Futch v. W. Horace Williams Co.
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., October 30, 1969 228 So. 2d 175; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., December 11, 1926 5 La. App. 174; La., May 15, 1870 22 La. Ann. 373
Futch v. W. Horace Williams Co., 27 So. 2d 184 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946).
Cited by
- Smith v. Rice 613 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
- Barnes v. Thames 578 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
- Williams v. Markel Lumber Co. 566 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
- Castille v. All American Ins. Co. 550 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
- Austin v. Pascarelli 522 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
- Hebert v. Witherington 520 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
- Mattingly v. State, Dept. of Health 509 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
- Watson v. Ben 459 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
- Johnson v. Dufrene 433 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
- Batchelor v. Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex Co. 309 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Opinion text
The chief complaint of plaintiff in his application for rehearing is that he contends we considered the hearsay testimony of Mr. Carite, an employee of defendant. This contention is incorrect. We only considered such part of his testimony as was within his knowledge, such as the fact that he was the immediate supervisor of George Humble, the driver of the pickup truck; that Humble's employment hours were from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; that his last working day prior to the accident was Saturday, October 4; that Humble left his job at Camp Polk on Saturday at noon and was not due back on the job before Monday morning at eight; that this witness investigated the alleged accident and that Humble was discharged on Monday morning, October 6, for disobedience to orders in the use of the pickup truck. All of these facts were within the knowledge of the witness. We disregarded everything Humble might have told the witness. Plaintiff's application for rehearing is therefore refused.