Case Name: Manuel ZITO v. Royal TURNER et al.; Manuel ZITO v. Tommy HAYDEL et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1980-01-21
Citations: 382 So. 2d 966
Docket Number: Nos. 12885, 12886
Parties: Manuel ZITO v. Royal TURNER et al. Manuel ZITO v. Tommy HAYDEL et al.
Judges: Before ELLIS, CHIASSON and PONDER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 382
Pages: 966–967

Head Matter:
Manuel ZITO v. Royal TURNER et al. Manuel ZITO v. Tommy HAYDEL et al.
Nos. 12885, 12886.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Jan. 21, 1980.
Floyd J. Falcon, Jr., James J. Zito, Baton Rouge, of counsel, for plaintiff-appellant, Manuel Zito.
Emile C. Rolfs, III, Baton Rouge, of counsel, for defendants-appellees, David T. McLemone, Affiliated FM Ins. Co. & Tommy Haydel.
John I. Hulse, IY, New Orleans, of counsel, for defendants-appellees, Royal Turner, Lester Haydel, American Manufacturers Mut. Ins. Co. & Tommy Haydel.
Henry D. Salassi, Jr., Baton Rouge, of counsel, for intervenor-appellant, American Manufacturers Mut. Ins. Co.
Before ELLIS, CHIASSON and PONDER, JJ.

Opinion:
PONDER, Judge.
Plaintiff appealed from a judgment denying recovery in a tort suit against executive officers.
The issues are:, breach of duty by the executive officers and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.
We affirm.
Plaintiff while transporting two scaffold boards stood in the back of the truck holding the boards while another man drove the pickup truck. The boards dragged on the ground and plaintiff fell from the truck and suffered injuries.
The trial court found that the driver's actions did not cause the harm to plaintiff; that another defendant was not an executive officer; that a third defendant was an executive officer who had breached a duty to plaintiff to warn against unsafe practices, but that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
The trial court in detailed written reasons for judgment analyzed the facts of the case and correctly applied the law. We find no manifest error therein.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed at appellant's costs.
AFFIRMED.