Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
American Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Mary M. Wainwright, Ind. Etc., and Motors Insurancecorporation, Intervenor, Appellees
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 284 F.2d 942
Dec. 19, 1960, Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1961
Howard B. Gist, Jr., Alexandria, La., Gist, Murchison & Gist, Alexandria, La., for appellant.
Leonard Fuhrer, Guy E. Humphries, Jr., Gravel, Humphries, Sheffield & Fuhrer, Alexandria, La., for plaintiff-Appellee.
William P. Polk, Polk, Foote & Neblett, Alexandria, La., for intervenor-appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from a judgment on a jury verdict allowing recovery for injuries sustained in an automobile collision in Alexandria, Louisiana. The accident occurred on an east-west expressway, the doublt one-way lanes of which were separated by a wide dished-out, grass-covered neutral strip. The defendant was driving in an easterly direction. A truck came not onto the paved highway form a lane on her right. When for the first time she discovered the truck then almost in her path and either struck the truck or feared that she might, the defendant swerved her car to the left. It took out through the soft neutral ground for over 180 feet and rammed into the plaintiff's car then proceeding in a westerly direction on the westbound lanes. The questions, typical of such direct action litigation, L.R.S. 22:655, were negligence of defendant, contributory negligence of plaintiff, and the amount of damages allowed. There is no significant question of Louisiana law as the jury was entitled to infer that defendant failed either to keep a proper lookout or keep her car under reasonable control before and after the sudden appearance of the third vehicle. There our function and authority ends. Commercial Credit Corp. v. Pepper, 5 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 71; Marsh v. Illinois Central R. Co., 5 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 498. The attack on damages is likewise insufficient to overcome the jury verdict. Whiteman v. Pitrie, 5 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 914.
Affirmed.