Atkins v. Holsum Cafeteria, Inc.
Decision Date | 15 April 1935 |
Docket Number | 15012 |
Citation | 160 So. 655 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Parties | ATKINS v. HOLSUM CAFETERIA, Inc., et al |
Leslie P. Beard, of New Orleans, for appellants.
S Roccaforte and H. W. & H. M. Robinson, all of New Orleans for appellee.
Council for plaintiff, in application for rehearing vigorously assert that our interpretation of paragraph 3 of section 1 of Act No. 20 of 1914 is unsound, and that it was the purpose of the framers of that paragraph to permit a claim for compensation whenever the occupation of the employer is hazardous, regardless of whether the occupation is included within the various ones classified as hazardous under subparagraph (a) of paragraph 2 of section 1 and irrespective of whether the employer and employee have previously agreed that the employment shall be governed by the compensation act and regardless of whether a judgment of court has previously declared the occupation to be hazardous. Paragraph 3 of section 1 reads as follows:
It is the contention of plaintiff that the court in which the suit for compensation is filed may declare, even in the absence of an agreement between the employer and the employee, that the particular occupation involved is hazardous, although not specifically so classified in the act, and that in that suit compensation may be awarded.
But to so hold would be to write out of the statute the concluding sentence of the above-quoted paragraph, which provides that "the decision of the Court shall not be retroactive in its effect."
This question was first presented to this court in 1917, in the matter of Dejan v. Ujffy, 14 Orleans App. 230, in which the court, referring to the paragraph under consideration, said: "If the meaning of this paragraph be that the question whether the occupation is hazardous, shall at all times be a matter for Judicial Ascertainment, whether before or after a claim arises between the parties, then the concluding provision, that the decision on that head shall not be retroactive, is totally inoperative, and, of course, by every rule of interpretation we are obliged to give effect to this clause which is perfectly clear and unambiguous."
A few years later, in 1921, the same question was again presented to this court in Alexander v. Tharp-Bultman-Southeimer Co., No. 7373 of our docket (unreported) decided January 10th of that year. See Southern and Louisiana Digest. There the court approved and adopted certain language of the district judge. This court sa...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robbins v. Caraway-Rhodes Veterinary Hospital
...to the occurrence of the accident, to be of a hazardous nature. 'In a per curaim opinion rendered in the case of Atkins v. Holsum Cafeteria, Inc., La.App., 160 So. 655--and in which many cases were reviewed--this entire subject was fully discussed by this court.' (Emphasis supplied.) The fo......
-
Stephens, for Use and Benefit of Stephens v. Catalano
... ... In a per ... curiam opinion rendered in the case of Atkins v. Holsum ... Cafeteria, Inc., La.App., 160 So. 655--and in which many ... ...
-
Prevost v. Felix's, Inc.
... ... is not within the contemplation of the statute has been many times held, notably in Atkins v. Holsum Cafeteria, La.App., 159 So. 758, 160 So. 655; Richardson v. American Employers' Ins. Co., ... ...
- Broady v. Unity Industrial Life Ins. Co.