Smith v. Kennedy

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Smith v. Kennedy

181 So. 678, 1938 La. App. LEXIS 281

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 1, 1938

DocketNo. 5617.

StatusPublished

This text of 181 So. 678 (Smith v. Kennedy) 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

Smith v. Kennedy, 181 So. 678, 1938 La. App. LEXIS 281 (La. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

This suit and that of Trippe Motors, Incorporated, v. J. P. Kennedy and Sun Indemnity Company, 181 So. 676, No. 5602, on the docket of this court, decided this day, were consolidated below and here for trial. Plaintiff herein sues to recover damages resulting from personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him in the same accident around which liability vel non revolved in said suit No. 5602. To recover, it was necessary that he establish negligence on the part of defendant or his truck driver as the proximate cause of the accident. In our opinion, he failed to do this. and, as a consequence, his action, for this if for no other reason, must fall.

The lower court rejected plaintiff’s demands on the ground that he had not proven to that degree legally required of him that the disability and suffering of which he now complains have any causal con *679 nection with or were to any extent super-induced by the collision between the car he was driving and defendant’s truck.

For the reasons assigned by us in said suit No. 5602, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with costs.

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

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

This suit and that of Trippe Motors, Incorporated, v. J. P. Kennedy and Sun Indemnity Company, 181 So. 676, No. 5602, on the docket of this court, decided this day, were consolidated below and here for trial. Plaintiff herein sues to recover damages resulting from personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him in the same accident around which liability vel non revolved in said suit No. 5602. To recover, it was necessary that he establish negligence on the part of defendant or his truck driver as the proximate cause of the accident. In our opinion, he failed to do this. and, as a consequence, his action, for this if for no other reason, must fall.

The lower court rejected plaintiff’s demands on the ground that he had not proven to that degree legally required of him that the disability and suffering of which he now complains have any causal con *679 nection with or were to any extent super-induced by the collision between the car he was driving and defendant’s truck.

For the reasons assigned by us in said suit No. 5602, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 So. 678, 1938 La. App. LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-kennedy-lactapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack