Mitchell v. Regional Transit Authority

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Mitchell v. Regional Transit Authority

608 So. 2d 201, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 115, 1992 WL 14079

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 30, 1992

DocketNo. 91-CA-0959

StatusPublished

This text of 608 So. 2d 201 (Mitchell v. Regional Transit Authority) 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

Mitchell v. Regional Transit Authority, 608 So. 2d 201, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 115, 1992 WL 14079 (La. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinions

SCHOTT, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs are the survivors of Charles Mitchell, who is deceased. On July 27, 1987, Mitchell was a passenger on a bus owned by the Regional Transit Authority (RTA). He was injured when the bus came to a sudden stop to avoid a collision with an automobile owned by defendant, Budget Rent-A-Car. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs against Budget for $8,580. There is no mention of RTA in the judgment. Budget has appealed. The issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the imputation to Budget of the negligence of the person who was driving Budget’s car.

The bus driver testified that an automobile ran a stop sign directly in her path, requiring her to stop suddenly. This caused Mitchell to fall and be injured. An RTA investigator came on the scene. The driver and the investigator saw a Budget decal on the car, but they did not get the name of the driver. They said he looked Japanese. Budget admitted that it owned the car and afforded insurance on the vehicle. However, the lease contract is not in evidence.

[202]*202Since no one identified the driver, there is nothing to tie him to Budget’s coverage other than his operation of the car. We don’t know whether he was the lessee or an authorized user or neither of these. Budget was not obliged to provide omnibus coverage. Hearty v. Harris, 574 So.2d 1234 (La.1991). Even assuming that the lease contract and the insurance, if any, afforded omnibus coverage for anyone operating the car with the permission of the lessee, we do not know whether the driver had permission to drive the car. We do not even know if this person was licensed to drive. Consequently, there is no evidentia-ry basis for a judgment against Budget.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and there is judgment in favor of Budget Rent-A-Car of New Orleans, Inc. and against plaintiffs dismissing their suit against Budget at their cost.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

Before SCHOTT, C.J., and CIACCIO and PLOTKIN, JJ.

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

SCHOTT, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs are the survivors of Charles Mitchell, who is deceased. On July 27, 1987, Mitchell was a passenger on a bus owned by the Regional Transit Authority (RTA). He was injured when the bus came to a sudden stop to avoid a collision with an automobile owned by defendant, Budget Rent-A-Car. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs against Budget for $8,580. There is no mention of RTA in the judgment. Budget has appealed. The issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the imputation to Budget of the negligence of the person who was driving Budget’s car.

The bus driver testified that an automobile ran a stop sign directly in her path, requiring her to stop suddenly. This caused Mitchell to fall and be injured. An RTA investigator came on the scene. The driver and the investigator saw a Budget decal on the car, but they did not get the name of the driver. They said he looked Japanese. Budget admitted that it owned the car and afforded insurance on the vehicle. However, the lease contract is not in evidence.

[202]*202Since no one identified the driver, there is nothing to tie him to Budget’s coverage other than his operation of the car. We don’t know whether he was the lessee or an authorized user or neither of these. Budget was not obliged to provide omnibus coverage. Hearty v. Harris, 574 So.2d 1234 (La.1991). Even assuming that the lease contract and the insurance, if any, afforded omnibus coverage for anyone operating the car with the permission of the lessee, we do not know whether the driver had permission to drive the car. We do not even know if this person was licensed to drive. Consequently, there is no evidentia-ry basis for a judgment against Budget.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and there is judgment in favor of Budget Rent-A-Car of New Orleans, Inc. and against plaintiffs dismissing their suit against Budget at their cost.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

Before SCHOTT, C.J., and CIACCIO and PLOTKIN, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

608 So. 2d 201, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 115, 1992 WL 14079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-regional-transit-authority-lactapp-1992.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack