TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Reed v. Sievers

Reed v. Sievers, 83 So. 685 (La. 1920)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 5, 1920
Docket
No. 23595
Judges
Provosty
Citations
83 So. 685146 La. 3911920 La. LEXIS 1748
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.) 1. Municipal corporations 99(4) — $1,500 for death op AGED NEGRO SUSTAINED. In an action by the wife for the death of an aged colored laborer, still vigorous and having a prospect of some years of usefulness, a judgment, fixing damages at $1,500, sustained.
Summary
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Fred D. King, Judge. Action by Nellie Reed against James Sie-vers. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Provosty

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PROVOSTY, J.

[1] As plaintiff’s husband, an aged colored laborer, but vigorous still and having a prospect of some years of usefulness- yet, was crossing the riverside roadway of St. Charles avenue, he was struck and instantly killed by a Ford truck owned and driven by defendant. The street lights had momentarily gone out; and the night was dark. Defendant’s learned counsel would have it' that the old man was not at the crossing; but the evidence does not necessarily show this. While the witnesses differ as to the number of feet beyond the crossing the truck was found to have come to a stop and the body to be lying, only one of them names the distance greater than that to which a man might well be thrown by the impact of a fast-moving automobile. The old man was on his way home after his day’s work, and had to follow on the other side of St. Charles avenue the same street he had come along, so that the probability is that he was crossing at the crossing. A large automobile going in the same direction as the truck and much faster had just passed to the right. The old man had set out to cross as soon as it had gone by. Defendant and the other occupant of the driver’s seat of the truck say that they did not see him until the truck was right upon him, within one step. But they should have seen him sooner, and necessarily would have done so if they had been keeping a proper lookout ahead, for he was crossing from right to left of the driver of the truck, and was struck by the left side lamp, and when he was near the curb of the neutral ground, so that he had nearly got by, and no suggestion is made that he was moving fast. He was old and, doubtless, more or less tired after his day’s work, and was carrying a basket and an agate iron can. The time which he must necessarily have taken to travel the distance from the curb on one side of the street to near the curb on the other side afforded the driver of the truck an ample opportunity to see him in time to have avoided the acci-1 dent. It is not the case of a person coming suddenly from behind some obstruction. When the old man started across, the swiftly moving automobile ahead of the truck must have been some distance on its way, unless he was watching his chance to cross and sprang with youthlike promptness as soon as the automobile had passed, which is not probable, and the automobile must have been far *393 on its way by the time be bad reached tbe point where tbe truck came upon him.

[2] Tbe learned trial judge found against defendant, and fixed tbe damages at $1,500.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1925: 11927: 11931: 21933: 119252026peak 1931 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gouzien v. Feraci2 La. App. 115 (1925)
  2. Guillory v. United Gas Public Service Co.148 So. 274 (La. Ct. App. 1933)
  3. Santos v. Duvic133 So. 399 (La. Ct. App. 1931)
  4. Johnson v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co.5 La. App. 649 (1927)
  5. Cazeaux v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.134 So. 121 (La. Ct. App. 1931) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Guillory v. United Gas Public Service Co.148 So. 274 (La. Ct. App. 1933)
  2. Cazeaux v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.134 So. 121 (La. Ct. App. 1931) · Dissent
  3. Santos v. Duvic133 So. 399 (La. Ct. App. 1931)
  4. Johnson v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co.5 La. App. 649 (1927)
  5. Gouzien v. Feraci2 La. App. 115 (1925)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list