Hardy v. Cumis Insurance Society, 333 So. 2d 420

Hardy v. Cumis Insurance Society

333 So. 2d 420 | La. Ct. App. | 1976

Lead Opinion

PAVY, Judge.

This is a companion case to Jocelyn Ardoin et al v. State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways, La.App., 333 So.2d 412 (Appellate Docket No. 5329) in which a separate judgment is being rendered by us this date.

For the reasons stated in our decision in the companion case, the judgment appealed in the present matter is affirmed as to the liability of the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways, and it is reversed insofar as it rejected the demands against Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. and Julius Henry. It is now ordered, adjudged and decree that there be judgment herein in favor of plaintiff, Mrs. Linda Lou Hardy, in the full sum of $25,-000 and against State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways, Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. and Julius Henry, in solido, with legal interest from date of judicial demand until paid and for all costs of these proceedings in the trial court. All costs of this appeal are assessed to defendants, Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. and Julius Henry.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND RENDERED.

CULPEPPER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns written reasons.

DOMENGEAUX, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns written reasons.

*421GUIDRY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part for reasons assigned by DOM-ENGEAUX, J. and both voted for rehearing.

Concurrence in Part

CULPEPPER, Judge

(concurring in part and dissenting in part and voted for rehearing) .

For the reasons assigned in my opinion in the companion case of Jocelyn Ardoin, et al. v. State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways and Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., La.App., 333 So.2d 412, I concur in that part of the majority opinion which finds that Mr. Henry was negligent, but I dissent as to the finding that the Department of Highways was negligent.

Concurrence in Part

DOMENGEAUX, Judge

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

For the reasons set out in the companion case of Jocelyn Ardoin, et al v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways and Cumis Insurance Company, Inc., La.App., 333 So.2d 412 (our docket No. 5329), I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.