Case Name: SALTER BUS LINES, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Willard A. LEITCH, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendants and Appellees
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1975-10-31
Citations: 322 So. 2d 793
Docket Number: No. 5144
Parties: SALTER BUS LINES, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Willard A. LEITCH, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendants and Appellees.
Judges: Before HOOD, CULPEPPER, MILLER, DOMENGEAUX and WATSON, JJ-
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 322
Pages: 793–798

Head Matter:
SALTER BUS LINES, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Willard A. LEITCH, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendants and Appellees.
No. 5144.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Oct. 31, 1975.
Gold, Hall, Hammill & Little by James D. Davis, Alexandria, and Holloway, Baker, Culpepper & Brunson by Herman A. Cas-tete, Jonesboro, for plaintiff-appellant.
Gist, Methvin & Trimble by Alonzo P. Wilson, Gravel, Roy & Burnes by J. Michael Small, Alexandria, for defendants-appellees.
Before HOOD, CULPEPPER, MILLER, DOMENGEAUX and WATSON, JJ-

Opinion:
CULPEPPER, Judge.
This case was consolidated for trial and appeal with Martha N. Robinson et al. v. Salter Bus Lines, Inc., et al., La.App., 322 So.2d 799, and Gary A. Leitch v. Salter Bus Lines, Inc., La.App., 322 So.2d 799, in which separate decisions are being rendered by us this date. These three companion cases arise out of an intersectional collision between a bus owned by Salter Bus Lines, Inc., being driven by Sim T. LaCroix, and a Pontiac automobile owned by Willard A. Leitch and being operated by his then 17 year old minor son, Gary A. Leitch. The Robinsons were passengers in the bus. The district judge held the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the bus driver. Judgments were rendered in the three cases accordingly. All parties cast have appealed.
The accident occurred in Alexandria, Louisiana at the T-intersection of U. S. Highway 71, which runs generally north and south,-with Upper Third Street, which runs from the highway toward the east. It was during hours of darkness and the weather was clear.
The bus driver testified that he was proceeding on Highway 71 in a southerly direction intending to turn left on Upper Third Street. As he drove into the left turning lane on the highway, he saw the Leitch automobile on Highway 71 approaching the intersection from the south. He says that when he first saw the automobile, it was near the crest of a railroad overpass, which various witnesses testified is anywhere from 325 to 1100 feet south of the intersection. The bus driver testified he assumed he had time to make his left turn safely into Upper Third Street. He slowed down, but did not stop. Before clearing the intersection, the right rear portion of his bus was struck by the Leitch automobile, the point of impact being in the right side of the north bound lane of travel of Highway 71.
Young Leitch testified that as he came over the crest of the overpass he was going about 45 miles per hour. He saw the bus entering the left turn lane on Highway 71. The bus slowed down, and Leitch assumed it would stop to yield the right of way. Leitch says the bus did not stop, but instead turned left across his path. He immediately applied his brakes and cut to the left but was unable to stop in time to avoid striking the right rear of the bus.
At the conclusion of the trial, the district judge dictated into the record the following reasons for judgment, which are amply supported by the evidence:
"My first impression when the bus driver testified was that he was guilty of negligence in making a left turn. I am still convinced of that, but from his testimony I gathered that there was going to be some proof that this boy was traveling at a highly excessive rate of speed and he said ninety miles an hour. If he had been traveling ninety miles an hour I think he would have been guilty of contributory negligence. The proof, however, is that he was traveling between forty-five and fifty miles an hour. That when he perceived the bus and saw that it was going to cross his path he applied his brakes, tried to stop and he could not. I find no negligence on behalf of Gary Leitch.
"I find that the accident was caused by the sole negligence of the bus driver.
"And I cannot follow his (defendant's accident expert, Mr. Heard) reasoning that there are certain distances back where he could hit the middle of the bus but there are no distances back where he could not hit the rear of the bus. It is just not physically possible to make that determination. But I do not think his testimony can in any way help us resolve the issues in this case. I think the bus driver turned at an inopportune time. The driver of the other vehicle did not have time to stop, although he did what a reasonable prudent vehicle driver would have done under the circumstances."
The principal argument of the bus company on appeal is that during the trial young Leitch testified he was near a certain speed sign on the east side of the highway at the time he first realized the bus was going to turn left. Salter contends this shows young Leitch saw the bus turning in plenty of time to stop or avoid the accident. After the trial, counsel for the bus company had a photograph taken of this sign and measurements made to show its distance from the intersection. He attaches the photograph to his brief filed in this Court, and makes statements in his brief as to the measured distance, although admitting that these are not contained in the record. Of course, we cannot consider the photograph nor the measurements not shown by the record.
In its brief filed in this Court, the bus company requests in the alternative that we remand this case for admission of the evidence as to the distance of the speed sign from the intersection. We reject this request. It is not as clear as plaintiff suggests that Leitch said he was at the speed sign when he first saw the bus start its turn. There are several signs along the highway to which Leitch could have been referring. Furthermore, plaintiff did not ask for a rehearing to introduce this alleged new evidence. Viewed as a whole, we do not think this is a proper case for the exercise of our equitable discretion to remand.
In the present case the defendant, Willard A. Leitch, and his subrogated collision insurer, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, filed reconventional demands for property damage to the Leitch vehicle. The district court awarded judgment on these reconventional demands against Salter Bus Lines, Inc. Having concluded, for the reasons set out above, that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the bus driver, the judgments in favor of the plaintiffs in reconvention must be affirmed.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-appellant.
Affirmed.
MILLER, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
HOOD, J., dissents for reasons assigned by MILLER, J.