Methvin v. Roshto

96 So. 2d 383
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedJune 28, 1957
Docket4462
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 96 So. 2d 383 (Methvin v. Roshto) 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
Methvin v. Roshto, 96 So. 2d 383 (La. Ct. App. 1957).

Opinion

96 So.2d 383 (1957)

Gerald Robert METHVIN, Individually, etc., et al.
v.
Richard ROSHTO.

No. 4462.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 28, 1957.

Sam J. D'Amico, Louis D. Curet, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Durrett Hardin & Hunter, Baton Rouge, Paul B. Dufreche, Ponchatoula, for appellee.

LOTTINGER, Judge.

On November 12, 1954 at approximately 4:15 o'clock in the afternoon an automobile accident occurred in the Parish of East Baton Rouge on U. S. Highway No. 190 at about three miles east of the City of Baton Rouge, which gave rise to the following litigation:

The matter entitled "Gerald Robert Methvin, Individually, Etc., et al vs. Richard Roshto," No. 54,021 of the Civil Docket of the Lower Court, was filed by Gerald Robert Methvin wherein he sought to recover from the defendant individually the sum of $100 and for the use and benefit of his collision insurer, Milwaukee Insurance *384 Company, the sum of $511.20 as the result of damages to his automobile under the deductible provisions of his policy and subrogation provisions thereof. This suit alleged negligence on the part of the defendant, Richard Roshto, in turning suddenly to his left without any warning or signals being given directly in the path of Methvin while he was traveling west and Roshto was driving east on U. S. Highway No. 190. Roshto answered this suit denying any negligence on his part and alternatively pleading contributory negligence on the part of Methvin in failing to heed his vehicle and in running into same after it had come to a stop off of the highway.

The matter entitled "Richard Roshto, et al vs. Gerald Robert Methvin," No. 54, 902 of the Civil Docket of the Lower Court, was filed by Roshto, individually and for and on behalf of his minor children, Richard Roshto, Jr., Violet Ivy Roshto and by Roshto's wife, Violet P. Roshto, against Methvin wherein damages were sought for automobile damage, medical expenses and personal injuries in the total amount of $16,635. Negligence was charged against Methvin in the same respect set forth in the answer filed by Roshto in the suit by Methvin against him. Methvin answered, denying any negligence on his part, and alternatively pleaded contributory negligence on the part of Roshto in the same respect as set forth in his petition.

The matter entitled "Elma Galloway vs. Gerald Robert Methvin," No. 54,903 of the Civil Docket of the Lower Court, was filed against Methvin by Elma Galloway who alleged that she was a guest passenger in Roshto's automobile and prayed for damages in the total amount of $51,391.72 for doctor bills, loss of earnings and personal injuries. Negligence is charged against Methvin in the same respect as set forth in Roshto's suit against him. Methvin answered this suit, denying any negligence on his part and averring that the accident was due solely to the negligence of Roshto. Alternatively, he pleaded contributory negligence on the part of this plaintiff in that she acquiesced in the negligent operation of the vehicle by Roshto.

The three cases were consolidated for trial following which judgment was rendered in Suit No. 54,021 in favor of Methvin individually and for the use and benefit of Milwaukee Insurance Company as prayed for. In suits Nos. 54,902 and 54,903 judgment was rendered in favor of defendants, Methvin, and against the plaintiffs, Richard Roshto, et al. and Elma Galloway, respectively, dismissing their demands and they have appealed.

Gerald Robert Methvin, called on cross examination in suits Nos. 54,902 and 54,903, testified as follows:

Just previous to the accident on November 12, 1954, he was proceeding from Pontchatoula in a westerly direction on U. S. Highway No. 190 towards the city of Baton Rouge. He had with him in his automobile his wife and two children. He had averaged not more than 50 miles per hour previously, and, at the time when he first saw Roshto's vehicle, was going about 35 miles per hour. He first saw Roshto when he was some 3 or 4 blocks away from him at which time he could not estimate his rate of speed although he did classify it as moderate. While there were no cars close to Roshto to his rear, there was one right in front of him at a distance of about 50 to 70 feet. The roadway at the place of the accident was straight and when he first saw Roshto attempt to make a turn, the car in front of him was still approaching but very close to him. He could not tell whether Roshto appeared to slow down before making his turn and he did not notice any signals whatsoever. The witness gave the following version of the accident.

"Q. When he turned, how far did you say you were from him? A. I was about 70 feet when he started to turn.
*385 "Q. What did you do when he started to turn? A. Well, first I applied my brakes and swerved to the right. And I hollered at my wife to hold on, I knew I could not avoid the accident.
"Q. Why did you swerve to the right? Was that the direction Mr. Roshto was turning in? A. He was turning into my lane. He was turning left.

"Q. He was turning towards your right? A. That's right.

"Q. And that's the direction you turned in, right? A. Exactly. I turned to the right to give him as much room on the highway as I could.
"Q. Is there any particular reason why you turned in the same direction that he was turning? A. Well, I mean, to give him as much of the highway so that he could try to stop to avoid the accident.
"Q. Did it occur to you that if he were turning to your right that you could have avoided the accident by turning to your left? A. No, Sir, I could not, because it happened so fast I didn't have time.
"Q. Are you quite sure you applied your brakes? A. I am quite sure.
"Q. Did your vehicle slow down at all? A. My vehicle slowed down.
"Q. Did you leave any skid marks? A. Yes, Sir, I left skid marks.
"Q. How much, how many feet of skid marks did you leave? A. Well, that I don't know for sure. The officers saw it.
"Q. Did you examine the scene of the accident after it happened? A. Yes, Sir.
"Q. To determine about the skid marks? A. We did, with the State Trooper which was two of them."

When asked if he was familiar with Roshto's service station on the north side of U. S. Highway No. 190, and the concrete driveway leading into same, the witness stated that he was although he had never noticed any concrete or shoulder between the highway and the edge of the neutral ground at Roshto's service station. The witness stated further that he was familiar with a gravel road running North immediately to the east of Roshto's service station, east of which is a concrete driveway approaching a Texaco Station which is still further to the east. The witness placed on a diagram purporting to be a rough sketch of the scene of the accident, a letter A at the spot where he was when he first saw the Roshto vehicle turning, which spot, he stated, was about on the east drive approaching Roshto's service station. It was stipulated that the highway at the point of the collision was 22 feet in width.

At the moment of the collision the witness's car was facing due west and after the collision, it was turned to the right and ended up facing in a northwesterly direction. The witness stated emphatically that his vehicle never left the highway until after the impact had actually occurred.

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

Related

O'DONNELL v. United States
428 F. Supp. 629 (W.D. Louisiana, 1977)
Maryland Casualty Insurance v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Co.
228 So. 2d 88 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1969)
Saladino ex rel. Saladino v. Bomati
222 So. 2d 625 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1969)
Magee v. Yates
219 So. 2d 299 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1969)
Husser v. Bogalusa Coca Cola Bottling Company
215 So. 2d 921 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1968)
Bankston v. Bueche
206 So. 2d 532 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1968)
Scott v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Insurance Co.
189 So. 2d 29 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1966)
Di Pietro v. Lormand
165 So. 2d 658 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1964)
Maryland v. Allstate Insurance
162 So. 2d 226 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1964)
Wesley v. Home Indemnity Co.
148 So. 2d 333 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1962)
Catalano v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co.
138 So. 2d 623 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1962)
Ruple v. Travelers Indemnity Company
129 So. 2d 240 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1961)
Great American Insurance v. Hill
125 So. 2d 669 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1960)
Hinton v. Beyl
122 So. 2d 680 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1960)
Babineaux v. Sims
111 So. 2d 848 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1959)
Roshto v. Methvin
96 So. 2d 389 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1957)
Galloway v. Methvin
96 So. 2d 390 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 So. 2d 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/methvin-v-roshto-lactapp-1957.