Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co.
| Citation | 49 So.2d 852,218 La. 453 |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1950 |
| Docket Number | 39563,39565,Nos. 39566,s. 39566 |
| Parties | THIBODAUX v. SUN OIL CO. et al. BAKER v. SUN OIL CO. et al. BAKER v. J. C. CHANCE WELL SERVICE, Inc. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
A. Deutsche O'Neal, Houma, for appellants-appellants.
Frank T. Doyle, Nicholas Masters, New Orleans, Harvey Peltier, Thibodaux, St. Clair Adams & Son, New Orleans, Edmond L. Deramee, Thibodaux, Elton A. Darsey, Houma, for defendants-appellees.
We granted writs herein to review the decision of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, which affirmed judgments of the district court maintaining defendants' exceptions of no right or cause of action and dismissing the plaintiffs' suits. 40 So.2d 761.
These suits were brought in tort. They arise out of an accident caused by the collapse of an oil derrick belonging to defendant Sun Oil Company, in which accident the husband of Mrs. Sylvia Adams Thibodaux, an employee of J. C. Chance Well Service, Inc., met his death, and Dutrell E. Baker, an employee of Houston Oil Field Material Co., Inc. was injured. The drilling or reworking of an oil well for the Sun Oil Company was being done by the J. C. Chance Well Service, Inc., and at the time of the accident Houston Oil Field Material Co. was 'fishing out' drilling tools and implements which had been lost in the well during the drilling operations by Chance. The work was under the supervision of Baker.
Exceptions of no right and no cause of action were filed in the suits by Thibodaux and Baker against the Sun Oil Company, based on the contention that the rights of Mrs. Thibodaux, widow and natural tutrix of the minor children of decedent, and of Baker are governed exclusively by and provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, No. 20 of 1914, as amended, Act No. 85 of 1926. In the Baker suit against Chance Well Service, the exceptions of no right and no cause of action are based on two contentions: First, that plaintiff's exclusive remedy is under the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Act, and second, that defendant Chance's employees were at the time of the accident the employees pro hac vice of Houston Oil Field Material Co. Inc., plaintiff Baker's employer (Baker, as the fishing tool expert, was supervising Chance's employees) and under the loaned servant doctrine, defendant Chance is therefore not liable for their negligence, if any. However, this second ground was abandoned and it will not be considered by this Court.
The question for decision is whether under the facts pleaded these actions are ones in tort or whether they come under the Workmen's Compensation statute, the pertinent provisions of which read:
Section 6: 'That where any person (in this section referred to as principal) undertakes to execute any work, which is a part of his trade, business or occupation or which he had contracted to perform, and contracts with any person (in this section referred to as contractor) for the execution by or under the contract of the whole or any part of the work undertaken by the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any employee employed in the execution of the work or his dependent any compensation under this act which he would have been liable to pay if that employee had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from or proceedings are taken against the principal, then, in the application of this act, reference to the principal shall be substituted for reference to the employer, except that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the earnings of the employee under the employer by whom he is immediately employed.'
Section 7: '* * * and the payment or award of compensation hereunder shall not affect the claim or right of action of such injured employee or his dependent against such third person, * * *.'
Section 34: 'The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee or his dependent on account of a personal injury for which he is entitled to compensation under this act shall be exclusive of all other rights and remedies of such employee, * * *.'
The Court of Appeal stated, in its opinion affirming the judgment of the district court herein, maintaining the exceptions, as follows, 40 So.2d at page 766:
employer. For the reasons heretofore stated, we are firm in the opinion that Section 6, paragraph 1, and Section 34 of our compensation act apply and govern this suit.
* * *
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roelofs v. Lewals, Inc.
....... The test for determining whether an activity is part of an employer's trade or business for purposes of the Louisiana workmen's statute is whether the particular activity is an essential or integral part of the employer's business. Arnold v. Shell Oil Co., supra ; Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co., 40 So.2d 761 (La.App. 1st Cir., 1949), aff'd 218 La. 453, 49 So.2d 852 (1950); Turner v. Oliphant Oil Corp., 200 So. 513 (La.App.2d Cir., 1940). For purposes of this motion, we conclude that manufacture of ammunition is essential to the United States's business of maintaining a ......
-
Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc.
...... Rowe, supra (Lemmon, J. concurring); Lewis, supra; 1C A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, Sec. 49.00 (1982); 13 W. Malone & H. Johnson, La.Civil Law Treatise--Worker's Compensation, Sec. 121 (1980). Although its purpose was self-evident, beginning with the case of Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co., 218 La. 453, 49 So.2d 852 (1950), this Court developed the doctrine of tort immunity for principals (i.e. statutory employers) vis-a-vis their contractor's employees (i.e. statutory employees). This jurisprudential doctrine was later codified in 1976 when the ......
-
Finn v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., General Acc., Fire & Life Assur. Corp., Intervenor
......Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 5 Cir., . Page 868 . 259 F.2d 51; Dodge v. Anderson, 5 Cir., 255 F.2d 246; Humphreys v. Marquette Casualty Co., 235 La. 355, 103 So.2d 895; Landry v. Fuselier, 230 La, 271, 88 So.2d 218; Speed v. Page, 222 La. 529, 62 So.2d 824; Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co., 218 La. 453, 49 So.2d 852; Mau v. Industrial Steel Products Company, La.App.2d Cir., 1960, 119 So.2d 654; O'Brien v. Columbian Carbon Company, La.App.1st Cir., 1959, 109 So.2d 285; Miller v. B. Lewis Contractors, La.App.1st Cir., 1958, 103 So.2d 592; Richard v. National Surety ......
-
Allen v. EXHIBITION HALL AUTHORITY
......La. Acts.1914, No. 20, § 6(1), 6(2). In 1950, this court held that the language and purpose of LSA-R.S. 23:1032, when considered with § 1061, established the corresponding tort immunity for principals, Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co., 218 La. 453, 49 So.2d 852 (1950), but this immunity was not codified until the statute was amended in 1976. La. Acts 1976, No. 147, § 1. . 5. The quoted provisions are those that were in effect at the time of the alleged injury and encompass the law that ......
-
Miller v. Northside Danzi Construction Company: Immunity, the Contractor-under Clause and Alaska's Workers' Compensation Act
...So. 2d 900 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.), cert, denied, 225 So. 2d 533 (1969); Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co., 40 So. 2d 761 (La. Ct. App. 1949), aff'd, 218 La. 453, 49 So. 2d 852 (1950). 57. 2A A. Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law § 72.31 at 14-55 to -56 (1976). 58. 202 So. 2d 694 (La. Ct. App.), cert,......