Case ID: so2d_338/html/0744-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WATSON, Judge. HOOD, Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lee Edward DEMERY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILMAR PLYWOOD, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 5511.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
    Sept. 29, 1976.
    Lunn, Irion, Switzer, Johnson & Salley by James B. Gardner, Shreveport, for defendant-appellant.
    Albin A. Provosty, Alexandria, for defendant-appellee.
    Andrew S. Vallien, Natchitoches, for plaintiff-appellee.
    Before HOOD, CULPEPPER, MILLER, WATSON and PETERS, JJ.
   WATSON, Judge.

This is a companion case to our docket # 5510, Demery et al. v. Wilmar Plywood, Inc., La.App., 338 So.2d 741. Defendant, Wilmar Plywood, Inc., has appealed from an award of $575 in damages to plaintiff, Lee Edward Demery, and from the dismissal of its third party demand against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. The award of damages shows no abuse of discretion by the trial court. For the further reasons assigned in # 5510, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to defendant-appellant, Wilmar Plywood, Inc.

AFFIRMED.

HOOD, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.

PETERS, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by HOOD, J.

HOOD, Judge

(Dissenting).

I feel that the trial court erred in dismissing the third party demand of Wilmar Plywood against the Texas and Pacific Railway Company. In my opinion, the Railway Company was negligent in allowing the natural drain across its property to become obstructed, that its negligence in that respect contributed to plaintiff’s damages, and that Wilmar thus is entitled to contribution from the Railway Company.

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.