intersection violation in Louisiana

1974Even assuming the possible interpretation of Williams' testimony that the unknown vehicle came from the opposite direction, sped into the intersection in violation of a red light and cut across the immediate path of the bus, we stated in Bourgeois v. Francois, 245 La. 875 , 161 So.2d 750 (1964): The Court of Appeal, citing two of its own cases and Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 209 La. 144 , 24 So.2d 292 , acknowledged that the rule is established in this State that a motorist travelling on a favored street, and, a fortiori, on a street controlled by electric semaphore lights, is entitled to

1974Even assuming the possible interpretation of Williams' testimony that the unknown vehicle came from the opposite direction, sped into the intersection in violation of a red light and cut across the immediate path of the bus, we stated in Bourgeois v. Francois, 245 La. 875 , 161 So.2d 750 (1964): The Court of Appeal, citing two of its own cases and Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 209 La. 144 , 24 So.2d 292 , acknowledged that the rule is established in this State that a motorist travelling on a favored street, and, a fortiori, on a street controlled by electric semaphore lights, is entitled to

1962“This court has repeatedly held that when both drivers are approaching the intersection at normal speeds 'the driver with the superior right of way is entitled to proceed into the intersection and will be held free of negligence in an ensuing collision, since he is not called upon to anticipate that the other vehicle will fail to respect his own right of way, nor is he put on notice in the absence of the other vehicle’s excessive speed or other circumstance reasonably perceived in time to avoid the accident that the other vehicle will enter the intersection in violation of the favored driver’s

1959App., 106 So.2d 22, 25 , as these cases declare the law to be that: "* * * The driver with the superior right of way is entitled to proceed *650 into the intersection and will be held free of negligence in an ensuing collision, since he is not called upon to anticipate that the other vehicle will fail to respect his own right of way, nor is he put on notice in the absence of the other vehicle's excessive speed or other circumstances reasonably perceived in time to avoid the accident that the other vehicle will enter the intersection in violation of the favored driver's right to enter same." De

1972Close v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, La.App., 207 So.2d 571 ; * * * ” (See additional authorities cited therein.) The award of damages need not be discussed because said damages were stipulated and are in conformity with the evidence and exhibits contained within the record.

1969Close v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, La.App., 207 So.2d 571 ; Martin v. Slocum, supra; Commercial Credit Corporation v. Morris, La.App., 107 So. 2d 563 ; Daniel v. New Orleans Public Service, La.App., 61 So.2d 223 ; Lindsay v. Shreveport Laundries, La.App., 43 So.2d 921 ; Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., 144 So. 70 . *666 For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is annulled and reversed and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of the defendants, Mathilde A. Wilson and General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., and against the plaintiff, Malvin C.

1982He cites Adams v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 277 So.2d 685 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1973) for the proposition that he could assume Black would comply with the law and that a left turning motorist is not contributorily negligent when he collides with a vehicle attempting to pass within one-hundred feet of an intersection in violation of LSA-R.S. 32:76.

1974Even assuming the possible interpretation of Williams' testimony that the unknown vehicle came from the opposite direction, sped into the intersection in violation of a red light and cut across the immediate path of the bus, we stated in Bourgeois v. Francois, 245 La. 875 , 161 So.2d 750 (1964): The Court of Appeal, citing two of its own cases and Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 209 La. 144 , 24 So.2d 292 , acknowledged that the rule is established in this State that a motorist travelling on a favored street, and, a fortiori, on a street controlled by electric semaphore lights, is entitled to

1974Even assuming the possible interpretation of Williams' testimony that the unknown vehicle came from the opposite direction, sped into the intersection in violation of a red light and cut across the immediate path of the bus, we stated in Bourgeois v. Francois, 245 La. 875 , 161 So.2d 750 (1964): The Court of Appeal, citing two of its own cases and Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 209 La. 144 , 24 So.2d 292 , acknowledged that the rule is established in this State that a motorist travelling on a favored street, and, a fortiori, on a street controlled by electric semaphore lights, is entitled to

1971There it was said that: “ ‘* * * where traffic is controlled by an electric semaphore light, although a motorist generally may rely on the assumption that others will obey the traffic signals, he is guilty of negligence if he proceeds into an intersection immediately after a red light turns to green without allowing a reasonably sufficient time for vehicles in the intersection to clear the intersection, even if such vehi-cíes are in the intersection in violation of the traffic light.’ ” 224 So.2d 22, 25 .

1969Close v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, La.App., 207 So.2d 571 ; Martin v. Slocum, supra; Commercial Credit Corporation v. Morris, La.App., 107 So. 2d 563 ; Daniel v. New Orleans Public Service, La.App., 61 So.2d 223 ; Lindsay v. Shreveport Laundries, La.App., 43 So.2d 921 ; Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., 144 So. 70 . *666 For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is annulled and reversed and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of the defendants, Mathilde A. Wilson and General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., and against the plaintiff, Malvin C.

1969Close v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, La.App., 207 So.2d 571 ; Martin v. Slocum, supra; Commercial Credit Corporation v. Morris, La.App., 107 So. 2d 563 ; Daniel v. New Orleans Public Service, La.App., 61 So.2d 223 ; Lindsay v. Shreveport Laundries, La.App., 43 So.2d 921 ; Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., 144 So. 70 . *666 For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is annulled and reversed and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of the defendants, Mathilde A. Wilson and General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., and against the plaintiff, Malvin C.

1969Close v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, La.App., 207 So.2d 571 ; Martin v. Slocum, supra; Commercial Credit Corporation v. Morris, La.App., 107 So. 2d 563 ; Daniel v. New Orleans Public Service, La.App., 61 So.2d 223 ; Lindsay v. Shreveport Laundries, La.App., 43 So.2d 921 ; Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., 144 So. 70 . *666 For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is annulled and reversed and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of the defendants, Mathilde A. Wilson and General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., and against the plaintiff, Malvin C.

1969Close v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, La.App., 207 So.2d 571 ; Martin v. Slocum, supra; Commercial Credit Corporation v. Morris, La.App., 107 So. 2d 563 ; Daniel v. New Orleans Public Service, La.App., 61 So.2d 223 ; Lindsay v. Shreveport Laundries, La.App., 43 So.2d 921 ; Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., 144 So. 70 . *666 For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is annulled and reversed and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of the defendants, Mathilde A. Wilson and General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., and against the plaintiff, Malvin C.

1969The latest case on this point is Bettis v. Paulsen-Webber Cordage Corp., La.App., 217 So.2d 662 wherein it was stated: “Our settled jurisprudence is that where traffic is controlled by an electric semaphore light, although a motorist generally may rely on the assumption that others will obey the traffic signals, he is guilty of negligence if he proceeds into an intersection immediately after a red light turns to green without allowing a reasonably sufficient time for vehicles in the intersection to clear the intersection, even if such vehicles are in the intersection in violation of the traffi

1969Close v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, La.App., 207 So.2d 571 ; Martin v. Slocum, supra; Commercial Credit Corporation v. Morris, La.App., 107 So. 2d 563 ; Daniel v. New Orleans Public Service, La.App., 61 So.2d 223 ; Lindsay v. Shreveport Laundries, La.App., 43 So.2d 921 ; Thomas v. Roberts, La.App., 144 So. 70 . *666 For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is annulled and reversed and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of the defendants, Mathilde A. Wilson and General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., and against the plaintiff, Malvin C.

1966Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 239 La. 83 , 117 So.2d 919 (1960); Youngblood v. Robison, 239 La. 338 , 118 So.2d 431 , 12 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960); Hunt v. West, 187 So. 2d 769 (La.App. 1 Cir., 1966); Patterson v. Hardware Mutual Cas.

1966Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 239 La. 83 , 117 So.2d 919 (1960); Youngblood v. Robison, 239 La. 338 , 118 So.2d 431 , 12 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960); Hunt v. West, 187 So. 2d 769 (La.App. 1 Cir., 1966); Patterson v. Hardware Mutual Cas.

1966Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 239 La. 83 , 117 So.2d 919 (1960); Youngblood v. Robison, 239 La. 338 , 118 So.2d 431 , 12 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960); Hunt v. West, 187 So. 2d 769 (La.App. 1 Cir., 1966); Patterson v. Hardware Mutual Cas.

1966Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 239 La. 83 , 117 So.2d 919 (1960); Youngblood v. Robison, 239 La. 338 , 118 So.2d 431 , 12 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960); Hunt v. West, 187 So. 2d 769 (La.App. 1 Cir., 1966); Patterson v. Hardware Mutual Cas.

1966Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 239 La. 83 , 117 So.2d 919 (1960); Youngblood v. Robison, 239 La. 338 , 118 So.2d 431 , 12 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960); Hunt v. West, 187 So. 2d 769 (La.App. 1 Cir., 1966); Patterson v. Hardware Mutual Cas.

1966Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 239 La. 83 , 117 So.2d 919 (1960); Youngblood v. Robison, 239 La. 338 , 118 So.2d 431 , 12 A.L.R.3d 1 (1960); Hunt v. West, 187 So. 2d 769 (La.App. 1 Cir., 1966); Patterson v. Hardware Mutual Cas.

1959If he brought his vehicle to a stop, there was the most wanton negligence on his part in proceeding from a position of safety into North Carrollton Avenue without ever seeing the approaching Bowers automobile; and if he made no stop, his negligence is too obvious to discuss.'" Also in Koob v. Cooperative Cab Co., 213 La. 903 , 35 So.2d 849, 851 , as follows: "The law in this state is well settled that a motorist is proceeding on a right-of-way street, upon approaching an intersection where traffic is required under a city ordinance, and is warned by stop signs, to come to a complete stop befor

1959If he brought his vehicle to a stop, there was the most wanton negligence on his part in proceeding from a position of safety into North Carrollton Avenue without ever seeing the approaching Bowers automobile; and if he made no stop, his negligence is too obvious to discuss.'" Also in Koob v. Cooperative Cab Co., 213 La. 903 , 35 So.2d 849, 851 , as follows: "The law in this state is well settled that a motorist is proceeding on a right-of-way street, upon approaching an intersection where traffic is required under a city ordinance, and is warned by stop signs, to come to a complete stop befor

1959App., 106 So.2d 22, 25 , as these cases declare the law to be that: "* * * The driver with the superior right of way is entitled to proceed *650 into the intersection and will be held free of negligence in an ensuing collision, since he is not called upon to anticipate that the other vehicle will fail to respect his own right of way, nor is he put on notice in the absence of the other vehicle's excessive speed or other circumstances reasonably perceived in time to avoid the accident that the other vehicle will enter the intersection in violation of the favored driver's right to enter same." De

1959App., 106 So.2d 22, 25 , as these cases declare the law to be that: "* * * The driver with the superior right of way is entitled to proceed *650 into the intersection and will be held free of negligence in an ensuing collision, since he is not called upon to anticipate that the other vehicle will fail to respect his own right of way, nor is he put on notice in the absence of the other vehicle's excessive speed or other circumstances reasonably perceived in time to avoid the accident that the other vehicle will enter the intersection in violation of the favored driver's right to enter same." De

1958Stevens v. Delanoix, La.App. 1 Cir., 96 So.2d 844 ; Guillory v. Frank, La.App. 1 Cir., 95 So.2d 197 , certiorari denied, Commercial Credit Corp. v. Serpas, La.App. 1 Cir., 94 So.2d 83 .

1958Stevens v. Delanoix, La.App. 1 Cir., 96 So.2d 844 ; Guillory v. Frank, La.App. 1 Cir., 95 So.2d 197 , certiorari denied, Commercial Credit Corp. v. Serpas, La.App. 1 Cir., 94 So.2d 83 .

1958Stevens v. Delanoix, La.App. 1 Cir., 96 So.2d 844 ; Guillory v. Frank, La.App. 1 Cir., 95 So.2d 197 , certiorari denied, Commercial Credit Corp. v. Serpas, La.App. 1 Cir., 94 So.2d 83 .

1955Maloz v. N[ew] O[rleans] Public Service, Inc. [La.App.], 65 So.2d 339 ; Porter [for and on Behalf of Porter] v. De Boisblanc [La.App.], 64 So.2d 864 ; Hooper v. [Toye Bros.] Yellow Cab Co. [La.App.], 50 So.2d 829 ; Koob v. Coop.

1955Maloz v. N[ew] O[rleans] Public Service, Inc. [La.App.], 65 So.2d 339 ; Porter [for and on Behalf of Porter] v. De Boisblanc [La.App.], 64 So.2d 864 ; Hooper v. [Toye Bros.] Yellow Cab Co. [La.App.], 50 So.2d 829 ; Koob v. Coop.

1955Maloz v. N[ew] O[rleans] Public Service, Inc. [La.App.], 65 So.2d 339 ; Porter [for and on Behalf of Porter] v. De Boisblanc [La.App.], 64 So.2d 864 ; Hooper v. [Toye Bros.] Yellow Cab Co. [La.App.], 50 So.2d 829 ; Koob v. Coop.