Court Opinion

ID: 9538070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:29:48.740784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:26.337966
License: Public Domain

FOURNET, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
According to the facts of this case I cannot agree with the majority view that the Department of Highways is liable for *955the damages resulting from the collision between the Herrin ánd Perry vehicles.
These facts as found by the court of appeal and adopted in extenso by the majority and insofar as pertinent for a decision may be succintly stated. The accident occured about 11:30 a. m. during misty weather, the earlier rain having ceased on the blacktopped Louisiana Highway No. 457, running generally north and south through a rural farm area; and for at least Y of a mile south of the scene of the accident the road is straight but immediately north thereof it curves gradually to the west. About 596 feet south of the curve the Department of Highways had placed a sign warning of the curve so a motorist could regulate his speed in order to safely negotiate the curve, and was being replaced with a larger sign by three employees of the Department who, in order to accomplish this, had parked their truck headed north on the east side of the highway with the back thereof, from which they had to work, as near the sign as practical without bogging down, necessarily leaving the left hand wheels of the truck extended out a few feet into the northbound lane of traffic. At the time Herrin, who was driving in a hortherly direction in the 60 mile" zone about .40 to 45 miles per hour, saw the truck parked on the pavement about Y\ of a mile ahead; thereupon, as a precaution for any workmen who might be around the truck, he reduced his speed ■ and blew his horn as he moved into the passing lane; and upon reaching a point so close behind the truck that he was “committed to pass” he saw the Perry vehicle “coming pretty fast” around the curve ahead. Herrin then accelerated his speed, passing the truck safely and returned to his lane of travel, (thus fully complying with L.R.S. 32:7s),1 when he noticed Mrs. Perry, who was driving, upon negotiating the curve angled at an accelerated speed into his (Herrin’s) lane of traffic, colliding with his truck, the left front of her truck striking the left of his at a point 142 feet north of the curve sign.
Under these facts I fully agree with the majority view that the Perrys did not sustain the burden of proof that was their’s, that they were free of fault, nor “did they prove that she (Mrs. Perry) was faced with a sudden emergency at the time she veered her pick-up truck into Willie Herrin’s lane of traffic and collided with his *957vehicle.” But I cannot agree with the majority that just because the truck was parked on the highway that the Department of Highways was liable because the truck was “illegally parked in violation of LSA-R.S. 32:141”, reasoning that it was “incumbent upon the driver to obey the statutory laws of the highway,” and “to set an example for others by his good driving and road courtesy.” This holding is not only in direct contravention of the very authority relied upon by the majority, West v. Kenknight, La.App., 193 So.2d 408, from which they quote, “A violation of statutes relating to parking vehicles upon the main traveled portion of a highway constitutes negligence, per se, but it is well recognised that such negligence is actionable only if it is the legal cause of the accident” but they overlook that from the very language of the statute itself, R.S. 32:141,2 it does not prohibit the parking of a truck on the highway under the conditions hereinabove stated. The statute only prohibits the parking on the paved portion of the highway “when it is practicable to stop, park or so leave such vehicle off such part of said highway.” That the legislature in adopting the statute contemplated that some vehicles because of necessity may be parked on the paved portion of the highway, is evidenced by the fact that they further provided therein, “but in every event an unobstructed width of the highway opposite a standing vehicle shall be left for the free passage of other vehicles and a clear view of such stopped vehicle shall be available from a distance of two hundred feet in-each direction upon such highway. (Emphasis added.)
In my opinion the truck was not illegally parked. It was being used by the Highway Department in the performance of its duty to provide for the safety of the public by replacing the existing sign with a larger and more efficient warning sign. The truck being used for that purpose was necessarily parked at the place in question in order for the crew to be able to work from the rear of the truck as the job required and was parked as far off the paved portion of the highway as practical without bogging down in the ditch. Thus, the truck was parked in strict conformity with the statute. All the parties concede Herrin and Mrs. Perry saw or should have seen the highway truck parked on the side of the road for a distance exceeding the 200 feet *959in each, direction required by law. Herrin, the only eyewitness to testify, Mrs. Perry having no recollection of what transpired, stated that he saw the highway truck at least 34 of a mile before he reached it.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

. “A. Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district, no person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or main traveled part of the highway when it is practicable to stop, park or so leave such vehicle off such part of said highway, but in every event an unobstrueted width of the highway opposite a standing vehicle shall be left for the free passage of other vehicles and a clear view of such stopped vehicle shall be available from a distance of two hundred feet in each direction upon such highway.”