Palmer v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York

91 So. 2d 77, 1956 La. App. LEXIS 935
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedNovember 26, 1956
Docket4303
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 91 So. 2d 77 (Palmer v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York) 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
Palmer v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, 91 So. 2d 77, 1956 La. App. LEXIS 935 (La. Ct. App. 1956).

Opinion

91 So.2d 77 (1956)

Joan PALMER et al.
v.
The FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK et al.

No. 4303.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

November 26, 1956.

Taylor, Porter, Brooks, Fuller & Phillips, Frank W. Middleton, Baton Rouge, for appellants.

Joseph A. Gladney, Baton Rouge, for appellees.

LOTTINGER, Judge.

This case arises out of an intersectional automobile accident which occurred at the intersection of North 19th Street and Florida Street in the City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 15, 1954. The plaintiffs, all occupants of one of the two cars involved, named as defendants the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, the insurer of the Palmer automobile, and Robert L. Anderson, the owner and operator of the other vehicle involved. By supplemental petition filed just a few days *78 before trial of the case, it was sought to name The Travelers Insurance Company as an additional defendant. However, no citation was ever issued or served, and The Travelers Insurance Company was never made a party to the suit. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York was dismissed from the case after trial in the District Court, and plaintiffs having taken no appeal from such dismissal, is not before the court on this appeal.

Willie W. Palmer originally filed suit on behalf of his four minor children, and together with the mother, Joan Palmer, claimed personal injuries as a result of the previously mentioned accident. The original petition filed by the wife and mother, Joan, and by the father, Willie W. Palmer, as the administrator of the estate of his minor children, alleged that the accident resulted from the joint negligence of Robert L. Anderson, the driver of the other vehicle involved, and of Willie W. Palmer himself, and prayed for judgment against both defendants. The supplemental petition filed February 24, 1956 attempted to add The Travelers Insurance Company as an additional defendant, and also recited that Willie W. Palmer, Individually, was a plaintiff, and in addition to the damages for personal injuries originally prayed for on behalf of the children and on behalf of Joan Palmer, the wife and mother, prayed for medical expenses and property damages on behalf of Willie W. Palmer in the alternative and only if the Court should find that Willie W. Palmer, Individually, was not negligent in the operation of his vehicle involved in the said accident.

Trial before jury was held on March 8 and 9, 1956, resulting in judgment being rendered against defendant, Robert L. Anderson and dismissing the suit as to Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York. From that judgment, Robert L. Anderson has appealed. Plaintiffs have answered the appeal, asking for an increase in the award of damages to four of the six plaintiffs.

Counsel for defendant, Robert L. Anderson, has filed in this Court, exceptions of no right and no cause of action together with an exception of prescription. The question of liability is not before this court as the appellant, Robert L. Anderson, concedes liability for recoverable and provable damages. Accordingly, the only issues before the court are the adequacy or inadequacy of the awards made by the Jury to the plaintiffs and the question of prescription with regard to the damage claim of Willie W. Palmer, Individually. The latter point will be considered first.

The original petition filed on August 12, 1955 was that of Joan Palmer and Willie W. Palmer, as administrator of the estate of his minor children, Shirley Marie, Gertha Lene, Lonnie S. and Willie W. Palmer, Jr. In the supplemental petition filed on February 24, 1956, Willie W. Palmer appeared individually seeking judgment for medical bills and automobile property damage. Clearly, this claim had prescribed. See LSA-C.C. Article 3536.

We next take up the question of quantum.

Dr. Lorio, a qualified pediatrician, testified on behalf of the plaintiff as follows: He examined Shirley Marie Palmer on the morning of August 15, 1954, at his home at about 6:45. At that time he found her to be hurt in the back "in an area somewhere in the area between the 8th thoracic and second lumbar." The pain was sensitive to touch and painful to motion as well; the doctor thought then that she would have to be hospitalized but later decided to care for her at home. He did a complete examination on her together with what emergency treatment was necessary. Further examination was made until she was discharged on September 8. He examined her again on August 16 and found her in practically the same condition as she had been the day before. Another examination on August 17 revealed practically the same thing and an examination on the 18th revealed that her *79 injuries were getting a little bit better. She was further improved on the 20th as she was on the 25th. On September 3rd, he stated she seemed to be free from all defects and she was discharged as of that date. He found her to be suffering with pain for a few days after the injury. He knew nothing about her condition after September 3rd, when he discharged her. All he knew about the source of the pain is what had been told to him, i. e., the child had been in an automobile accident that had just happened shortly before they came to his home.

The doctor also examined Gertha Lene Palmer on the morning of August 15, 1954. It so happened that he had just seen this child about an hour previously at which time she had a temperature of 102. She had been brought to him with an upper respiratory infection which, of course, had nothing to do with the later condition. When he examined her the second time, he found her very excited, "moaning and complaining, groaning," however, examination did not reveal any injuries. He could not tell whether there were any internal injuries at that time, but she did seem to be shocked. He found no outward evidence of bruises and, of course, got a history from the parents of the child having been in the automobile accident. He examined her again on August 16, at which time she still had the temperature, but didn't know that she was hurt particularly as he could not tell on examination. According to his records, the child was three years of age and Shirley Marie, about whom he had previously testified, was five years of age at the time of the accident. He saw Gertha Lene again on the 17th at which time she had no more temperature and again on the 20th at which time his findings were "negative." He discharged her on the 23rd.

The morning of the accident, the doctor also examined Lonnie S. Palmer who was with the rest of the family in the automobile accident. This child was two years of age and it was reported to the doctor that he had been knocked from the back seat and sent flying through the air and landed on his head in the front seat. Upon examination the doctor found the child to be in shock and listless. He had a hematoma on the forehead and pressure on the back was painful. The hematoma and the pain in the back were the only physical evidence that the doctor could find besides the shock. The doctor defined a hematoma as follows: "It's a blood clot —blood oozing from a vein up under the skin and makes a big knot, like a black eye is a hematoma. Any place that gets hit hard enough makes a big blood clot and makes a knot where the blood accumulates under the skin." It is attended by some swelling from the accumulation of blood in a limited area. The doctor said that he did nothing for Lonnie S. Palmer on August 15, except to give him a complete examination. He saw him again on the 16th at which time his findings were the same and he found the same condition to exist on the 17th and 19th.

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

Related

Vastola v. Insurance Co. of North America
204 So. 2d 605 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1967)
Nettles v. Great American Insurance Company
155 So. 2d 87 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1963)
Wm. T. Burton, Inc. v. Reed Roller Bit Company
214 F. Supp. 84 (W.D. Louisiana, 1963)
Roux v. Brickett
149 So. 2d 456 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1963)
Mercier v. Jenkins
121 So. 2d 292 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1960)
Robinson v. Great American Indemnity Co.
120 So. 2d 855 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1960)
Johnson v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
106 So. 2d 22 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1958)
Fabre v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance
99 So. 2d 380 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1957)
Bergeron v. Houston-American Insurance Company
98 So. 2d 723 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1957)
Distefano v. Delta Fire & Casualty Company
98 So. 2d 310 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1957)
Cormier v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co.
94 So. 2d 901 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 So. 2d 77, 1956 La. App. LEXIS 935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-fidelity-casualty-company-of-new-york-lactapp-1956.