Johnson v. Houston Fire & Casualty Co.
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 17, 1977 346 So. 2d 293; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 25, 1970 238 So. 2d 790; La., July 1, 1880 32 La. Ann. 1304; La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., February 13, 1981 392 So. 2d 794
Johnson v. Houston Fire & Casualty Co., 66 So. 2d 533 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953).
Cited by
- Crier v. Marquette Casualty Company 159 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
- Henson v. Touchstone 72 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Johnson v. Houston Fire & Casualty Co. 66 So. 2d 528
Opinion text
McINNIS, Judge. Mrs. Mary Edna Johnson, appearing as administratrix of the estate of her husband, Arthur Lee Johnson, demands of defendant, Houston Fire & Casualty’ Company, the sum of $40,000 for the death of her said husband. Deceased met his death in the same accident in which Jesse Willard (Pete) Johnson was killed, and this case was consolidated with the case of Johnson v. Houston Fire & Casualty Company, No. 7940, 66 So.2d 528 . The issues in this case are identical with those in No. 7940, except that Jesse Willard Johnson was the driver of the ill-fated truck, and here it is alleged that Arthur Lee Johnson was riding behind the cab of the truck as a guest. After trial in the district court judgment was rendered' and signed rejecting demand, and she prosecutes a devolutive appeal to this court. All of the issues are fully discussed in case No. 7940, where it is held that plaintiff failed to make out the charges of negligence alleged against Claude Goocher, defendant’s insured. In such case a person riding in or on the truck, even though a guest, has no greater rights than the driver. For this reason, and the reasons set forth in case No. 7940, the judgment of the disr trict court rejecting plaintiff’s demand is affirmed, at the cost of plaintiff-appellant in both courts.