Douglas v. Faust
Citations
- 112 La. 1050
- 36 So. 850
- 1904 La. LEXIS 509
Syllabus
<p>NEGLIGENCE — COLLISION IN STREET — INJURY TO PEDESTRIAN.</p> <p>1. The issues between plaintiff and defendant are mainly of facts.</p> <p>Plaintiff was walking from one side of the street to the other, at or near the intersection of Frenchman and Boyal streets.</p> <p>Plaintiff collided with the head of the mule pulling the wagon, or with the wheel on the side of the wagon.</p> <p>There is testimony to sustain each theory.</p> <p>Defendant’s driver did not see plaintiff, who thus stepped in front of the mule or against the side of the wagon, and plaintiff does not know exactly how the accident occurred.</p> <p>Plaintiff says he looked up and did not see the wagon. While a plaintiff cannot be held to the exercise of unusual prudence, and he is not bound to “stop, look, and listen” for a street car in crossing at a street, when, none the less, he testifies that he did “stop, look, and listen,” and it is manifest that he did not “stop, look, and listen,” the witness, under the rule of evidence, weakens the weight of his other testimony.</p> <p>The plaintiff in his own behalf is the only witness who testifies directly in support of the allegation of his petition.</p> <p>One of the plaintiff’s two witnesses testified that the driver was looking- to the front all the time.</p> <p>“Q. Could any driver have avoided an accident of this kind in the way this man walked into this mule; could any have avoided it?” In answer to this the witness said: “Well, I</p> <p>don’t know; he couldn’t tell whether he was going to get on the track or not.”</p> <p>The other witness for plaintiff corroborates the foregoing, except that he testifies that plaintiff came in collision with the wheel first on the side of the wagon.</p> <p>This is the testimony for plaintiff. Two witnesses for defendant, who saw the accident, corroborate the statement that plaintiff came in collision with the side of the wagon.</p> <p>The driver for defendant testified that after the accident he slackened his gait
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “The court must have personal jurisdiction over each defendant and as to each asserted claim.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Breaux, 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.