Case Name: Mack JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1975-02-12
Citations: 308 So. 2d 438
Docket Number: No. 4879
Parties: Mack JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before HOOD, MILLER and WATSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 308
Pages: 438–443

Head Matter:
Mack JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 4879.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Feb. 12, 1975.
Rehearing Denied March 12, 1975.
Writ Refused April 24, 1975.
Stafford, Pitts & Stafford by John L. Pitts, Alexandria, for defendants-appellants.
Gahagan & Gahagan by Russell E. Ga-hagan, Natchitoches, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HOOD, MILLER and WATSON, JJ.

Opinion:
MILLER, Judge.
Defendants Archie L. Wise and his insurer Continental Casualty Company appeal the judgment awarding plaintiff Rev. Mack Jackson damages resulting from an intersectional collision. We reverse.
Wise was driving north on U.S. Highway 71 in a 1967 Mack truck pulling a trailer loaded with twenty yards of sand. Jackson was driving west northwest on Louisiana Highway 1226 and had stopped his 48 passenger school bus in obedience to a stop sign. After looking and seeing no approaching traffic, Jackson started to cross the intersection. When he saw the approaching Mack truck he attempted to turn right. The right front end of the truck struck the left front side of the school bus at a point in the westernmost part of the northwest quadrant of the in tersection. White paint off the right side of the truck's trailer was found along the left side of the school bus and minor damage was found at the left rear side of the school bus.
The trial court properly held Jackson contributorily negligent in that he "either did not see the truck, or if he did, misjudged its position." However, damages were awarded on the basis that Wise had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. The court concluded that when the school bus entered the intersection, "by the exercise of ordinary driving care and with sufficient brakes, (Wise) could and should have seen the plaintiff's peril and could have had his truck under control to avoid the collision." (Emphasis added.) We find manifest error in this conclusion.
The holding was based in part on the conclusion that the photographs "indicate that the bus was first hit along the rear and the left side . . . ." No mention was made of the fact that the photographs show the front left side of the school bus to have been totally demolished while only minor damage was shown along the remainder of the left side and particularly the left rear side of the school bus. We are impressed by the officer's sketch introduced by plaintiff's counsel. It confirms that first impact occurred when the right front of the truck struck the left front wheel of the school bus.
Even though the trial judge rejected Wise's testimony to this same effect, the evidence conclusively establishes that the first impact occurred at the front left side of the school bus.
It was established that the left rear tires of the truck's tandem trailer deposited skid marks on the pavement starting at the cen-terline of Highway 71 curving to the west edge of the highway. These skidmarks were measured by the investigating officer and found to be about 90 feet long, while a school board member measured them to be about 123 feet in length.
After impact the dump truck turned over on its side and dumped its load of sand so that it blocked the entire southbound lane and part of the northbound lane of Highway 71 at a point only one or two truck lengths north of the intersection.
One element which must be proved by one asserting the doctrine of last clear chance is that at the time the peril is actually discovered, or should have been discovered, the party against whom the doctrine is invoked had a reasonable opportunity to avoid the accident. Wrights v. Aetna Insurance Company, 300 So.2d 201 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1974); Manuel v. Manuel, 299 So.2d 902 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1974) ; Ortego v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 295 So.2d 593 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1974). Wise did not have a reasonable opportunity to avoid the accident because the school bus entered the intersection when Wise's vehicle was too close. When Jackson left his position of safety and continued into the intersection, there was no way for the heavily loaded truck to avoid the accident.
The trial judge held that Wise was negligent for driving too fast and driving with defective brakes. These facts do not assure Jackson of recovery under the last clear chance doctrine, for that doctrine would take Wise in his then (speeding and defective brakes) condition. In determining whether or not he could have avoided the accident, one must consider his actual condition at the time. Mamola v. Allstate Insurance Company, 194 So.2d 414 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1967). Thus, assuming the correctness of the trial court's holding that Wise was going too fast and had inadequate brakes, there was nothing he could do to avoid the collision when he saw the school bus enter and continue into the intersection.
The trial court properly held Jackson to have been negligent, but improperly applied the last clear chance doctrine to allow recovery.
The judgment is reversed and set aside, and plaintiffs suit is dismissed at his costs both at trial and on appeal.
Reversed and rendered.
WATSON, J., concurs and assigns written reasons.