Vernon v. Bankston
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., January 16, 1978 355 So. 2d 33; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., July 1, 1964 167 So. 2d 408
Vernon v. Bankston, 28 La. Ann. 710 (1876).
Cited by
- Landry v. Bellanger 851 So. 2d 943 La. 2003
- Bacas v. Laswell 22 So. 2d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
- Finkelstein v. Naihaus 151 So. 686 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
- Newsom v. Starns 142 So. 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
- Oakes v. H. Weil Baking Co. 141 So. 456 La. 1932
- Sloane v. Franchebois 8 La. App. 395 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1928
- Lide v. Parker 6 La. App. 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
- Fontenelle v. Waguespack 90 So. 662 La. 1922
- Hingle v. Myers 65 So. 549 La. 1914
- Bonneval v. American Coffee Co. 53 So. 426 La. 1910
- Massett v. Keff 41 So. 330 La. 1906
Opinion text
Ludeling, C. J. This is an action for damages against the defendant for injuries inflicted on the plaintiff by the defendant. The damages claimed are five thousand dollars. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant. The evidence shows that there existed an old feud between the parties; that on the day of the conflict between them the plaintiff had been drinking to excess; that he and his brother overtook the defendant on the road. Defendant was in a cart.' As the plaintiff passed by the cart the mule he rode shied, and the defendant exclaimed “ whoa.” Thereupon the plaintiff told defendant he could whip him or ride him, and both parties got down to fight, when the plaintiff drew a pistol and tried to shoot the defendant. The brother of plaintiff rode between them to prevent the *711 fighting or shooting. During the time plaintiff was trying to shoot defendant, the latter requested an acquaintance who had come to the place to get him a gun, and the plaintiffs brother rode off to get his gun. The gun was procured, and the defendant shot the plaintiff. • The evidence is conflicting as to whether this was done in self-defense, but the weight of evidence is that the shooting was not in self-defense. Still, there can be no doubt that the plaintiff’s conduct was not blameless, and that the shooting was caused in part by his own fault. The jurisprudence of this State is well settled that one who is himself in fault can not recover damages for a wrong resulting from such fault, although the party inflicting the injury was not justifiable under the laws. It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed with costs of appeal.