Coleman v. Fire Ins. Patrol
Citations
- 122 La. 626
- 48 So. 130
- 1908 La. LEXIS 505
Syllabus
<p>1. Charities (§ 45*) — Eire Insurance Patrol — Negligence—Liabilities.</p> <p>Defendant, an association organized under Act No. 115, p. 186. of 1902, composed of insurance companies doing business in New Orleans, and having authority to maintain a corps of men and suitable apparatus to save life and property at and after fires, and which is supported by assessments levied on all persons, natural or artificial, engaged in the fire insurance business in said city, is a private association, whose, main purpose, as appears from a reasonable construction of the law under which it is established, is to minimize the losses and promote the pecuniary interests of its members, and is neither a public corporation nor a public charity, and it is liable in damages for injuries sustained by a member of the fire department, engaged in the discharge of his duties, as the result of the negligence of its servants in driving one of its vehicles through the streets of the city; and this, notwithstanding that the statute referred to includes the saving of life among the purposes for which such associations may be established, and prohibits them from charging for their services or from distinguishing between insured and uninsured property.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Charities, Cent. Dig. § 103; Dec. Dig. § 45.*]</p> <p>2. Municipal Corporations (§ 705*) — Use oe Streets — Right of Way — Fire Department-Insurance Patrol.</p> <p>Construing Act No. 83, p. 114, of 1894, granting the right of way through the streets of New Orleans to the fire department, with Act No. 115, p. 186, of 1902, granting a similar right to the fire insurance patrol, it is clear that whilst, as between the patrol and the public, such right is vested in the patrol, the right granted to the fire department is paramount to, and is wholly unaffected by, that granted to the patrol.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1515; Dec. Dig. § 705.*]</p> <p>Provosty, J., d
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that the Board considered Mr. Grant’s admission that he was in an accident when evaluating whether he failed to report the collision
- finding that “Mr. Grant admitted to TIGTA agents that he consumed several alcoholic beverages on a lunch break during work hours in March 2009 while wearing his Service-issued firearm.”
- finding inconsistencies between Mr. Grant’s statements in his May 3, 2010 affidavit and his interview on the same day supported the finding of lack of candor
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Monroe, Provosty
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.