When an incorporeal right is partially assigned, however, it is enforceable by both the assignor and assignee. La. Code Civ. P. 698(1); see also Soileau v. LaFosse, 558 So.2d 294, 296-97 (La. Ct. App. 1990). The Court looks to substantive Louisiana law in order to determine the real parties in interest in this case.
Applying this standard, we cannot agree with plaintiff's contention, for even those aggrieved by the actions of others have a duty to mitigate or ameliorate damages. Soileau v. LaFosse, 558 So.2d 294 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1990). The doctrine of unavoidable consequences bars recovery of those damages which occurred after the initial injury and which might have been averted by reasonable conduct on the part of the plaintiff.
Further, such a driver is required to keep a lookout for vehicles upon the highway and to desist from entering until it is apparent to a reasonable prudent person that such can be done in safety. Soileau v. LaFosse , 558 So.2d 294 (La.App. 3d Cir.1990) ; Wells v. Allstate Insurance Co. , 510 So.2d 763 (La.App. 1st Cir.,) writ denied, 514 So.2d 463 (La.1987) ; Hardee v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. , 445 So.2d 771 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984). In Maylen v. Great West Casualty Company, 15–484, (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/4/15), 178 So.3d 302, another panel of our court found that because the facts were not in dispute in that case, summary judgment was appropriate.
(Emphasis added.) Corvers v. Acme Truck Lines, 95-925 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/16/96), 673 So.2d 1088, 1090 (citing Soileau v. LaFosse, 558 So.2d 294 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1990)). Defendants argue that the trial court erred by not finding that Plaintiffs conduct contributed to the accident in question.
A driver entering the highway has a primary or high duty to avoid a collision; this duty becomes more onerous as the hazards increase and requires a motorist to use every reasonable means available to ascertain that his entry onto the highway may be made in safety, and such a driver is required to keep a lookout for vehicles on the highway and desist from entering until it is apparent to a reasonably prudent person that such can be done in safety. Soileau v. LaFosse, 558 So.2d 294 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1990). The burden of proving circumstances, such as speed, which caused or contributed to the accident is on the driver intruding into a favored street in violation of LSA-R.S. 32:124.
The standard is that of a reasonable man under like circumstances. Soileau v. LaFosse, 558 So.2d 294 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1990). An accident victim is obligated to exercise reasonable diligence and ordinary care to minimize his damages after the injury has been inflicted.
Further, such a driver is required to keep a lookout for vehicles upon the highway and to desist from entering until it is apparent to a reasonably prudent person that such can be done in safety. Soileau v. LaFosse, 558 So.2d 294 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1990); Wells v. Allstate Insurance Co., 510 So.2d 763 (La.App. 1st Cir.) writ denied, 514 So.2d 463 (La. 1987); Hardee v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 445 So.2d 771 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1984). Jowers admitted at trial that he never saw either the Loveday or the Kidder vehicle.