Court Opinion

ID: 9857781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:00:42.519236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:45:53.836267
License: Public Domain

HAMLIN, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part) :
I concur in that part of the majority opinion which finds Robert Paul Bertinot, employee of Prudhomme Truck Tank Service, guilty of negligence.
I dissent from that part of the majority opinion which holds:
“Assuming contributory negligence on the part of Leake, a proper application of the doctrine of Last Clear Chance requires a judgment for plaintiffs. Under this doctrine, broadly stated, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff does not bar recovery for the negligence of the defendant, when it appears that the defendant by exercising reasonable care should have observed the peril after it arose and have avoided injurious conse•quences but failed to do so. * * *”
Before the doctrine of last clear chance may be applied, three essential facts must be established: (1) that the injured party was in a position of peril of which he was unaware or from which he was unable to extricate himself; (2) that the defendant discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable precaution, should have discovered such peril; and (3) that, at such time, the defendant could, with the exercise of reasonable care, have avoided the accident. Jones v. Firemen’s Insurance Co. of Newark, N.J., La.App., 240 So.2d 780; 256 La. 1143, 241 So.2d 250.
I do not find that plaintiff Leake was in a position of peril of which he was unaware. He was thoroughly aware of the dangerous nature of gasoline and the complications connected with its delivery. His plant manager Watson was also cognizant of the perils which could ensue from the negligent delivery of gasoline. The plant manager abandoned the bulk plant at a time when he should have been present; the peril which ensued during his absence was not of such a nature that Watson and Leake were unaware of it or were unable to extricate themselves from it. I do not mean to say *1101that fire accompanied by destruction might not have occurred had Watson been present, but I do find that under the instant facts and circumstances the peril was not that contemplated by the doctrine of last clear chance. I say that had Watson been present during delivery, he might have been able to lessen the severity of the loss suffered. Bertinot discovered the peril, but the facts show that the time of discovery was late; the record does not show that Bertinot should reasonably have discovered the peril sooner; the facts do not show that at the time of discovered peril, Bertinot could have avoided the explosion and fire. The facts disclose negligent conduct, but they are not conclusive that the instant peril could have been avoided. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the doctrine of last clear chance, in my opinion, does not apply to Bertinot.
It is my opinion that James R. Leake, Sr. and Robert M. Watson were negligent.
Robert M. Watson stated that he had worked continuously for Mr. Leake since the Spring of 1946 when he returned from the Service, and that he had been bulk plant manager for some ten or twelve years.1 He said that his duties entailed all of the work of the bulk plant, including the distribution of gasoline to the filling stations which purchased gasoline from Mr. Leake. He lived less than a half mile from the plant, and on the morning of February 13, 1968, he received a call from Bertinot at approximately 6:10 A.M., informing him that he was in St. Francisville with the load of premium gasoline which had been previously ordered. Watson arrived at the plant within ten minutes of the call; the weather was 33° and cold, but Watson in his hurry had not worn a coat. (Watson ordinarily arrived at the plant around 7:00 A.M.; the driver knew that if he called Watson, he could get an earlier start in unloading.) When asked what he did when he arrived at the bulk plant, Watson said, “The truck was spotted in position to unload and I opened the door — unlocked the door and opened my valve inside and started to help hook up the hose and about that time I got pretty cool and I asked Robert to get his papers and I signed them for him and I left.” Watson said that he hooked up the discharge hose to his receiving line, but that he did not hook up any part of the discharge hose to the truck. When he left the plant, Bertinot had not started pumping gasoline, and he thought that Bertinot would have had to open the quick acting valve on the bulk plant. He did not tell Bertinot how much gas was in the premium tank, or that in all probability he had more gas than the *1103tank would hold. With respect to the receipt of gasoline, Watson testified:
“Q. Now let me ask you this — was there anyone other than yourself who received gas from the trucks as a general proposition ?
“A. I think I took care of the bulk of that — I would leave the door unlocked or either they’d call me when they’d come in early in the morning and I’d go down and open up so they could unload.
"Q. Did you have any regulation that required that you or some representative of Mr. Leake stay at the plant while the gas was being unloaded ?
“A. No sir.
“Q. Now I believe you testified that on this morning you went down to the plant and opened the plant yourself?
“A. Yes sir.
“Q. Were there ever any occasions when you did not go to the plant itself when deliveries were made?
“A. Quite often I would load the truck and leave in the mornings before the load of gas arrived and I would leave the door unlocked so he could pump out and wouldn’t have to wait on me.
“Q. And in those instances who was the one that was required to handle the valves ?
“A. The driver of the transport.
“Q. Do you know whether or not Mr. Bertinot has ever done this before himself ?
"A. Yes sir.”2
Watson said that four hundred gallons more than the premium tank capacity were ordered through error; that during the period of time he had been working for *1105Mr. Leake, tanks had overflowed approximately a half dozen times and no fire had resulted. When there was an overflow, the gasoline would spew out of the tank, “and they’d shut down the pumping operation and I would have to load the balance of the gas or fuel that was left in the transport in my delivery truck so he could complete his unloading operation.” He testified further:
“Q. Did you tell Robert Bertinot that in all probability he had more gas than that tank would hold and that there would be an overflow?
“A. No sir.
“Q. Did you have your delivery truck available where you could put the excess gas in it if it was necessary to put it in there?
“A. I went to the bulk plant that morning in my car.
“Q. And where was the delivery truck?
“A. It was parked in my yard.”
A reading of the testimony of Mr. Leake and Robert M. Watson discloses that Mr. Leake thoroughly approved Watson’s leaving the bulk plant before a delivery of gasoline was completed, and that there were many occasions when Watson had not remained at the plant for the completion of deliveries. Leake had an agreement with his supplier for such an arrangement, but the record contains no written document absolving Leake of responsibility. The testimony of record convinces me that the delivery procedure was a dangerous one involving volatile substances or explosives. Such had to be done with the utmost precision, care, and attentiveness. The testimony and deposition of Mr. Leake reveal that he was aware of the fact that an explosion was dangerous to surrounding property and those who occupied it. Watson’s testimony discloses that he knew how to take care of an overload delivery, but that he had not taken precautions for Bertinot. I do not find that Bertinot was given control of the bulk plant; I do not find that he was put in charge of it. He was merely left at the plant to take care of a delivery — a physical and technical responsibility. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that both Mr. Leake and Watson were guilty of negligence; Watson abandoned the bulk plant, with Leake’s prior consent, when he should have been present to attend to receipt of his order. The fact that deliveries had been made in the past when the bulk plant was unattended does not absolve Leake and Watson of negligence. One may commit a dangerous and risky act many times before suffering accident or disaster; negligence, however, is never obliterated.
Both the Court of Appeal and this Court on original hearing found that Leake ordered more premium gasoline than the premium tank could hold at the time of *1107delivery — February 13, 1968; this fact, they found constituted negligence on the part of Mr. Leake. It is certainly a factor to be considered; however, on this rehearing, I do not find it necessary to extend discussion of Leake’s order because of my finding that Leake and Watson were both guilty of negligence when Watson abandoned the bulk plant on the morning of February 13, 1968. Plaintiffs are therefore precluded from recovering damages — Mr. Leake because of his own negligence, and Hanover Insurance Company because of the negligence of its insured.
For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion which allows recovery of damages by plaintiffs.
ON REHEARING

. In giving his deposition, Mr. Leake said that he had known Watson since he was about five years old. He said that Watson was the man he wanted in particular because he had absolute integrity and was diffei-ent from so many others. He was not afraid of work.

. In liis deposition, Mr. Leake gave the following testimony:
“Q. Would he ordinarily stay around when they were unloading?
“A. Not all the time, no, sir.
-,Q. Who would turn off your valves, either your quick action valve or the screw type?
“A. Prudhomme’s driver would.
“Q. When he finished?
“A. We had an agreement with them to keep from tying their truck up, you know, making them sit there and waiting.
“Q. Now, I believe you say that you had an agreement with the company whereby Watson would — well, I guess we’d say anticipatorily signed the delivery receipt — ■
“A. That’s right. — before the gas was actually delivered? And I—
We — we cooperated with Prudhomme, and they cooperated with us. I mean we didn’t want to tie their trucks up and keep them sitting there. And so often we’d leave the door unlocked and let your man just come on and hook up and pump and get going. I mean, we—
”Q. Well, that benefited you mutually, didn’t it?
“A. That’s right. I mean—
,:Q. That let Watson get going, too, didn't it?
“A. Exactly right.”