Archibald v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp.

• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Citation: Archibald v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., 11 So.2d 492, 202 La. 89 (La. 1942)
• Decision Date: 30 November 1942
• Docket Number: 36671.
• Parties: ARCHIBALD et al. v. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSUR. CORPORATION, Ltd., et al.

11 So.2d 492

202 La. 89

ARCHIBALD et al. v. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSUR. CORPORATION, Ltd., et al.

No. 36671.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

November 30, 1942

Rehearing Denied Dec. 30, 1942.

Kehl & Cuquet, of New Orleans, for applicant.

Edward Rightor and Wm. H. Sellers, both of New Orleans, for respondents.

PONDER Justice.

The plaintiffs, Charles Archibald, Mrs. Charles Archibald, Mrs Harry Tauzin and Mrs. Julius Bishop, father-in-law and mother-in-law and two sisters-in-law, respectively, of the deceased employee, Anthony B. Camps, brought suit against the defendants, the Wallace Plumbing Company and its insurer, the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd. claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Act 20 of 1914, as amended, on the ground that the plaintiffs were dependents, within the contemplation of the Act, of the deceased employee at the time of his death. The defendants interposed exceptions of no right and no cause of action which were referred to the merits. Upon trial of the cause, the lower court gave judgment maintaining the exceptions of no right and no cause of action. The judgment was affirmed, on appeal, by the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans. A writ of review was granted by this Court, and the cause is now submitted for our determination.

It is alleged in the plaintiffs' petition that they were dependent upon the deceased employee for support at the time of his death that plaintiffs resided in the same house with the deceased employee; that they were members of the deceased employee's family within the contemplation of the Act that the deceased employee has no ascendants nor descendants; and that the deceased employee's wife, Effie Archibald Camps, had predeceased him.

The defendants answered in the nature of a general denial, reserving the benefit of the exceptions. The defendants' position is to the effect that plaintiffs are not entitled to compensation for the reason that at the time of the death of the employee, the plaintiffs were not legal dependents within the contemplation of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The question raised by the exceptions is whether, in the absence of blood relatives, a mother-in-law, father-in-law and sisters-in-law, who lived with the deceased employee prior to his death and who were actually dependent upon him, may recover compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The Workmen's Compensation Act, Act 20 of 1914 as amended, provides in Section 8, subsection 2, Act No. 242 of 1928, p. 358, Dart's General Statutes, § 4398 (Vol. 3, Page 340), as follows:

'For injury causing death within one year after the accident there shall be paid to the legal dependents of the employee, actually and wholly dependent upon his earnings for support at the time of the accident and death, a weekly sum as hereinafter provided, for a period of three hundred weeks.'

In Paragraph (D) of subsection 2 of the Act, Dart's General Statutes § 4398 (Vol. 3, Page 340), it is provided:

'No person shall be considered a dependent, unless he is a member of the family of the deceased employee, or bearing to him the relation of husband or widow, or lineal descendant or ascendant, or brother or sister, or child.'

Paragraph (E) of subsection 2 of the Act, Dart's General Statutes § 4398 (Vol. 3, Page 341), provides:

'If there be neither widow, widower nor child, nor dependent parent entitled to compensation, then to one brother or sister, thirty-two and one-half per centum of wages of deceased, with eleven per centum additional for each brother or sister in excess of one. If other dependents than those enumerated, thirty-two and one-half per centum of wages for one and eleven per centum additional for each such dependent in excess of one, subject to a maximum of sixty-five per centum of wages for all, regardless of the number of dependents.'

In Paragraph (I) of subsection 2 of the Act, Dart's General Statutes § 4398 (Vol. 3, Page 342), it is provided:

'In all cases provided for under this section the relation or dependency must exist at the time of the accident and at the time of death, and the mere expectation or hope of future contribution to support of an alleged dependent by an employee, shall not constitute proof of dependency as a fact.'

The defendants contend that no one can be considered as a legal dependent except a person who, prior to the death of the employee, had the legal right to demand support from him.

From the history of this type of legislation, its purpose is primarily to abolish the Common Law system relating to injuries to employees as inadequate and to substitute a system based on high conceptions of man's obligations to his fellow man in order that the loss incurred as a result of the employee's injury might be charged to the industry as an element of the cost of production, so that the burden is finally borne by the community in general. Puchner v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp., 198 La. 921, 931, 5 So.2d 288.

In subsection 2 of Section 8 of the Act, as above quoted, compensation shall be paid to the legal dependents of the employee actually and wholly dependent upon his earnings for support at the time of his accident and death. The determination of who are to be regarded as legal dependents of an employee must be ascertained from the Act itself.

The legal dependents designated in the statute are members of the family of the deceased employee, or persons bearing to him the relation of husband, widow, lineal ascendant or descendant, brother, sister, or child, who were dependent on him for support at the time of his death.

The plaintiffs' right to recover compensation rests entirely upon whether or not they are dependent members of the family of the deceased employee within the meaning of the Act. Just what relationship must exist between individuals to constitute a family or to make each individual a member of the same family depends on the legislative intent in...