185 So. 68 | La. Ct. App. | 1938
Both the appellant and the appellee have filed applications for re-hearing in this case, that of the appellee being limited to the question of quantum.
The length of the opinion handed down had afforded proof of itself, we thought, of our thorough consideration of every point involved in the case. However the earnestness of counsel on both sides in presenting their applications for re-hearing induced us to again go over the record very carefully and having done so we remain with the feeling that the case has been correctly decided and the proper award for damages has been made. We do not think that anything we would add at this time would be of much importance to the decision.
Our attention is called to the case of Shirley v. Caldwell Bros. Hart, 183 So. 581, decided by us on the same day as this case. Counsel for appellants urge that on the basis of our holding on the question of the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's car in that case, we were forced to hold that the plaintiff here also was guilty of negligence precluding his recovery. We do not think it necessary for us to point out the differences in the situations presented in the two cases. A careful reading of the two opinions will serve to indicate several important and controlling distinctions.
Counsel for appellants also complained of our apparent disregard of the authorities cited in their discussion of the question of damages claimed by the plaintiff and more particularly that concerning the item for loss of earnings. Particular stress seems to be laid on the case of Friede v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., La.App.,
Convinced as we are of the correctness of the decision herein handed down, both applications for rehearing are hereby refused. *69