Case Name: REGGIE v. KARRE
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1932-02-08
Citations: 19 La. App. 477
Docket Number: No. 911
Parties: REGGIE v. KARRE
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 477–482

Head Matter:
No. 911
First Circuit
REGGIE v. KARRE
(February 8, 1932. Opinion and Decree.)
(March 8, 1932. Rehearing Refused.)
Percy T. Ogden, of Crowley, attorney for plaintiff, appellee.
Milner & Porteous, of New Orleans, and Emile A. Carmouche, of Crowley, attorneys for defendant, appellant.

Opinion:
MOUTON, J.
Mrs. Salim Karre, a resident of Crowley, on December 16, 1930, left her home in her Dodge car for an intended trip to Lafayette, La., with the following named ladies as her invitees or guests: Mrs. 'Fred Reggie, the plaintiff herein, Mrs. Elizabeth Reggie, Mrs. Jasmine Karre, widow of Pete Karre, and Mrs. Adele Reggie, wife of B. M. Zwan.
On their way to Lafayette, about five miles east of Crowley, the car was. overturned in a ditch, resulting in an accident in which Mrs. Karre's four guests were all injured. Mrs. Salim Karre, wife of defendant, was driving the auto when the accident occurred.
Separate suits in damages, for different amounts were brought against defendant I by these four injured parties.
The suits, were not consolidated for trial but were tried together, and involve the same issues except as to the amounts claimed in damages.
The opinion rendered in this case will dispose of the four suits, but different and separate decrees will be entered in each case in reference to the amount of damages claimed.
Defendant filed exceptions in the four cases of want of protest on the part of plaintiff when the accident happened, and of no right or cause of action.
The allegations of the petition in this case indicate that the accident was unexpected and so sudden that the guests did not realize their perilous situation in time to enter a protest.
When the driver of an auto is driving at an excessive rate of speed or is otherwise negligent to the knowledge of the guest who fails to protest, the latter is guilty of contributory negligence. Pipes v. Gallman, 18 La. App. 434, 173 La. 158, 136 So. 302. Such a defense is more properly disposed of with the merits.
The other exception is one of no right or cause of action.
In the petition, it is alleged that, in attempting to pass ahead of another car going in the same direction, Mrs. Salim Karre increased her speed, and in so doing lost control of her auto, causing it to zigzag across the highway; that she continued to press her foot on the accelerator, instead of applying it to. the brakes, striking the car in front, turning her auto across the highway into the ditch, where the parties were injured. It is also alleged that at the time the highway was free of traffic except the auto ahead, with no pedestrian in sight; that on the surface of the . road there was more or less loose gravel; that after Mrs. Salim Karre lost control of her car, she continued to press violently on the accelerator, r,hus increasing its speed to at least 50 or 55 miles an hour; and that this speed under the alleged existing conditions was excessive, dangerous, careless and negligent, and in consequence thereof the auto left the roadway and tumbled into the ditch.
The facts so alleged, with the averment that the speed at which Mrs. Karre was traveling was excessive, careless and negligent, causing the auto to turn over, and which resulted in the damages claimed, are sufficient in law to set out a cause or right of action.
Counsel for defendant refer to the allegation where plaintiff, among her other averments, said: "That upon the surface of said public highway there was more or less gravel." This averment cannot be converted into an allegation that the accident was due to the loose gravel on the roadway so as to destroy the other allegations, including the assertion that the accident was the result of the careless and negligent driving of Mrs. Salim Karre.
The contentions urged by counsel for defendant in support of the exceptions present issues which properly belong to the merits, where they were correctly relegated for trial by the district judge.