Ulmer v. Travelers Insurance Company

16 Citing cases

  1. 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.

  2. Normand v. American Home Assurance Company

    171 So. 2d 804 (La. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 15 times

    In Barras v. Fidelity Casualty Company of New York, La. App. 3 Cir., 152 So.2d 74, we considered the junction of a parish shell road with a hard surfaced, heavily traveled state highway to be an "intersection," as that term is used in LSA-R.S. 32:233 (now LSA-R.S. 32:76). And in Ulmer v. Travelers Insurance Company, La. App. 1 Cir., 156 So.2d 98, it was held that the junction of a side street with a state highway was an "intersection," within the meaning of that statute. In that case the court pointed out that the speed limit on the highway was 60 miles per hour, that the side street was "quite obscure to vision," that it "was not visibly a very significant street," and that although it "may be somewhat obscure at a distance, it is a blacktopped intersecting street that leads to a residential section and comes squarely under the prohibitory provision as interpreted by a long line of jurisprudence."

  3. 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).

  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. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Duet

    177 So. 2d 302 (La. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 8 times
    In United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Duet, La. App., 177 So.2d 302, we held, in line with established jurisprudence, that a T-intersection between a State Highway and a narrow dead-end lane is not an intersection within the meaning of the quoted section of the Highway Regulatory Act.

    The record indicates that the width of La. Highway No. 308 was approximately 22 feet and that both the State Highway and Duet Lane were blacktopped. Counsel for appellants argues that the intersection of Duet Lane and State Highway No. 308 was in fact an intersection within the meaning of LSA-R.S. 32:76 and cites the case of Ulmer v. Travelers Insurance Company, La.App., 156 So.2d 98, which was considered by this Court in 1963. The accident which was the subject of the litigation in that case occurred at the intersection of Harding Boulevard and Nottingham Street in the Parish of East Baton Rouge.

  9. Locicero v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.

    399 So. 2d 712 (La. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 4 times

    This case does not involve assessment of loss of future wages, as do two cases cited as authority by State Farm. See Watson v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Company, 339 So.2d 480 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1976), writ denied, 341 So.2d 1124 (La. 1977); Reeves v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 327 So.2d 671 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1976), writ denied, 330 So.2d 311 (La. 1976). Nor does it involve speculation upon damages which have not yet arisen, as in another case cited as authority by State Farm. See Ulmer v. Travelers Insurance Company, 156 So.2d 98 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1963). Rather, in the instant case, the record shows that plaintiff's lifestyle was detrimentally altered and that he was forced to forego various activities, including participation in try-outs for a college football team. Loss of social and recreational activities may properly be considered as one factor in setting an award of general damages.

  10. 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.