Atchison v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.
| Citation | 360 So.2d 599 |
| Decision Date | 13 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND,No. 9231,9231 |
| Parties | John David ATCHISON v.COMPANY. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US) |
Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Reserve, for plaintiff-appellant.
Joseph P. Henican, III, Henican, James & Cleveland, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.
Before SAMUEL, REDMANN and STOULIG, JJ.
Defendant employer designed and constructed grain bins and their feeder system (screws, drive shaft and pneumatic lines) which defendant employed at its grain facility. Plaintiff, an employee of defendant, lost his leg at an accident while at work at that facility.
Plaintiff alleged that improper design and construction by defendant caused his loss. He seeks to hold defendant liable under a theory of "products liability" and he argues that the exclusivity of workmen's compensation, La.R.S. 23:1032, excludes only ordinary tort liability and not products liability. We reject this argument and affirm the dismissal of his action against his employer.
" Products liability" is but a catch-word, a descriptive categorization, like "slip and fall" or "medical malpractice". The liability that arises in any of these categories is the result of fault causing damage; La.C.C. 2315. Accordingly, we wee no reason to justify escape for products liability from R.S. 23:1032's peremptory denial "of all other rights and remedies" against the employer. A stranger is liable for injury caused by his defective product, just as he is liable for injury caused by dropping a hammer. It is no more unfair, and no more fair, in one instance of asserted liability than in the other, to trade that liability for workmen's compensation liability when the alleged tortfeasor is the employer of the injured person.
The wording of R.S. 23:1032 is unmistakable. No constitutional infirmity is suggested as arising in the case of products liability. There is no cause of action in "products liability" against one's employer for injury for which the employer owes workmen's compensation. 1
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. Industrial Vangas, Inc.
...812.) The holdings in Shook and Williams are mirrored in many like decisions in our sister states. (See Atchison v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. (La.App.1978) 360 So.2d 599, 600, cert. den., 362 So.2d 1389; DePaolo v. Spaulding Fibre Co., Inc. (1979) 119 N.H. 89, 397 A.2d 1048; Kottis v. Unit......
-
Billy v. Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp.
...54 Ill.App.3d 282, 12 Ill.Dec. 109, 369 N.E.2d 606; Needham v. Fred's Frozen Foods, 359 N.E.2d 544 (Ind.App.); Atchison v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 360 So.2d 599 (La.App.); Schlenk v. Aerial Contractors, 268 N.W.2d 466 (N.D.); Kottis v. United States Steel Corp., 543 F.2d 22, Having exam......
-
Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge
...v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 369 So.2d 1104 (La.App. 1st Cir.1979), writ den., 369 So.2d 466 (La.1979); Atchison v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 360 So.2d 599 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ. den., 362 So.2d 1389 (La.1978). Thus, there was no confusion which necessitated a clarification of the law......
-
Darville v. Texaco, Inc., 81-3656
...cert. denied, 386 So.2d 359 (La.1980); Hebert v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 369 So.2d 1104 (La.App.1979); Atchison v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 360 So.2d 599 (La.App.), cert. denied, 362 So.2d 1389 (La.1978). In view of these decisions, and mindful of R.S. 23:1032's exclusivity rule, we a......