
    Aneice VAUGHN et al. v. William ROSS et al. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY partial subrogee to the rights of/and William Ross v. Willie TYLER and Aneice Vaughn.
    Nos. 13759, 13760.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    March 23, 1981.
    Douglas T. Curet, Hammond, for plaintiffs in No. 13759 and for defendants in No. 13760.
    Ronald A. Curet, Hammond, Charles J. Ferrara, Metairie, for plaintiffs in No. 13759.
    A. Miles Platt, III, Metairie, for defendants in No. 13759.
    William V. Renaudin, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiff in No. 13760.
    Before ELLIS, COVINGTON, LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and PONDER, JJ.
   EDWARDS, Judge.

These consolidated cases involve an automobile collision which occurred in Tangipa-hoa Parish on April 20, 1977, during a light rain. One car, owned by Aneice Vaughn and driven by Willie Tyler, carrying as passengers Aneice Vaughn, Rhonda Vaughn and two others, was struck by the other car, owned by William Ross and driven by Michael J. Ross.

Aneice and Rhonda Vaughn brought suit against William Ross, Michael J. Ross and the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Aneice, by amended and supplemental petition, sought $2,000 in property damage, $12,000 in medical expenses and $120,000 in general damages for personal injuries. Rhonda sought $300 in medical expenses and $25,000 for personal injuries. Defendants answered with a denial and named Willie Tyler a third party defendant.

In a separate suit, later consolidated with the first, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as partial subrogee to the rights of William Ross, and William Ross sued Willie Tyler and Aneice Vaughn. Liberty Mutual sought $1,036.49 and Ross claimed $100, all for property damage to Ross’ car. In the second suit, Vaughn answered with a denial and Tyler was dismissed as a defendant when a declinatory exception of insufficiency of service of process filed on his behalf was maintained.

At trial, testimony elicited showed that the accident occurred on Louisiana Highway 1040, Old Baton Rouge Highway, in an area west of Hammond in the vicinity of Nell’s Cafe. The Vaughn car pulled out of Calvary Street and headed east on Hwy. 1040, a two-lane road. Ross’ car was also headed east on Hwy. 1040, but was somewhat behind the Vaughn automobile. When the Vaughn car began turning left, into the driveway of one Mrs. Johnson, Ross attempted to pass it by using the oncoming traffic, or left-hand, lane. The collision ensued with the front of Ross’ car striking the left front part of the Vaughn car.

Michael Ross’ version of the accident was that when the Vaughn car pulled onto Hwy. 1040, he, Ross, was only twenty-five to thirty-five yards distant and was traveling at a speed of between thirty-five and forty miles per hour in a fifty mile per hour zone. Ross further testified that to avoid a certain broadside collision, he honked his horn and pulled left to pass, but that within seconds the Vaughn car turned left and the collision occurred.

Aneice Vaughn, Rhonda Vaughn and Margaret Ann Vaughn, a third passenger in the Vaughn car, all testified that they heard a screeching of tires or brakes just before their car was struck. Rhonda Vaughn, a front seat passenger, testified, in direct contradiction to Ross, that Tyler had switched on his “blinkers” prior to turning left.

No reasons for judgment were provided by the trial judge. Evidently he evaluated the evidence and concluded that the accident had been caused by Michael Ross’ negligence.

Judgment was signed in favor of Aneice Vaughn and against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, William Ross and Michael J. Ross in solido for $4,668.97 in special damages, $12,500 in general damages, interest and costs.

Judgment in Rhonda Vaughn’s favor and against the same defendants was for $500.

The suit of Liberty Mutual and William Ross against Aneice Vaughn was dismissed at plaintiff’s costs.

All parties have appealed.

Aneice and Rhonda Vaughn seek greater awards. Michael J. Ross, William Ross and Liberty Mutual seek a reversal on the issue of liability or, alternatively, a reduction in the judgment.

A review of the facts supports the trial court’s finding of negligence on the part of Michael J. Ross. We find no manifest error.

There was some conflicting testimony in the area of damages. Nevertheless, while somewhat high, the award remains, within the trial court’s “much discretion” and is not an abuse. LSA-C.C. Art. 1934.

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court judgment is affirmed. All costs, both trial and appellate, are to be paid by William Ross, Michael J. Ross and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

AFFIRMED.

LOTTINGER, J., dissents for reasons assigned by PONDER, J.

PONDER, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

PONDER, Judge,

dissenting.

I dissent.

Aneice Vaughn, a passenger in her own car driven by Willie Tyler, testified that defendant’s car was several blocks away when they turned from a side street on to the highway. They were going only a short distance on the highway so the driver put the blinkers on. As they started to turn, they heard the screeching of brakes and were hit on the left front fender and door.

Rhonda Vaughn testified they were making a left turn after putting on the blinkers when she heard the screeching of brakes and they were hit on the side.

Margaret Vaughn testified they were making a left turn and she could hear screeching as soon as they turned.

Willie Tyler, the driver for Mrs. Vaughn, did not testify.

Michael Ross said he saw the Vaughn car coming out twenty-five to thirty-five yards away. Realizing that a collision might be imminent he pulled to the left and started around. Tyler started to make a left turn some ten to fifteen yards before a driveway.

The investigating trooper testified the debris was in the center of the roadway about sixty feet west of a small driveway.

The physical evidence, therefore, corroborates defendant’s evidence that Tyler, who did not testify, came into the left lane well before reaching the place he evidently intended to turn into.

Neither the trial court nor the majority has given any legal or factual basis for finding William Ross, the father of twenty-two year old Michael Ross, liable. The allegations of William Ross’ negligence were:

“(2) Negligence of William J. Ross:
A. Failing to exercise proper control and supervision of his vehicle, in allowing same to be used without proper supervision and safeguards for the public;
B. Negligently allowing his automobile to be driven by one he knew, or should have known, did not possess the requisite skill and judgment to operate same as indicated by the acts of negligence set forth herein by said driver.”

I find no evidence to support these contentions.

I therefore believe that the trial court manifestly erred.  