*1 267 So.2d et LAIRD ux.
Marshall
v. INSURANCE COMPANY.
TRAVELERS 51727,
Nos. 51744. 4, 1972.
Oct. Opinion
Concurring 5, Oct. 1972.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 2ffi2 *2 Woodley,
Holt & Woodley* Edmund E. Charles, Lake defendant-applicant. for Navarre Fuselier, & Navarre, P. John Oakdale, Gist, Trimble, Methvin & David Hughes, Alexandria, A. plaintiffs-re- spondents.
BARHAM, Justice. posture us, the case before facts, presented and the issues would appear acceptable unanimity with However, the courts and this below court. the method of resolution of the issues as well as the result to be obtained in that provoked disparity resolution has of view. controversy, This arising out of an auto- mobile accident, between, one hand, Mr. and Mrs. Marshall Laird and insurer, their State Farm Mutual Automo- and, other,’ bile Company, Insurance on the Company, Travelers Insurance insurer Company. Red River News A by Laird, and operated owned with his wife passenger, partly which he had a appeal the Third Circuit portion of a On Travelers’ asphalt travelled by Appeal agreed that Flare was a Court of the rear struck from highway, was lookout, keeping News negligent Red River owned truck-trailer Hare, Jr., Ralph but found Laird violat- also driven Company and statutory prohibition (R.S. company, ing the course 32:- employee of (A) ) against stopping business. River’s of Red injuries personal practicable off the suffered wife Gracie ex- highway. additionally medical That court damage, incurred deter- property that, Hare, mined as between Laird and penses. Hare had last clear chance to avoid the , action brought The Lairds direct collision, and that Laird was entitled to liability Travelers, in- against Red River’s Travelers, recover the insurer of general answered with surer. Travelers However, employer. having Flare’s found contributory pleaded Laird’s denial and joint that Laird’s made him Alternatively, third-party negligence. as such soli- tortfeasor liable plaintiff, made Travelers injuries with Hare for the to Gracie do Farm, insurer, third-party defend- State *3 Laird, Appeal the Court determined against Marshall ant, and reconvened to Travelers was entitled recover re- and third-party demand In this Laird. and Marshall Laird his insurer State Farm stop- alleged that Laird’s it was convention any contribution one-half of amount negli- “proximate highway was ping against awarded Gracie Laird Travelers. joint tortfeasor him a gence” which made $30,- Appeal, finding Court of insurer, liable, his such with as with pain, 000.00 trial court award to Laird for one-half solidary obligors for as disability manifestly suffering, and Laird Mrs. recovered amount excessive, $20,000.- reduced that award to prayed ac- for Judgment was Travelers. $10,000.00 It affirmed the award 00. cordingly. Laird, gave judgment in favor Gracie judge found the cause of The trial Laird and against Marshall of Travelers failure main- the accident was Hare’s $5000.00, one-half of for his insurer travelling tain 55 lookout while $10,000.00 Laird. award to Gracie See Damages per were miles hour. to 65 La.App., So.2d Laird Gracie awarded to Marshall granted application certiorari on $10,- We $30,000.00 and in the sum of Farm, and Laird and State third-party Marshall respectively. Traveler’s 000.00 application Travelers. also dismissed. demand was above, As finding traffic, stated our of fact is heard and then saw in substantial with that Company’s accord of the trial the Red River News van truck Appeal. court and the Court of and trailer approaching from the east. truck, driver the van travelling at driving pickup Marshall Laird was his per hour, 65 miles appeared not to truck Highway west on Louisiana 112 on truck, see pickup the Laird clear, dry Johnson day, with wife his as a Gracie changed he neither direction nor reduced passenger. through gently The road ran speed. this, When realized hills, rolling por- and its 20-foot travelled Johnson moved to the south road, shoulder of the tion asphalt. was surfaced with Posted on shouting waving attempt to draw slight crest of a large, hill were three the driver’s attention to the truck conspicuous highway (two on signs ahead. The react, however, driver did not north shoulder and one the south until he only a few pick- feet from the warning shoulder) doing that men were up. Then he applied his brakes and turned ahead, road work Highway Depart- slightly left, to his but too late to avoid employees ment working in the colliding with the Laird vehicle. along ditches feet to 900 signs. forward from the impact crest and the pickup hurled the 150 feet across the ditch and into woods. The Here his truck as van truck and trailer were separated, far as righthand he could on the shoulder coming truck rest in the south ditch 74 with half of the occupying less than feet from the of collision and the three pavement, feet of the leaving free trailer in the woods north of the road. more than seven feet his lane and entire 10 feet of the other lane. He Obviously Hare’s attention was not stopped his motor kept but his foot on the him, on the road in front own pedal brake light. to activate the rear brake testimony and clear. make Johnson’s Just
Laird asked hill, certain directions of his before he came over the crest of nephew, workers, one of the began looking and N. E. Hare rear mir view Johnson, foreman, the work crew who was companion ror to locate a fol who was acquainted Laird, lowing also came over News him another Red River *4 his truck. stood Company While vehicle, and his attention was thus Johnson pavement truck, at the side of the own from the road ahead. His diverted passed at least it testimony supports two cars without diffi- "he the conclusion that culty, going one in each direction. About if he had could have avoided collision stopped, after Laird had keeping five minutes There was lookout. John- son, up keeping vicinity. and down the lookout other He testi- no traffic warning signs, stopped vehicle shall be not see the available did from a
fied
truck,
distance
two
feet
hailing him.
of
hundred
or
each direc-
Johnson
front,
upon
highway.”
tion
such
view in
had an unobstructed
He
hill
perhaps even before the crest of
“criminal negligence”
con
point. He
have
but at least at that
should
part
sisted of his
of
violation
the first
of
directly
path, and had
seen what
in his
provision
stopping
travelled
stop
ample
passing
time
or
a safe
make
“prac
it
of
when was
'gross
to do so was
movement. His failure
* * *
part
ticable to
off such
of
flows.
from which
highway”,
there
said
for
was within 40
problem presented by
real
these facts
The
place
feet of his
a side road where
guilty
of contribu-
whether Laird
completely
parked
off the
he could have
tory negligence
continued to
.which
However,
highway.
as we
in Pierre
said
impact
cannot
moment
thé
so that he
Company, 257 La.
v. Allstate Insurance
injuries
damage.
for
recover
471,
(1971),
“Criminal stat
So.2d 821
Moreover,
is raised that
contention
themselves,
not,
defini
utes
in and of
are
negligent,
joint
tortfeasor with
liability”
set the
and do not
tive
civil
Hare, responsible
solidary obligor
as a
may
they
liability; but
rule for civil
damage
one-half
incurred
Gracie
fixing civil
guidelines for the court
Laird,
guest
passenger.
wife,
Pri
liability. Thayer,
Wrong and
Public
presented
it
Under
facts
is obvious
(1913);
Action, 27 Harv.L.Rev.
vate
negli-
may
criminally
be called
Malone,
Images
Torts—
Contrasting
gent or at
liable to criminal sanctions
least
Tray
Personality of
Justice
Judicial
the extent that he
in violation
Malone,
779;
nor, 13
L.Rev.
Stanford
(A),
provides:
32:141
R.S.
which
Yourself
on Dixie Drive It
Ruminations
Beverage Company, 30
American
Versus
“Upon
highway outside of a business
363; Morris,
Relation
district,
stop, La.L.Rev.
person
or
shall
residence
no
Liability, 46
to Tort
Statutes
vehicle,
Criminal
park,
standing any
or leave
wheth-
Morris,
453;
Role
Harv.L.Rev.
unattended, upon
paved
er attended or
Actions,
Negligence
Criminal Statutes
part
main traveled
Statutory Stand
21; James,
Cól.L.Rev.
stop, park
leave
practicable
so
Cases, 11
Negligence in Accident
ards and
high-
part
such
off such
of said
vehicle
Prosser,
(4th
103-124;
Torts
La.L.Rev.
every
unobstructed
way, but
event an
prose
36, p.
criminal
standing
H.B.),
ed.
§
highway opposite a
width of the
the act
result
harm need
no
cutions
passage
the free
vehicle
be left for
shall
the actor
the statute
violates
which
such
view of
and a clear
of other vehicles
*5
209
210
subject
be
to criminal sanctions.
probably
they
More
than
more
not
were nec-
over, violation of a
essary
accident,
criminal
ingredients
statute
they
combination
some resultant harm does
constitute
resolving
cause-in-fact.
not, in and
itself, impose
liability.
question
inquiry
civil
we make no
as to whether
We must
prohibition
determine whether the
the act was
negligent.
unlawful or
We de-
designed
protect
only
the statute is
to
from termine
whether it was a substantial
or damage
harm
which ensues from its
factor without which the accident would
Lopes
Sahuque,
1004,
violation.
v.
is,
114 La.
not have occurred —that
it
whether
had
''
(1905);
We have
held that a
conclude that the stopping
part
of his truck
criminal violation would lead to civil re
ly on the
portion
travelled
of the highway
sponsibility only
if that act
awas
cause-in-fact
the collision.
damage
To decide
cause
another.
what,
We must next
any,
consider
if
whether the
of the criminal stat
violation
duty
imposed
upon Laird
when.
upon
imposes
ute
civil
stopped
upon
his vehicle
him
denies him civil
from one
redress
violation of the statute and in
particu-
admittedly negligent, we must determine
lar manner in
did,
which he
and what risks
whether
act was a causc-in-fact of
duty.
within the ambit of that
In or-
accident,
what
nature of
der to make these determinations we scru-
him,
imposed upon
what risks were en
tinize the
pro-
criminal statute
find the
compassed
duty,
within that
and whether
tection which that law was intended to af-
under
combination of these considera
ford.
particular
We have said of this
stat-
negligent.
tions he should be declared
ute
it is
safety
measure
Every
leading up
designed
keep open
act
accident
the traffic arteries.
recognizes
cannot be said to
It
danger
cause-in-fact. How
inherent when
ever,
bring
when those
acts
motor
parked
upon
antecedent
vehicles are
court,
scrutiny
after
highway.
careful
of all the
travelled
circumstances,
facts
fully
to a
occupies
conclusion When such a
vehicle
time,
e"xcept
slight
only
passage
ogous,
differences of
im-
traffic, not
a lane
place,
incidentals,
to those
following driver
and such
but
paired
blocked
Co.,
La.
quickly
Travelers
Rowe v.
Insurance
finds
difficult
ascertain
(1969).
This court’s
So.2d 486
moving
or mo-
whether such
vehicle is
“proximate
approach
in Rowe under
moving oc-
tionless.
a vehicle not
When
*6
that
cause” was different
used
it re-
cupies any portion
highway,
of the
Dixie, Pierre,
present
and the
case.
pass
opportunity
traffic to
duces the
Rowe, however, would
result
have
safely
point.
that
It
safe
at
makes
approach
these
of
the same under
the
impossible
passage
oncoming
when there is
cases,
expresses
clear-
think
more
which we
pass-
traffic
the
and insufficient room for
of
ly,
logically the rationale
simply, and
ing movement.
a matter
We have held as
in Dixie:
court said
the result. This
designed
policy
court
this
of
statute is
“
*
* *
This
driver,
protect against
reconciliation]
[case
the
that a
risk
ambiguity
the
by the
of
difficult
rendered
inattentive,
whether cautious or
would
As em-
proximate cause.
language of
stationary
collide
Pierre
with
vehicle.
courts,
is a
proximate
by
cause
ployed
Co., supra.
application
v. Allstate Ins.
For
It is used
fixed content.
concept without
highway
policy
of the
same
a similar
cause-in-fact,
indiscriminately to refer to
statute,
regulatory
see Dixie Drive It
liability, and other
scope
the
System
Beverage
Yourself
v. American
Malone,
Ruminations
factors.”
Co.,
See
(1962).
La.
It is upon damages. at this that we then deter- recovery ative effect of mine, by analogy statutory pur- Malone, with that See Ruminations on Drive Dixie pose, System that under facts and circum- It Yourself Versus American Bev- be erage Company, supra, not stances of this case Laird could at Al- 384-385. negligent though neg- re- civilly considered so that must could have been contributorily circumstances, spond damages, ligent in civil under other he is not negligent that he recover- so is barred from here because there no breach damages. ing part gave of his of a civil on his rise which upon harm slightly track so that encroached occasioned. in this travelled of the neither Actually combination warning
area of of construction question fact-law of nor at repairs totality circum- under policy might tendant consideration which of the stances was a technical violation liability that deny basis reached.2 However, criminal this conduct is statute. duty-risk resolution of the The element oper- excusable for civil and has no 58; 440-447; Eldredge, Culpable 42, Interven fact of risk Tex.L.Rev. the place Superseding Cause, particular actually tion as Pa. U. of took case is what conduct, L.Rev. 121. The same result be would a result of defendant’s application necessarily had here of the under foreseen what was approach Moreover, likely place. xised under that doctrine. A to take actor as great majority foreseeability concept doctrinal writers would rejected intervening involving the field of torts have applicable case more superseding cause, single alleged negligence as did this court rather of a actor System in Dixie It joint Drive Yourself v. tortfeasors. than or several that of Beverage Co., 471, 542, Lundin, American 242 La. 260 La. Hill v. See Foi-eseeability ; Green, So.2d 298. (1972) So.2d Law, Negligence 61 Col.L.Rev. 1401. jurisdictions Argonaut 2. In law common would v. Insurance Com See Norton pany, present judge decision (La.App. crucial 1st Cir. 144 So.2d many cases of whether to direct a 1962), ease the Dixie states which away foreseeability verdict and take case from departs some extent only previous jury jury. possible determining whether as the test question answered af intervening relieve defend cause will —cause-in-fact—was firmatively, but such an answer is no liability. Robertson, In See also ant questions consequence law-judge Cause, Negligence tervening —Proximate duty-risk negative. are last (4th answer 281; Prosser, Torts 23 La.L.Rev. there not the neces 44, concludes p. p. 250, H.B.), A § § ed. sary legal duty-risk relationship basis—a intervening cause, even discussion support Green, *8 the claim. See The intervening cause, culpable has de t^-to Negligence Law, although Issue Causal Relation in liberately in this case omitted 543; Malone, 60 Rumina Mich.L.Rev. authority culpable in for there is some Cause-in-Fact, tions on 60; L.Rev. Stanford establishing superseding tervention as (4th Prosser, H.B.), Torts ed. § first relieves the cmse which p.' 289. 2d, §§ of Torts Restatement actor. pre legal liability adversely tort claimant Here we make a conclusion under facts, inquiry negligence an into ultimate a consideration of termits all the a conclu- fault, imposed or for sion supported for cannot be policy reason and con- siderations, negligent acts in the duty absence of rela that Laird breached no However, tionship. ques sometimes the the driver of the other vehicle or to guest passenger tion of whether the harm from a in results his own truck. legal duty There duty, risk within a is such was no embraced breach of for the law does question place a close particular of law reason and risk harm policy brought legal duty. determinations are into encountered within a play.3 setting In after Dixie forth the supports evidence Ap- the Court of policy criteria and the court said: “Lazo peal’s reduction award to Marshall support reason a conclusion that the de Laird $30,000.00 $20,000.00. fendants should not be relieved of liabil The judgment of the Appeal Court of ity.” (Emphasis We in supplied.) said in favor of Travelers Company Insurance “ * * * keys Pierre: for the solu against and Marshall Laird and State Farm tion responsibility of the issue of when Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is there more than one cause-in-fact of reversed, and judgment there is in favor damages (1) are a determination of the of Marshall Laird and State Farm Mutual anticipated by imposi exact risk risks Automobile Company dismissing Insurance legal tion of which has Company’s been Travelers Insurance third-party demand and judgment reconvention. policy breached and (2) con against Travelers Company Insurance grant siderations excuses which from cer $20,000.00 favor of Marshall Laird for and consequences tain which follow act of judgment in favor of Mrs. Gracie Laird negligence. requires, This under the facts against Company Travelers Insurance law of and each case the attendant $10,000.00 are affirmed. All costs in all (cid:127)exigencies, jurisprudential determination courts are cast Insurance Travelers implement will which and make effective Company. provisions concerning (cid:127)our codal broad respond damages SUMMERS, only those who should J., concurs result assigns reasons. their faults.” Law, Foreseeability Negligence duty-risk relationship Green, some eases the 1417; Morris, supra, questions policy assignment The Relation at Liability, Tort Criminal somewhat blended because Statutes are Judge 453; Green, Harv.L.Rev. Dixie Drive of the circumstances. See Beverage Jury System (1930). v. American It Yourself Lundin, supra. Co., supra;' v. See Hill *9 HAMLIN, personal injuries McCALEB, J., con- and medical ex- J., and incurred C. pense. extensively being was agreement with truck dam- cur the concur- SUMMERS, aged. ring opinion J. by brought A direct action Laird was
DIXON, J., written rea- dissents with against and his wife The Travelers Insur- sons. Company, ance insurer of Red Company.
River
an-
News
Travelers
SUMMERS,
(concurring).
pled
general
and
swered with
denial
Justice
contributory negligence. Alterna-
Laird’s
Although
result,
I arrive at
same
I
tively,
party plaintiff,
as third
Travelers
agree
findings
do not
some of the
liability in-
made Marshall Laird and his
assigned
the reasons
for the
conclu-
In-
surer
Farm Mutual Automobile
State
expressed.
my
sion
In
and
view the law
Company third-party defendants
surance
as
facts are
follows:
demand,
action
third-party
Laird’s
this
On November
1968 Marshall Laird
alleged to
was
wife, Gracie,
traveling
and his
were
making
negligence”
him a
“proximate
Dodge pickup
westerly
their 1968
truck in a
Hare, Jr., li-
Ralph
joint tort-feasor with
Highway
direction on Louisiana
112 about
such,
his insurer State
able
in solido with
10.3 miles east
ÍDeRidder. He
driv-
recovery ob-
Farm,
one-half of
ing,
they
and
reached
where
against Travelers.
tained
Gracie
highway employees
constructing
were
baf-
accordingly.
prayed for
Judgment was
ditch,
pulled
he
fles in the
over
roadside
subrogee to
also intervened as
Travelers
right,
high-
to his
the north side of the
paid
News
with,
to Red River
$1,100
way,
recover
stopped.
and
He
to talk
the van
Laird,
insurer
from,
Company as collision
and seek information
Noah
dismissed,
intervention was
nephew,
truck. The
one of the workmen.
who was
intercompany
of an
presumably because
Noah,
talking
and
N. E.
While
John-
Travelers
agreement between
arbitration
son,
foreman,
highway gang
exception
in an
advanced
and
Farm
State
rear
truck was struck from the
a van
demand.
by Ralph
and
trailer driven
opinion that
judge
of the
The trial
Jr.,
employee
Red River
Com-
News
fail-
Hare’s
accident was
delivering
of the
the cause
pany. At
the time Hare
n
see
proper lookout
ure to maintain
papers
magazines in the
course
traveling
while
have seen
of what he should
scope
employment. As
result
of his
noting
hour,
per
miles
collision,
at 55
his wife suffered
Laird and
easily
could
have
seen and avoided
$5,000
awarded in
favor
Travelers for
Damages
Laird vehicle.
Marshall Laird and his insurer for
awarded to Marshall
$10,000
Laird and
one-half
Gracie
award in favor injuries
personal
and medical Gracie Laird.
gence violating statutory prohibi- the My understanding of the facts are sub- against stopping highway, tion on the when stantially in with accord the trial court practicable high- off the was to of Appeal. Court of way. 32:141(A). also La.R.S. Hare was It was about 11 a. m. on November maintaining to in found driving 1968. Marshall Laird was a his lookout. Dodge pickup westerly truck direc- addition, of Appeal of Court was wife, Highway Gracie, tion La. 112. His opinion that as Laird and between passenger was a in the truck with him. to Hare had the last chance clear day The was clear and the road surface Thus, opinion avoid collision. dry. of; Appeal, of was entitled the Court Laird Travelers, to the insurer recover road, Twenty feet of the the traveled However, employer. of Hare’s portion, asphalt. was surfaced with At the joint him a was found to make through site of the collision the road ran .Hare, tort-feasor liable as such with hills, rolling “like roller coaster.” When injuries solido Hare for Gracie Laird ten miles east reached a about therefore entitled Laird. Travelers was DeRidder, large highway of he saw three Laird, in contribu- recover from Marshall warning signs, along two north tion, recovered one-half amounts road, shoulder of the his about or to right, n Gracie Laird from Travelers. apart; or 50 south feet and one $30,000 shoulder, left, opposite Finding sign trial court award to his the first suffering pain, right. signs and dis- four Marshall Laird for These were about read; excessive, manifestly high ability They feet to be feet and three wide. WORKING”, Appeal by the .award was reduced Court “MEN “ROAD WORK $20,000. $10,000 flag flying award Gracie Each had a red AHEAD”. top. Judgment affirmed. from its posted signs at the crest a When realized that the van Johnson inattentive, trial truck driver slight (the At least feet hill. he moved back feet) judge road, to the south found the distance to he 900 shoulder of at the hill, Highway De- time hollering waving same west of the crest of this his hands partment employees attempt in the were at vain to attract the at- work driver’s alongside highway. ditches Here tention divert him from the northern truck, parking pickup or westbound lane and a his collision with react, pickup. right-hand far as Be- Laird he could on the side. The driver did not however, however, shoulder, half until a feet im- cause a narrow few before the pact, applied asphalt or remained on the brakes truck left, slightly turned too traveled of the road. to his late to avoid pickup. a violent collision with the stopped, Although the truck motor was pedal impact precipitated truck Laird retained his foot on the brake then light. He distance feet across the ditch and to activate the rear brake nephew, into the trailer engaged woods. The van truck and in conversation with separated Noah, rest coming Perkins’ were asking directions to Elmer —the house, point, in the south feet having him some time ditch 74 from the told -Noah collision, pick dog pup north up the trailer the woods before he could a hound . road. there. ; *11 Although length of was the time .Laird crew foreman Johnson, N. E. the work stopped according to- varied the witnesses (cid:127) acquainted, came Laird was whom he estimates, who made are satisfied we to of the road the ditch south over from approximately there for five minutes. was stood shake chat. As hands .and Johnson south, ample space in There was the or cars the truck least two at side of the at unoccupied por- lane, the eastbound direction, going in both went each by pone— lane, north, per- to tion of the westbound or Then, talked, glanc- he withopt incident. as pickup- mit Hare maneuver around the keeping.a highway the ing;,up and down safely truck and with ease. lookput Red fpr heard the ¡traffic, Johnson pickup the trailer could see Nevys,Company van truck and Whether Hare River hilL of the he over crest approaching The van truck before came from east. the hill was-not per hour not made Since traveling clear. was at 55 60 miles that, one, to infer steep it is reasonable appeared and the to observe a driver pickup before- truck, even he have seen the he could or .the Johnson un- However, this is altered he the crest. changed neither nor reached directions important, ample was distance for there speed. between the crest of hill and the responsible tort-feasor with as a pickup to solidary enable Hare to it obligor see as he damage for one-half of the reached the Laird, crest of the hill pas- in sufficient incurred guest Gracie time to stop either go pick- or senger. around the
up. And since approached no traffic violating was opposite time, direction at going rules the road as set forth Section around the pickup presented problem, no (A) Title of the Revised Statutes two having vehicles previously negotiated provides: which the maneuver without incident. Upon highway of a any outside busi- district, fact person is that or no shall Hare was ness residence inattentive to vehicle, the road park, stop, standing ahead as his or leave testimony own unattended, upon testimony whether attended or make prior Johnson’s clear. Just to and part as paved high- he came traveled over main hill, the crest of the Hare practicable stop, park way became when concerned about a companion who part so following leave such vehicle off such at him a distance in an- other every highway, Red an un- River said but in event Company News vehicle. opposite Hare was looking obstructed width of for this vehicle in the rear for the standing view vehicle shall be left mirror of his truck and his atten- passage tion to of other vehicles and clear free road ahead was thereby. diverted shall be His own view of such vehicle testimony supports the conclusion hundred available from distance two that he could have avoided the collision if upon highway. feet each direction such he had not looking back. He testified that he warning signs, not see the did Laird’s violation consisted pickup- truck or hailing him. His the traveled of the Johnson view ahead road, forty was unobstructed and should nearby feet graveled side obvious, have seen what was traffic, provided clear di- away, with could have no rectly path. in his fail do so To stopping place. It therefore safe gross negligence. off “practicable . . such . ” highway. . part of . . (traveled) said present problem -real these facts con- held, statute, charge guilty have de- cerns the that Laird was This we protect signed property life and contributory negligence which continued to- therefore, safety and, highways. is a measure. impact, It moment *12 provisions per negligence is violation its injuries and dam- he recover for his cannot se, negligence if actionable it is and this is Moreover, made contention age. is Dixie legal the collision. Drive joint cause of negligence him makes that Laird’s System Beverage It Yourself v. American blocked in such a manner that traffic was Co., (1962). 242 La. At 137 So.2d obstructed. At least fifteen feet of clear- time, recognized in the Dixie portion the same we ance on the highway traveled of the Case that there is no universal formula remained. This was more than sufficient determining legal permit any cause. to go reasonable driver to around Laird’s truck without inci- Laird’s action was in fact a cause of the dent, the unimpaired view was and no other collision, in that struck from his truck was vehicles approaching to create a parked path the rear because it was in the problem. maneuver portion of Hare’s truck on the traveled in violation of the rules of the quoted by Violation of the statute fact, may said, road. But for this be motorist under these circumstances collision would not legal have occurred. Never- not a collision, cause of the theless, negligence was not for the collision occurs as a gross result of in- reason a cause of the collision in the attention to the road the approaching sense that he is, should answer for the result- motorist —that when the collision results ing injuries damage. This is so for from rash person actions no reasonable several expected reasons. could be to foresee. Here Hare declared that he did not see the Laird truck place, negligence pas- the first until impact, moment of did not see sive, point too far removed of time from waving hollering to attract Johnson directly leading events to collision. attention and did not warning signs see the elapsed Five minutes from the time when placed at a sufficient distance to enable him until the collision occurred. stop necessary precautions take go Secondly, although negligent per se for around Laird’s gross truck. Such disre- having violated the rules of the road gard of keep lookout stopping on the traveled can anticipated neither guarded nor practicable when it against. road, the side per se In such this case cases the a technical status technical which did not violation of bring prohibiting statute about a high- result statute de- way signed passive cause, becomes protect against. The statute was too remote designed sequence of time or prevent blocking re- traffic in such of events to legally Instead, main a manner reasonably it could viable. subse- be ex- conduct, pected quent negligent or foreseen that an accident which intervenes would original expectation between the result. But this did act and reasonable road, resulting wrong, proximately is more re- here not because .exist *13 injury. not, lated to the negligence This later at this place, time and at this owe a events, puts then duty motion a new chain to Hare!
and independent primary becomes the and duty What about pas- the Laird owed his flowing directly cause injury the senger? following The motorist and therefrom, making chargeable the actor passenger Laird’s are not in the same situa- legal responsibility with all for the conse- tion. majority does not discuss the quences. duty the passenger driver owes his to avoid
Applying principles placing these the passenger facts the position of un- case, necessary peril. Laird’s not a conduct majority finds damage placed re- cause of the collision Laird dangerous his posi- tion, sulting negligence therefrom. Nor did his violating the prohibits statute which legal contemplation tbe parking contribute in and which de- Instead, signed, damage. Hare’s according collision majority, pro- to the “to keep speed, against tect inattention and failure driver, the risk that a whether pri- inattentive, immediate and cautious or lookout would collide with a Thus, mary stationary Travel- of the collision. cause vehicle.” respond damages to Marshall ers must explanation Some is needed for and his wife Grade. Travelers’ Laird evaporation of duty which Laird owed third-party claim Marshall Laird passenger. The majority relieves for contribution also without merit. Laird all responsibility injury. for her that, I DIXON, agree (dissenting). Hare, as between Laird and Justice Laird should recover. For purposes respectfully I dissent. workability cases, in solving opin- tort opinion negli- majority finds Laird ion of the Appeal Court of (251 73) So.2d gent (guilty negligence”) of “criminal preferable: this case is Hare had to be a “cause-in-fact” of chance; last clear responsible. he is accident, but civil excuses him from duty But because he owed no the fol- as between Laird Laird, and Mrs. Why required lowing Is it Hare concurring motorist. ? because negligence of Laird more than Laird? The ma- Hare to injury. cause her put only jority says his passenger place that “under circum- danger, in a specifi- duty cally prohibited did by law, stances” Laird not owe Hare a act, and his con- that, highway, explaining clear al- curring negligence, with Hare’s caused the though Hare of the class injury. por- was member insurer bear should (following tion motorists) responsibility to whom Laird owed for Mrs. Laird’s clearing highway, injury. did