Williams v. Lykes Bros. S. S.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Williams v. Lykes Bros. S. S.

125 So. 153, 12 La. App. 127, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 730

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 16, 1929

DocketNo. 11,591

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 125 So. 153 (Williams v. Lykes Bros. S. S.) 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

Williams v. Lykes Bros. S. S., 125 So. 153, 12 La. App. 127, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 730 (La. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

JANVIER, J.

Plaintiff, a river front laborer, was injured while at work by being run over by an automobile truck owned ■ by defendant and operated by one of its employés within the scope of his employment.

At the time of the injury, plaintiff was manipulating a small hand truck across the roadway which parallels the sheds of the docks on the bank of the river.

Plaintiff claims that he was pushing the hand truck, and defendant’s witnesses contend that he was walking backwards and pulling it. Since it was his right foot which was injured, his counsel claims that he must have been pushing the hand [128]*128truck, as otherwise his left side would have been towards the autotruck and his left leg instead of his right would have received the injury. But if he was pushing the hand truck, manifestly it was in front of him, and it would have been struck by the autotruck. The evidence convinces us that the hand truck was not struck at all. Therefore it necessarily follows that Williams must have been pulling it with his back in the direction in which he was moving. This physical fact would not of itself be sufficient to convince us that he was pulling the truck instead of pushing it, but, in connection with the testimony of defendant’s witnesses, it causes the evidence to preponderate in favor of defendant’s contention. It is quite evident, from a reading of the record, that Williams emerged from between the two other automobile trucks when defendant’s truck was immediately upon him, and that there was therefore no time for its driver to stop, and that the doctrine of the last clear qhance is not applicable.

Defendant’s witnesses state that Williams suddenly backed into the autotruck, and we are convinced that that is what happened.

That his right foot was injured resulted from the fact that that foot was the one which was thrust forward just as the truck passed.

Only a question of fact is involved, and we cannot say that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in its finding that defendant was not liable. On the contrary, the evidence well convinces us that the fault lay entirely with plaintiff himself.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

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

JANVIER, J.

Plaintiff, a river front laborer, was injured while at work by being run over by an automobile truck owned ■ by defendant and operated by one of its employés within the scope of his employment.

At the time of the injury, plaintiff was manipulating a small hand truck across the roadway which parallels the sheds of the docks on the bank of the river.

Plaintiff claims that he was pushing the hand truck, and defendant’s witnesses contend that he was walking backwards and pulling it. Since it was his right foot which was injured, his counsel claims that he must have been pushing the hand [128]*128truck, as otherwise his left side would have been towards the autotruck and his left leg instead of his right would have received the injury. But if he was pushing the hand truck, manifestly it was in front of him, and it would have been struck by the autotruck. The evidence convinces us that the hand truck was not struck at all. Therefore it necessarily follows that Williams must have been pulling it with his back in the direction in which he was moving. This physical fact would not of itself be sufficient to convince us that he was pulling the truck instead of pushing it, but, in connection with the testimony of defendant’s witnesses, it causes the evidence to preponderate in favor of defendant’s contention. It is quite evident, from a reading of the record, that Williams emerged from between the two other automobile trucks when defendant’s truck was immediately upon him, and that there was therefore no time for its driver to stop, and that the doctrine of the last clear qhance is not applicable.

Defendant’s witnesses state that Williams suddenly backed into the autotruck, and we are convinced that that is what happened.

That his right foot was injured resulted from the fact that that foot was the one which was thrust forward just as the truck passed.

Only a question of fact is involved, and we cannot say that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in its finding that defendant was not liable. On the contrary, the evidence well convinces us that the fault lay entirely with plaintiff himself.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 So. 153, 12 La. App. 127, 1929 La. App. LEXIS 730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-lykes-bros-s-s-lactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack