Ulmer v. Travelers Insurance Company

12 Citing cases

  1. Nivens v. Signal Oil Gas Co., Inc

    520 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1975)   Cited 15 times

    Injuries similar to those sustained by Nivens have been held compensable under Louisiana law. See Janice v. Whitley, 111 So.2d 852 (La.App. 1959) (mild cerebral concussion causing slight headaches for four months); Ulmer v. Travelers Ins. Co., 156 So.2d 98 (La.App. 1963) (contusion and small hematoma); Augello v. Call, 210 So.2d 129 (La.App. 1968) (slight blow to head and anxiety reaction); Strother v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 238 So.2d 774 (La.App. 1970) (contusion of forehead); Dickson v. Zurich Ins. Co., 261 So.2d 350 (La.App. 1972) (bump on head). See also federal cases where personal injury claims, made in good faith, have withstood motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdictional amount, e. g., Mitchell v. Great Am. Indem. Co., 87 F. Supp. 961 (W.D.La. 1950) (hematoma on head and strained shoulder); Lee v. Kisen, 475 F.2d 1251 (CA5, 1973) (smashed finger with bone chip not uniting).

  2. Robert v. Albarado

    509 So. 2d 575 (La. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 4 times

    "A left-turning motorist cannot discharge his burden of ascertaining whether the turn can be made in safety by making his observation some distance from the intersection, but he is required to look to his rear immediately before attempting the turn. Ulmer v. Travelers Insurance Company, 156 So.2d 98 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1963). The physical facts clearly show that Mrs. Whittington was already in the passing lane and overtaking the plaintiff at the time he commenced his turn.

  3. Touchette v. Braud

    382 So. 2d 272 (La. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 1 times

    The defendant should have seen the turning vehicle in enough time to stop, regardless of whether the plaintiff had signalled the turn. Plaintiff also cites the case of Ulmer v. Travelers Insurance Company, 156 So.2d 98 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1963), wherein a plaintiff's failure to look to the rear immediately before turning was held to be contributory negligence, even though the plaintiff's car was struck just before he cleared the highway. That case is, however, distinguishable from the present case since in Ulmer, supra, the highway on which the vehicles were travelling had a speed limit of 60 miles per hour, and the defendant admitted to travelling at a speed of approximately 40 miles per hour.

  4. Morgan v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty

    317 So. 2d 7 (La. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 14 times

    Caution must be exercised in the light of all circumstances, which includes the nearness, speed and direction of other vehicles. This includes making a proper observation to the rear for passing traffic just prior to the beginning of the left turn. Scrantz v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 281 So.2d 820 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1973); Ulmerv. Travelers Insurance Company, 156 So.2d 98 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1963). The facts are clear from the record that here the conditions and circumstances were ideal for observation rearward — the plaintiff had large; outside mirrors on both sides of his truck; the road was straight, level and clear of any obstruction for a substantial distance; there were no other vehicles in close proximity; the weather conditions were good. The plaintiff failed to observe the Adams car which we know was behind him somewhere.

  5. McIntosh v. Lewis

    303 So. 2d 190 (La. Ct. App. 1974)

    On appeal, defendants concede the negligence of Lewis; however, they seek to bar plaintiff's recovery contending McIntosh was guilty of contributory negligence. Defendants assert, citing American Road Ins. v. Brown, 269 So.2d 539 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1972); Scrantz v. Aetna, 281 So.2d 820 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1973), and Ulmer v. Travelers, 156 So.2d 98 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1963), that the plaintiff had a duty not to negotiate a left turn until he had ascertained that he could do so in safety while being alert to ontaking traffic. Defendants point to the testimony of the plaintiff that despite the fact that he had noticed defendant's vehicle approaching from the rear, plaintiff failed to look again into his rear-view mirror immediately prior to initiating the turn.

  6. Wilson v. Jones

    294 So. 2d 231 (La. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 1 times

    The trial court erred in holding plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence in this instance. The cases of Scrantz v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, La.App., 281 So.2d 820; Ulmer v. Travelers Insurance Company, La.App., 156 So.2d 98, and Johnson v. Wilson, 239 La. 390, 118 So.2d 450, are clearly distinguishable on the facts from instant case. None of these cited cases involve an intersection of roads or streets that cross each other and controlled by a red, amber and green traffic light.

  7. Scrantz v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co.

    281 So. 2d 820 (La. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 9 times

    A left-turning motorist cannot discharge his burden of ascertaining whether the turn can be made in safety by making his observation some distance from the intersection, but he is required to look to his rear immediately before attempting the turn. Ulmer v. Travelers Insurance Company, 156 So.2d 98 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1963). The physical facts clearly show that Mrs. Whittington was already in the passing lane and overtaking the plaintiff at the time he commenced his turn.

  8. Motors Insurance Corporation v. Howell

    266 So. 2d 240 (La. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 9 times

    Appellants cite a long line of cases in which left-turning motorists have been held negligent under similar circumstances. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co. v. Southern Farm Bur. Cas. Co., 228 So.2d 88 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1969); Ulmer v. Travelers Insurance Company, 156 So.2d 98 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1963); Smith v. Massachusetts Bonding And Insurance Co., 130 So.2d 153 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1961). Appellees cite a long line of cases in which left-turning motorists have been held to be free of negligence in a like situation.

  9. Fontenot v. Pan American Fire Casualty Company

    209 So. 2d 105 (La. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 24 times
    In Fontenot v. Pan American Fire Casualty Company, 209 So.2d 105 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1963), writ refused, 252 La. 460, 211 So.2d 328 (1968), the negligence of the minor child driving the vehicle involved was imputed to the father so as to bar his recovery individually for special damages, even as to those damages incurred as a result of injuries to children not negligently causing the accident.

    In Barras v. Fidelity Casualty Company of New York, 152 So.2d 74 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1963) we held the junction of a parish shell road with a hard surfaced, heavily traveled state highway was an intersection. Ulmer v. Travelers Insurance Company, 156 So.2d 98 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1963) involved the junction of a state highway, 24 feet wide, on which the speed limit was 60 mph, with a blacktopped intersecting street in a "semi-residential" area near Baton Rouge. The court held this was an intersection.

  10. Talley v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co.

    181 So. 2d 784 (La. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 13 times
    In Talley v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 181 So.2d 784 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1965) a male plaintiff received $10,000.

    It is true that speculation, conjecture, mere possibility, and even unsupported probability are not sufficient to support a judgment. Crier v. Marquette Casualty Co., La.App., 159 So.2d 26; Ulmer v. Travelers Insurance Co., La.App., 156 So.2d 98; Smith v. Massachusetts Bonding Insurance Co., La.App., 130 So.2d 153; Moore v. Employers Liability Assur. Co., La.App., 124 So.2d 804; Wilson v. Standard Accident Insurance Co., La.App., 92 So.2d 781; Henderson v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., La.App., 80 So.2d 438; Pinkney v. Cahn Inv. Co., La.App., 32 So.2d 345. However, when one has suffered multiple injuries as Plaintiff did, and who had to undergo the oral and chest surgery described above, it is more probable than not, because of his weakened condition, that he became a ready prey to the subsequent attack of hemoptysis.