side of Evangeline Drive and turned to the north side thereof, apparently because a bus was coming from the opposite direction about half a block away, and that shortly thereafter the Dier automobile struck the bicycle, either on the rear or left side of said bicycle and continued to go on a distance of about 120 feet; that the driver of the automobile stopped when he, Lemings, and Mr. Kohler yelled at him; that he and Kohler went to the scene, and, as he lifted the bicycle off of young Jamison, Mr. Kohler picked up the boy and took him to the Dier automobile, which had in the meantime backed close to the scene. Lemings states that he laid the bicycle aside and opened the front door of the automobile to assist Kohler in placing the boy therein; that the automobile was a two-door sedan and that it was occupied on the front seat by young Dier at the wheel, and Mrs.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 So. 2d 865, 1948 La. App. LEXIS 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jamison-v-dier-lactapp-1948.