Hart v. New Orleans & Carrollton Rail Road
Supreme Court of Louisiana
. Appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the District Court of the first district, Buchanan, J. I. That there was no proof that the defendants were owners of the omnibus, or employers of the driver. II. That responsibility only attaches where the employer might have prevented the damage and did not do so. $trawbridge v, Turner, fc„ 8 La., 537. III. That an employer is never liable for a wanton and malicious act of his agent. Gail- . lardet v. Demaries, 18 La., 490.
1Opinion of the CourtGarland, J.
This'action is brought to recover $850as damages, caused by the driver of an omnibus, alleged to be the property of the defendants, negligently running it against a carriage belonging to the plaintiff, which was standing as close to the side-walk as it could be placed, in one of the most public streets of the city of New Orleans; whereby the carriage was broken to pieces, and nearly or entirely destroyed, and rendered useless.
The evidence satisfies us that it was an act of gross negligence ; the jury gave $800 damages; and we should not hesitate to affirm the judgment rendered on the verdict,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gaillardet v. DemariesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1841
3Cited by9 opinions
- Johnson v. ButterworthSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1934
- Graham v. St. Charles Street RailroadSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1895
- Stanley v. SchumpertSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1906
- Hannum v. Borough of West ChesterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Nelson v. Crescent City RailroadSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1897
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.