Schultz v. Wray Ford, Inc.

198 So. 2d 554, 1967 La. App. LEXIS 5377
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedApril 19, 1967
DocketNo. 10794
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 198 So. 2d 554 (Schultz v. Wray Ford, Inc.) 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
Schultz v. Wray Ford, Inc., 198 So. 2d 554, 1967 La. App. LEXIS 5377 (La. Ct. App. 1967).

Opinion

GLADNEY, Judge.

This action is for the recovery of damages arising from an automobile collision which occurred as plaintiff Joseph Schultz was attempting to turn right into a private driveway when the vehicle he was driving was struck from the rear by a station wagon owned by Wray Ford, Inc. and driven by Ira Jordan. From a judgment rejecting their demands plaintiffs have appealed.

The case presents for resolution the question of whether plaintiffs have proven their case by a preponderance of the evidence. The two drivers were the only eyewitnesses to the accident.

Schultz testfied that while driving south on Market Street in Shreveport on March 16, 1964 at a rate of speed of approximately 25 miles per hour he approached the traffic bridge over Cross Bayou. It was his intention when he reached the south end of the bridge to make a right turn into a driveway leading to the office of the Southwestern Iron Corporation. Schultz said that as he neared the driveway he was traveling in the outside or right of the two southbound traffic lanes, but for the purpose of making a proper turn around the south end bridge abutment, he drove his car slightly to the left before executing the turning movement to the right. Prior to this maneuver he testified he had turned on his right turn indicator. Jordan gave a different version of the cause of the accident, testifying that Schultz was driving in the left or inside traffic lane and that when he began to make his right turn, without warning or indication thereof, he turned from the left traffic lane directly across the path of the station [555]*555wagon and that a collision between the two vehicles could not have been avoided.

Plaintiffs failed to establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence, and, finding no error in the judgment complained of, it is affirmed at appellants’ cost.

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

Related

United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Fiffie
211 So. 2d 690 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1968)
Schultz v. Wray Ford, Inc.
200 So. 2d 664 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 So. 2d 554, 1967 La. App. LEXIS 5377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schultz-v-wray-ford-inc-lactapp-1967.