88-C-0669 Precedential Processed

Hano v. DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOPMENT

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed April 22, 1988 · 523 So. 2d 861

Cited by

Thomas v. Hodges 48 So. 3d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Crane v. Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. 743 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
Spiller v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 668 So. 2d 1318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Price v. Exxon Corp. 664 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Labit v. Tangipahoa Parish Council 581 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Jaffarzad v. Jones Truck Lines, Inc. 561 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Day v. South Line Equipment Co. 551 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Simon v. Ford Motor Company 282 So. 2d 126
Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 233 La. 544
Esco v. Smith 468 So. 2d 1169

Opinion text

523 So.2d 861 (1988) Lena Mae Ezell HANO, Harold Ray Hano, Sharon Ann Hano Sullivan, Kenneth James Hano, Phillip Wayne Hano, and Nancy Marie Hano v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT. No. 88-C-0669. Supreme Court of Louisiana. April 22, 1988. Denied. The result is correct. LEMMON, J., concurs, disagreeing with the reasoning of the court of appeal, but finds no basis to hold defendant at fault. CALOGERO and COLE, JJ., would grant the writ. There is no presumption of Hano's negligence in this case. The Court of Appeal erred in extending the presumption of negligence enunciated in Simon v. Ford Motor Company, 282 So.2d 126 (La. 1973), to these facts. The mere presence of Hano's car on the opposite shoulder does not imply negligence on his part since this does not exclude other reasonable hypotheses consistent with proper driving. *862 See Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 233 La. 544, 554-55 , 97 So.2d 389, 392-93 (1957). Since the trial court found there was no evidence of Hano's negligence, the State has failed to establish the defense of contributory negligence. Esco v. Smith, 468 So.2d 1169 (La.1985).