Case Name: Delta Fire & Casualty Company V. William J. Bird and Odell N. Bird

Case Summary: Delta Fire & Casualty Company V. William J. Bird and Odell N. Bird is a 1960 case in the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Orleans. In the case, the court overturned an earlier decision whereby the claimant had to pay the defendants a sum amounting to $264.22 for damages sustained to the defendant's automobile. The appellate court found it necessary to overturn the decision in this case since the evidence suggested that it was, indeed, the defendant who was responsible for the collision and was, therefore, not entitled to damages.

Facts: William J. Bird and Burton H. Himbert, Sr. were involved in a collision on the intersection of Hesiod Street and Phospher Avenue in Metairie, Louisiana at noon on 25th December, 1965. The collision resulted in significant damage to Himbert's car to an amount totaling $264.22. His insurer sought to recover the amount from Bird and his spouse who was driving the car at the time. Several acts of negligence accrued to Mrs. Bird such as entering the intersection blindly, failing to yield way to Himbert, and going over the speed limit set on that stretch of road. The defendants denied that Mrs. Bird had any fault in the accident and asserted that Himbert was the cause of the accident. Indeed, they argued that he had been speeding at the time of the accident. In addition, they claimed that he failed to stop, or control his automobile in such a way as to prevent the accident. Further, they asserted that did not apply his brakes, which would have prevented the accident. Lastly, they argued that Himbert failed to yield way to Mrs. Bird resulting in the accident. The court held that the defendant had been negligent and attached a special plea of contributory negligence to Himbert and his insurer. Importantly, he was unable to recover damages to his car. The judge then dismissed the suit in favor of the defendants to which the plaintiff sought an appeal. In the appellate court, the court found that Mrs. Bird was guilty of negligence. The court also found that she was the one required to yield right of way on that road and that she entered the intersection blindly forcing her into the path of Himbert's automobile, which struck hers on the left. The appellate court ruled that it was her negligence that led to the collision. The appellate court held that the facts showed Mr. Himbert was entitled to recover damages since the defendant could not successfully uphold an assertion of contributory negligence against the plaintiff.

Issue: The question up for discussion was whether the trial court erred in its ruling against the plaintiff. The question becomes important considering that the evidence showed that the accident was the sole cause of the defendant and that the plaintiff did not contribute to the accident in any way.