Evans v. Kirby

7 Citing cases

  1. Wright v. Jacobs

    228 Miss. 641 (Miss. 1956)   Cited 4 times

    nt acts and omissions which proximately caused the injuries to the appellant and the Court below manifestly erred both in findings of fact and conclusions of law upon this negligence of the appellees and in finding, if the Court did so find, that the appellant was guilty of any contributory negligence which under the Louisiana law would bar his recovery. Holcum v. Perry, 19 La. App. 11, 138 So. 692; Hanno v. Motor Freight Lines, Inc. (La.), 134 So. 317; Warneke v. La. Highway Comm. (La.), 4 So.2d pp. 607, 615; Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., 196 La. 417, 199 So. 377; Stafford v. Nelson Bros., 15 La. App. 1951, 130 So. 234; Herring v. Holicer Gas Co. (La.), 22 So.2d 868; Grasser v. Cunningham (La.), 200 So. 658; Young v. Thompson (La.), 189 So. 487; Williams v. Campbell (La.), 185 So. 683; Dodge v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 214 La. 1031, 33 So.2d 95; Rea v. Dow Motor Co. (La.), 36 So.2d 750; Carter v. LeBlanc Timber Co. (La.), 37 So.2d 471; Lovelace v. Gowan (La.), 52 So.2d 97; Evans v. Kirby (La.), 53 So.2d 412; Washington Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Corp. (La.), 86 So.2d 743; Odom v. Long (La.), 26 So.2d 709; Locke v. Shreveport Laundries, 18 La. App. 169, 137 So. 645; Mickens v. F. Strauss Sons (La.), 28 So.2d 84; Buford v. Combs (La.), 50 So.2d 469, 476; Woodall v. Southern Scrap Material Co. (La.), 40 So.2d 495; Hemel v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. (La.), 31 So.2d 38; Louisiana Power Light Co. v. Saia, 188 La. 358, 177 So. 238; Hicks v. Tilquit (La.), 82 So.2d 100; 32 C.J.S., Sec. 521 p. 219; Secs. 32.241, 32.313, 32.441, Louisiana Revised Statutes.

  2. Dycus v. Sillers

    557 So. 2d 486 (Miss. 1990)   Cited 8 times

    The title [to fish] is in all the inhabitants in the state, and no person can acquire any absolute title, as against all others, except by capture and subjection to his own control. 98 Miss. at 148, 53 So.2d 412. See also State v. Buckingham, 93 Miss. 846, 853, 47 So. 501, 502 (1908); Pierson v. Post, 3 Caines (N.Y.) 175 (1805); State v. Shaw, 67 Ohio St. 157, 65 N.E. 875, 875 (1902).

  3. Guillory v. Farmers Automobile Insurance Company

    120 So. 2d 84 (La. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 1 times

    per hour in the rain, ran into a parked military car without lights, which was olive green in color, and a portion of it extended over the pavement; Carter v. Le Blanc Lumber Co., La. App., 1948, 37 So.2d 471, involved a truck loaded with logs moving at night on the paved highway without tail lights, clearance lights or flags; the truck driver in Capitol Transport Co., Inc. v. Blossman, Inc., 1951, 218 La. 1086, 51 So.2d 795, was found guilty of contributory negligence in parking on the highway for a twelve hour interval a dangerous gasoline truck without flares and without making a special effort to remove it as required by LSA-R.S. 32:241, subdivision B, 32:442 et seq.; in Lovelace v. Gowan, La. App., 1951, 52 So.2d 97, defendant's vehicle, a trailer without truck or lights, and of the type known as a lowboy, having a flat bed no taller than its wheels presented a type of construction difficult to observe when in range of a motorist's headlights; in Evans v. Kirby, La. App., 1951, 53 So.2d 412, there was involved a truck stopped in the highway with no lights whatsoever; facts similar to those in the preceding cases were involved in Columbia Fire Insurance Co. v. Black, La. App., 1952, 61 So.2d 534, where there were unusual weather conditions and the offending vehicle was without lights; and Simms v. Lawrence Bros., La. App., 1954, 72 So.2d 538, a decision by this court, turned upon the angular parking of a truck on the highway without lights by an intoxicated driver." [76 So.2d 551.]

  4. Mershon v. Cutrer

    85 So. 2d 639 (La. Ct. App. 1956)   Cited 6 times

    "Stafford v. Nelson Bros., 1st Cir. 1930, 15 La.App. 51, 130 So. 234 — Driver relieved of negligence in striking an excavating machine by reason of being blinded; "Evans v. Kirby, [La.App.] 1st Cir. 1951, 53 So.2d 412 — In this case, the driver was not found negligent in colliding with an unlighted truck on the road, by reason of the fact that he was blinded by oncoming lights; "Great American Indemnity Co. v. Cormier, 5 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 107 — Again driver relieved of negligence in colliding with unlighted truck, where he was blinded by oncoming lights;

  5. Wing v. A.R. Blossman, Inc.

    79 So. 2d 133 (La. Ct. App. 1955)   Cited 1 times

    "The plaintiff further relies on the doctrine of sudden emergency which holds that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence where he was presented with a sudden emergency. Wayne v. New Orleans Public Service [La.App.], 52 So.2d 55; Evans v. Kirby [La.App.], 53 So.2d 412. "We do not believe that these cases or this doctrine apply in this case because the plaintiff was not confronted with a sudden emergency but was confronted with a traffic hazard and situation which he could have seen had he used ordinary precaution and should have seen if he had been keeping the proper lookout.

  6. King v. Risdon W. E. Holoman Lumber Company

    76 So. 2d 548 (La. Ct. App. 1955)   Cited 12 times
    In KING V. RISDON W. E. HOLOMAN LUMBER CO., [La. App.] 76 So.2d 548, the plaintiff was found negligent in failing to observe the lights of a vehicle disabled in the roadway where the Court found as a fact the lights could have been observed when plaintiff was 500 feet therefrom.

    per hour in the rain, ran into a parked military car without lights, which was olive green in color and a portion of it extended over the pavement; Carter v. Le Blanc Lumber Co., La. App., 1948, 37 So.2d 471, involved a truck loaded with logs moving at night on the paved highway without tail lights, clearance lights or flags; the truck driver in Capitol Transport Co., Inc. v. Blossman, Inc., 1951, 218 La. 1086, 51 So.2d 795, was found guilty of contributory negligence in parking on the highway for a twelve hour interval a dangerous gasoline truck without flares and without making a special effort to remove it as required by LSA-R.S. 32:241, subdivision B, 32:442 et seq.; in Lovelace v. Gowan, La. App., 1951, 52 So.2d 97, defendant's vehicle, a trailer without truck or lights, and of the type known as a low-boy, having a flat bed no taller than its wheels, presented a type of construction difficult to observe when in range of a motorist's headlights; in Evans v. Kirby, La. App., 1951, 53 So.2d 412, there was involved a truck stopped in the highway with no lights whatsoever; facts similar to those in the preceding cases were involved in Columbia Fire Insurance Co. v. Black, La. App., 1952, 61 So.2d 534, where there were unusual weather conditions and the offending vehicle was without lights; and Simms v. Lawrence Bros., La. App., 1954, 72 So.2d 538, a decision by this court, turned upon the angular parking of a truck on the highway without lights, by an intoxicated driver. It is clear to us that none of the foregoing cases present analogous facts such as now confront this court.

  7. Finley v. Guidroz

    58 So. 2d 271 (La. Ct. App. 1952)   Cited 6 times

    The case was duly tried and the learned trial judge with well written reasons rejected the demands of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit at her cost. From this judgment plaintiff has appealed. It is obvious from the foregoing that the plaintiff is pitching her entire case on the hope of showing that this matter falls within the limited line of jurisprudence which constitutes an exception to the general rule that the driver of an automobile must maintain his vehicle at such a speed and under such control that he may be able to bring his vehicle to a halt within a distance illuminated by his headlights, and which exception has been established in the cases of Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., 196 La. 417, 199 So. 377; Dodge v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 214 La. 1031, 39 So.2d 720, Rea v. Dow Motor Co., La. App., 36 So.2d 750, Buford v. Combs, La. App., 50 So.2d 469, and Evans v. Kirby, La. App., 53 So.2d 412. The trial judge has correctly set forth and analyzed the facts in his written reasons for judgment and arrived at the proper conclusion, and we, therefore, quote: