Case Name: Kimball ARDOIN, Plaintiff & Appellee, v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant & Appellant
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1961-04-17
Citations: 133 So. 2d 129
Docket Number: No. 231
Parties: Kimball ARDOIN, Plaintiff & Appellee, v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant & Appellant.
Judges: Before SAVOY, HOOD and CULPEP-PER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 133
Pages: 129–140

Head Matter:
Kimball ARDOIN, Plaintiff & Appellee, v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant & Appellant.
No. 231.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.
April 17, 1961.
On Rehearing Sept. 20, 1961.
Frugé & Foret, by J. Burton Foret, Ville Platte, for defendant-appellant.
Tate & Tate, by Paul C. Tate, Mamou, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before SAVOY, HOOD and CULPEP-PER, JJ.

Opinion:
HOOD, Judge.
This is an action for damages arising out of a collision between plaintiff's truck, driven by Elwood P. Reed, and a truck owned and being driven by Marion Hoff-pauir. Defendant was the public liability and property damage insurer of the Hoff-pauir vehicle at the time of the accident. After trial of the case on its merits, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff and defendant has appealed from that judgment.
The accident occurred between 7:00 and 8:00 o'clock on the morning of November 24, 1958, on State Highway 13 between the Towns of Mamou and Eunice, in Evangeline Parish. The highway at that point is a straight, blacktopped, two-lane highway, with shoulders on both sides wide enough for large, heavy trucks to park on them without blocking either lane of traffic.
Earlier that morning Hoffpauir had picked up a load of gravel in his dark blue Ford truck at a gravel pit located at Turkey-Creed, Louisiana, about 25 or 30 miles from the scene of the accident. In traveling south on State Highway Route 13 toward Eunice, the Hoffpauir truck was following another gravel truck being driven by Roy Morgan. The weather that morning was extremely damp and foggy, and maximum visibility was limited to approximately 150 feet. The headlights of both of the vehicles involved in the accident were burning at the time the collision occurred.
When Hoffpauir was about five miles south of Mamou he noticed that the inside, right rear dual tire on his truck was flat. By using a pre-arranged signal with his headlights, Hoffpauir notified Morgan, who was driving the truck ahead of him, that he was in trouble. Upon seeing Hoffpauir's signal Morgan drove his truck on the right shoulder of the road and waited until Hoff-pauir caught up with him. Hoffpauir parked his truck partially on the right, or west, shoulder of the road and partially on the blacktopped portion, the purpose of leaving a portion of his truck on the hard-surfaced part of the road being to provide a solid foundation for the jack which he intended to use in changing the tire. Although Hoffpauir knew that there was a grocery store with a graveled parking area located about two miles farther down the highway, he elected to stop immediately rather than to run the risk of ruining the flat tire by continuing to drive this additional distance to the parking area. Hoffpauir parked his truck in such a manner that the southbound lane of traffic was partially obstructed by that vehicle.
After Hoffpauir's truck had been parked in that position for a period of at least five or ten minutes, plaintiff's tank truck, which was being driven in a southerly direction on State Route 13, approached the parked Hoffpauir truck from the rear. Plaintiff's truck at that time was loaded with gasoline weighing approximately 12,000 pounds. Reed, the driver of plaintiff's truck, testified that immediately prior to the accident he was driving at a speed of 35 or 40 miles per hour, that he noticed an object on the highway about 130 or 140 feet ahead of him in the fog, and that he thereupon began to decrease his speed. When he reached a point from 60 to 80 feet from this obstacle, he realized that it was a parked truck (the Hoffpauir truck). Reed further testified that he then immediately applied his brakes and started to pass the parked truck on its left, but was unable to do so because at that time he met another vehicle approaching from the opposite direction. A collision then occurred, the right front fender and side of plaintiff's truck striking the left rear portion of the Hoffpauir vehicle. The evidence shows that at the time of the collision plaintiff's truck was traveling at a speed of from three to five miles per hour, that the impact caused the Hoffpauir truck to move forward only a few feet, and that plaintiff's truck was brought to a stop almost immediately.
Hoffpauir testified that during the entire time his truck was parked on the highway and at the time of the collision, the left rear directional light was blinking. He also testified that from the time he parked until the accident occurred, he was attempting to unlock the red reflectors which were attached to the side of his truck so that they could be used to warn approaching vehicles, but that he had been unable to do so. Although Roy Morgan was with him at that time, no attempt was made by Hoff-pauir or by Morgan to take the flares or reflectors from Morgan's truck and use them in warning oncoming traffic. Also, no attempt was made by either of them to flag down approaching vehicles. Hoffpauir's testimony that his directional lights were blinking at the time of the accident is corroborated by the testimony of Morgan, but Reed testified that he saw no lights on the Hoffpauir truck as he approached it.
The trial judge found that Hoffpauir was negligent in failing to warn approaching vehicles of the danger, although he had ample time within which to do so, in parking his track in such a manner as to partially obstruct the hard-surfaced portion of the highway, and in failing to drive a little farther to a crossroad before bringing his truck to a stop. He concluded that these acts of negligence on the part of Hoffpauir constituted the sole proximate cause of the accident, and that the driver of plaintiff's truck was free from contributory negligence.
We find no manifest error in the conclusions reached by the trial judge that the driver of the insured truck had ample time within which to move his truck off the hard-surfaced portion of the highway, or to warn approaching motorists of the danger, and that he was negligent in failing to take either of these precautions under the circumstances presented here. LSA-R.S. 32:241, 32:442; O'Rourke v. McConaughey, La.App.Orleans, 157 So. 598; Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App. 2 Cir., 36 So.2d 366; Giorlando v. Maitrejean, La.App.Orleans, 22 So.2d 564; Schneller v. Handy, La.App.Orleans, 93 So.2d 238.
Defendant, however, specially pleads in the alternative that the driver of plaintiff's truck was negligent in driving at an excessive rate of speed in the foggy weather which existed at that time, in failing to maintain a proper lookout, in failing to stop after seeing the parked truck ahead of him, and in failing to avail himself of the last clear chance to avoid the collision.
The jurisprudence of this State is well settled to the effect that when visibility is materially impaired because of smoke, mist, dust, fog or other atmospheric conditions, a motorist is held to a duty of operating his vehicle with an unusually high degree of care. He should reduce his rate of speed to such an extent and keep his car under such control as to reduce to a minimum the possibility of accident from collision, and as an extreme measure of safety it is his duty, when visibility ahead is not possible or is greatly obscured, to stop his car and remain at a standstill until conditions warrant going forward. He does not have a right to assume that his course of travel is free from danger or obstruction in the absence of his ability to see clearly ahead, but if he continues to travel as if he knew there was perfect clearance ahead, he does so at his own risk and peril. Demerest v. Travelers Insurance Company, 234 La. 1048, 102 So.2d 451; Pepper v. Walsworth, La.App. 2 Cir., 6 La.App. 610; O'Rourke v. McConaughey, supra; Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, supra; Giorlando v. Maitrejean, supra; Thiaville v. Toups, La.App.Orleans, 25 So.2d 361; Hecht v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., La.App.Orleans, 62 So.2d 520; Price-Dunham-Fenet Brick Mfg. Co. v. Reeves, La.App. 1 Cir., 85 So.2d 635; Schneller v. Handy, supra; Ervin v. Burns, La.App. 2 Cir., 126 So.2d 805.
In Demerest v. Travelers Insurance Company, supra, plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for the death of his wife who was killed when the car which she was driving was struck in a dense fog by a car driven by Blackwell, defendant's assured. In finding that Blackwell was negligent, and that his negligence was the proximate cause of the accident, the Supreme Court held that Blackwell had not met the standard of care required because he was operating his car at an excessive rate of speed, when atmospheric conditions limited his visibility to not more than 200 or 300 feet. The Supreme Court said:
"With reference to the particular circumstances which prevailed here the jurisprudence of this state is that: ' when visibility is materially impaired because of smoke, mist, dust, etc., a motorist should reduce his rate of speed to such extent and keep his car under such control as to reduce to a minimum the possibility of accident from collision; and as an extreme measure of safety, it is his duty, when visibility ahead is not possible or great ly obscured, to stop his car and remain at a standstill until conditions warrant going forward. ' Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, La.App., 16 So.2d 366, 368. See also Rector v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., La.App., 198 So. 516; Penton v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, La.App., 4 So.2d 547; Bernstein v. Cathey and Carrell Truck Lines, La.App., 32 So.2d 403 and Rachal v. Balthazar, La.App., 32 So.2d 483." [234 La. 1048, 102 So.2d 454]
In O'Rourke v. McConaughey, supra [157 So. 606], plaintiff's car stalled in the inside lane of a four-lane city street early on a foggy morning. Visibility was only five or six feet, but the lights on plaintiff's car were burning and a passenger in it was sounding the horn. Plaintiff's car was struck in the rear by an automobile driven by defendant. In finding that defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, and that defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the collision, the court of appeal said:
"Defendant was operating his automobile very slowly, yet he ran into plaintiff's car, which was stationary. He did not have his car under such control that it could be stopped within the radius of his vision or the penetration of his headlights. Plaintiff's negligence having expended itself, his car being stationary and having been thus for several minutes before the collision, defendant only was in a position to avoid the impact. His was the last clear chance. If the fog was too dense to permit a radius of vision in which his automobile could be stopped, it was his duty to proceed no further until he could see.
"If it is the duty to stop where the vision is temporarily obscured as by a cloud of dust or smoke, it is the greater obligation where the obstruction to the sight is more permanent as in a blanket of dense fog. In the former instance the danger is temporary and passing, while in the latter it is permanent and continuous and he who travels thus does so at his peril. It is no defense that traffic might be delayed indefinitely and business interfered with, as considerations of convenience must ever give way to the safety of life and limb.
"The driver of an automobile has no right to assume that the road before him is open and to proceed ahead without regard to the safety of those who may be thereon. While under certain circumstances creating an emergency the rule may be different, there is little or no excuse for running into a stationary object, particularly one which has been stationary for some time before the collision, whether it be daylight or dark, clear or foggy, misty or rainy. It is, therefore, our conclusion that this collision was caused by the negligence of defendant who had the last clear chance to avoid same."
In Hogue v. Akin Truck Line, supra [16 So.2d 368], the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, said:
"It has been repeatedly held that when visibility is materially impaired because of smoke, mist, dust, etc., a motorist should reduce his rate of speed to such extent and keep his car under such control as to reduce to a minimum the possibility of accident from collision; and as an extreme measure of safety, it is his duty, when visibility ahead is not possible or greatly obscured, to stop his car and remain at a standstill until conditions warrant going forward. Locke v. Shreveport Laundries, Inc., supra [18 La.App. 169, 137 So. 645]."
In Giorlando v. Maitrejean, supra [22 So. 2d 566], involving two collisions on a foggy morning, the Court of Appeal, Orleans, said:
" 'It is settled law in Louisiana that one entering a fog, such as the one pleaded and testified to here, must stop until sure of his way, or if he drives into it, he must proceed at such a speed as that he can stop the car in the distance within which he can see objects in his way. It will not do for such a one to say, as here, that he was driving 20, 15 or even 10 miles an hour. The evidence establishes that in the fog he did not see and could not see the object he ran into within the distance within which he could stop his truck, ' "
In Schneller v. Handy, supra [93 So.2d 241], the Orleans Court of Appeal said:
"Plaintiffs, by invoking the doctrine of the last clear chance, have, in effect, conceded their own negligence, which we have little doubt of. They parked in the main traveled portion of the highway, at night, in a fog bank, when they were fully aware of the feasibility of parking on the shoulder thereof; however, plaintiffs' negligence had become passive at the time that the accident occurred and we, therefore, are of the opinion that the doctrine of last clear chance is applicable herein. Williams testified that when they reached the top of the bridge, a distance of approximately 215 feet removed from the situs of the accident, he informed his chauffeur that he noticed an 'indiscernible' object in the roadway and that he should proceed with caution; as he was leaving the bridge, he again cautioned Handy that he believed the object to be an automobile parked or moving slowly in the roadway, nevertheless, Handy continued driving at a speed of twenty to twenty-five miles per hour with very poor visibility of the roadway until he was too close to avoid colliding with the left rear end of the plaintiffs' trailer. We are convinced that if Handy had exercised the slightest caution commensurate with the prevailing condition of the road, the weather and the darkness, he could easily have avoided both the collision and the injuries which resulted therefrom. If the fog was too dense to permit a radius of visibility in which his automobile could be stopped, it was his legal duty to move no further until he could see. " (Emphasis added.)
In the recent case of Ervin v. Burns, supra [126 So.2d 808], which involved facts similar to those presented in the instant suit, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal held that:
" Obviously, the existence of a dense fog, screening one's view of the highway, is a condition requiring the exercise of the utmost caution and prudence. It is generally recognized in the jurisprudence that a driver of an automobile is under a duty to stop his car when his vision is entirely obscured by a temporary obstruction such as a cloud of dust or smoke. When failure to do so would jeopardize the safety of others, then he must stop and remain at a standstill until the obstruction to his view has come to an end. It is likewise a rule well established that, where a motorist finds himself blinded, whether by bright lights, smoke, dust, fog, or for any other reason, it is his duty to at least bring his vehicle under such control that it can be stopped in a moment in case of emergency, and, in extreme cases, it is his duty to stop."
In the instant case, the driver of plaintiff's truck testified that if he had attempted to stop immediately after he saw the Hoffpauir truck ahead of him, he would have been able to do so in time to avoid the collision, but that he did not make any attempt to stop because he thought it was an "on-going truck, whatever it was on the road." The fact that plaintiff's truck was being driven with a heavy load at a speed of 35 or 40 miles per hour, that visibility was extremely limited because of a dense fog, and that the driver of plaintiff's truck saw the Hoffpauir vehicle in ample time to stop but did not do so, convinces us that plaintiff's driver, Elwood Reed, was negligent either in operating his truck at an excessive rate of speed under the existing atmospheric conditions or in failing to bring his truck under control after observing an obstacle in the road ahead of him. These acts of negligence on the part of plaintiff's driver, in our opinion, constitute proximate and contributing causes of the accident, barring plaintiff from recovering.
Counsel for plaintiff contends, however, that the driver of plaintiff's truck had a right to assume that in the absence of any flares or warning lights the road ahead was clear, and that any traffic ahead in his lane of travel would also be moving. In support of this argument he cites the cases of Simms v. Lawrence Bros., La.App. 2 Cir., 72 So.2d 538 and Vines v. Protective Indemnity Co., La.App. 2 Cir., 37 So.2d 545.
In both the Simms case and the Vines case the stationary vehicle was parked on a curve in the highway, in such a position that the lights of the approaching car did not illuminate the parked vehicle and the driver of the approaching automobile was unable to see it in time to avoid a collision, even though he was exercising due diligence. In each case the accident occurred at night. In the Simms case there was a fog, but in the Vines case there was none. In each of these cases the Second Circuit Court of Appeal recognized the general rule that a motorist should never drive his vehicle in the nighttime at a speed so fast that it cannot be stopped within the distance illuminated by its headlights, but it held that because of the unusual circumstances presented in each of those cases they came under an exception to this general rule.
Exceptions to this general rule have been recognized many times by the appellate courts of this State. Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., Inc., 196 La. 417, 199 So. 377; Rea v. Dow Motor Co., La.App. 2 Cir., 36 So.2d 750; Cole v. Burgess, La.App. 1 Cir., 31 So.2d 450; Warnick v. Louisiana Highway Commission, La.App. 1 Cir., 4 So. 2d 607; Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Ins. Co., 229 La. 798, 86 So.2d 909, 913. In Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Ins. Co., supra, the Supreme Court said:
"Our rule that a motorist traveling on the public highways after dark or during a rainstorm, fog, or other abnormal condition, which prevents him seeing ahead, except imperfectly, and for a short time and distance, must guard against striking objects in the road with which he may be suddenly confronted, constitutes an exception to the general rule that a motorist may assume that the road is safe for travel even at night. But that exception to the general rule is itself subject to the exception that a motorist traveling by night is not charged with the duty of guarding against striking an unexpected or unusual obstruction, which he had no reason to anticipate he would encounter on the highway. "
In the instant suit, however, the collision occurred on a straight highway, the lights on the parked truck were burning, its directional signals were blinking, and the driver of plaintiff's truck saw the parked vehicle in time to have avoided the accident. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the general rule applied here and that this case does not come under an exception to that rule, as did the Simms and Vines cases. Plaintiff's driver, therefore, was negligent in failing to bring his truck to a stop of to maintain control over it after he saw an object in the road ahead of him. He did not have the right to assume that any traffic which he might encounter ahead of him in his lane of traffic would also be moving.
Counsel for plaintiff further contends that Hoffpauir had the last clear chance to avoid the accident "by setting out flares or signals," and that his negligence in failing to do so was a proximate and contributing cause of the collision. We find no merit to this argument, because the evidence fails to show that Hoffpauir by exer cising reasonable diligence could have done anything to avoid the accident after he discovered or should have discovered his position of peril.
While we find no manifest error in the conclusions of fact reached by the trial judge, we are convinced that he erred in determining from those facts that Elwood Reed, the driver of plaintiff's truck, was free from contributory negligence.
For the reasons herein assigned, therefore, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and judgment is hereby rendered in favor of defendant, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, and against plaintiff, Kimball Ardoin, rejecting plaintiff's demands and dismissing this suit at his costs including the costs of this appeal.
Reversed.
SAVOY, J., dissents, being of the opinion that the judgment of the trial judge is correct.