Case ID: la-app_6/html/0864-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WESTBRFIELD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 10,906
    Orleans
    FLICK v. NEW ORLEANS ITEM-TRIBUNE
    (June 20, 1927. Opinion and Decree.)
    (June 20, 1927. Rehearing Refused.)
    (July 5, 1927. Second Petition, for Rehearing not Considered.)
    
      (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
    1. Louisiana Digest — Automobiles—Par. 4, 3.
    In an intersectional collision, 'between a Ford automobile and a motor truck, where the front end of the Ford strikes the rear end of the truck, a presumption of negligence on the ¡part of the Ford driver arises, and this presumption amounts to proof, when it further appears that the truck had the right of way and the driver of the Ford failed to look in the direction of the truck, before entering the intersection, or looking, did not see the truck until it struck his Ford.
    Appeal from First City Court, Sec. “A.” Hon. W. Alexander Bahns, Judge.
    Action by Mrs. Jacob Flick against New Orleans Item-Tribune.
    There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed.
    Judgmbnt affirmed.
    John J. Wingrave, of New Orleans, attorney for plaintiff, appellee.
    Thos. J. Dobbins, of New Orleans, attorney for defendant, appellant.
   WESTBRFIELD, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment denying her claim for damages to her Ford automobile, resulting from an intersectional collision with a motor truck, operated by defendant.

We believe, with the trial judge, that the accident was caused by plaintiff’s fault. Her car, at the time of the collision, was being driven by her son, who was ¡proceeding up North Prieur Street toward Canal Street. The truck of defendant was travelling out St. Philip Street toward the river. The cars collided in the intersection. The front end of the Ford struck the truck, near its rear end, which, in itself, is suggestive of fault. In addition the driver of the Ford says that he did not see the truck until it struck him, indicating a failure to look, involving further probability of negligence, and, finally, the truck which was approaching from plaintiff’s right, had the right of way under the city ordinance, which is in evidence.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

ON APPLICATION FOR. REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

The trial court rendered judgment, originally, for defendant, and, subsequently, after granting a new trial, for plaintiff.

As our opinion indicates, we concluded the court was right in the first instance.

In preparing our decree, we, inadvertantly affirmed the judgment appealed from, which, of course, was the last judgment, with which we were not in accord.

Under the circumstances! our former decree will be amended so as to read “the judgment appealed from is reversed and it is now ordered that there be judgment for defendant dismissing plaintiff’s demand at her cost in both courts.