Brooks v. Griggs Casing Crews, Inc.

• Decision Date: 27 December 1961
• Docket Number: No. 9619,9619
• Citation: Brooks v. Griggs Casing Crews, Inc., 136 So.2d 693 (La. App. 1961)
• Parties: Richard J. BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GRIGGS CASING CREWS, INC. et al., Defendants-Appellees, Arrow Drilling Company, Third Party-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana

Page 693

136 So.2d 693

Richard J. BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GRIGGS CASING CREWS, INC. et al., Defendants-Appellees Arrow Drilling Company, Third Party-Appellant.

No. 9619.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Dec. 27, 1961.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1962.

Blanchard, Goldstein, Walker & O'Quinn, Shreveport, Wm. F. M. Meadors, Homer, for Arrow Drilling Co., third party-appellant.

Jones, Brian & Jones, Marshall, Tex., Booth, Lockard, Jack, Pleasant & LeSage, Shreveport, for Richard J. Brooks, plaintiff-appellee.

Mayer & Smith, Shreveport, for Griggs Casing Crews, Inc., and Bituminous Cas. Corp., defendants-appellees

Before HARDY, GLADNEY and AYRES, JJ.

AYRES, Judge.

The object of this action is the rescission or annulment of an agreement, or contract, of lump-sum settlement entered into by plaintiff, an injured employee, with his employer, Griggs Casing Crews, Inc., and its workmen's compensation insurer as approved by the court of the employee's residence pursuant to the provisions of the Louisiana workmen's compensation statute, LSA-R.S. 23:1274. The basis for the rescission or annulment is mutual error and mistake as to the employee's rights on the part of the parties to the settlement.

This proceeding was instituted through a joint petition of all the parties to the contract sought to be rescinded or avoided. Whatever evidence adduced on the hearing or trial of the matter was not reduced to writing and filed in the record. However, the judgment reflects that the court, after considering the evidence offered in support of the demands, concluded that the aforesaid agreement of settlement was entered into through error and mistake, not only as to the parties thereto but on the part of the court as well. Hence, the entire proceedings, including the court's approval of the settlement, were held and decreed null and void ab initio.

From the aforesaid judgment, a third party thereto, the Arrow Drilling Company, by petition and citation, suspensively appealed to this court. All the parties to the aforesaid settlement and proceedings seeking its annulments were made appellees. They have moved for a dismissal of the appeal.

The appellant, Arrow Drilling Company, contends that it has an interest in the original contract of settlement entered into by appellees in that, as the principal of Brooks' employer, it has been released from all demands and actions to which the employee was entitled because of accidental injuries received in the course and scope of his employment with Griggs Casing Crews, Inc. Further, it was contended, for the aforesaid reasons, that it was a necessary and indispensable party to the proceedings seeking the annulment of the aforesaid lumpsum settlement of compensation. The appeal in reality questions the sufficiency of the petition in stating a cause of action for the annulment of the court-approved settlement, and raises an issue of nonjoinder of necessary parties to the proceeding.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is predicated upon the position.

(1) that the appellant has no adequate interest to support an appeal and

(2) that the Industrial Accident Board, an administration agency of the State of Texas, charged with the administration of claims coming with the provisions of the workmen's compensation statute of that State, has assumed jurisdiction of the employee's compensation claim and has made an award therein, which award is alleged to be final and to have acquired the force and effect of res judicata, and, moreover, has been paid and satisfied.

Prerequisite to a discussion of the several questions presented is an understanding of the material and pertinent facts. For this purpose, a brief statement may be made.

Prior to the date Brooks sustained accidental injuries for which he sought workmen's compensation in this cause, appellant, Arrow Drilling Company, had undertaken, under contract with the Tidewater Oil Company, to drill an oil well in the State of Texas, which undertaking included the running and setting of the casing in said well. When the well had been drilled to a desired depth, appellant entered into a contract in the State of Louisiana with Griggs Casing Crews, Inc., whereby the latter agreed to, and did undertake to, execute and perform a part of the work undertaken by appellant, that is, the running and setting of the casing in the well. Plaintiff, a resident of Louisiana, employed therein by Griggs Casing Crews, Inc., was sent by his employer to the State of Texas to assist in the performance of the work contemplated in the contract with appellant. While performing this work, plaintiff sustained accidental injuries resulting in disabilities constituting the subject matter of the lump-sum settlement.

Appropriate is an inquiry as to the nature of the mutual error, mistake, or misunderstanding under which the parties labored and proceeded to make a settlement of compensation. Under the aforesaid facts, plaintiff may have sought compensation under the statutes of either Texas or Louisiana. Once it has been established that the contract of employment was entered into in Louisiana, a Louisiana court which has jurisdiction, ratione personae, of the litigants will give the Louisiana compensation statute extra territorial effect to cover injuries received in another state or in a foreign country. Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper, 286 U.S. 145, 52 S.Ct. 571, 76 L.Ed. 1026, 82 A.L.R. 696; Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Industrial Accident Comm., 294 U.S. 532, 55 S.Ct. 518, 79 L.Ed. 1044; Ohlhausen v. Sternberg Dredging Co., 218 La. 677, 50 So.2d 803; Hargis v. McWilliams Co., 9 La.App. 108, 119 So. 88; Festervand v. Laster, 15 La.App. 159, 130 So. 634; Selser v. Bragmans Bluff Lumber Co., La.App. Orleans, 1933, 146 So. 690; McKane v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., La.App. Orleans, 1940, 199 So. 175 (writs denied).

There could be, of course, no question as to the applicability of the Texas compensation statute to accidential injuries sustained in that State even though the contract of employment was entered into elsewhere.

The statutes of both states provide that an injured employee, in addition to the compensation benefits afforded him, may maintain an action in tort against third party tort-feasors. The policy of both states in that regard is the same. The policies are in harmony and there is no clash. The Texas statute, is, however, more inclusive and comprehensive as to those subject to tort liability than is the statute of the State of Louisiana. For instance, the exclusive remedy of employees of a contractor against a principal under the Louisiana workmen's compensation statute is for compensation and, as the principal is not considered a third person under the statute, there is no right of action in tort against him. LSA-R.S. 23:1061; Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co., 218 La. 453, 49 So.2d 852; Benoit v. Hunt Tool Co., 219 La. 380, 53 So.2d 137; Stansbury v. Magnolia Petroleum Company, La.App.1st Cir., 1957,91 So.2d 917; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Gulf Refining Co., La.App.1st Cir., 1957, 95 2d 734; O'Brien v. Columbian Carbon Company, La.App.1st Cir., 1959,109 So.2d 285; Gant v. Jackson Brewing Company, La.App. Orleans, 1959, 112 So.2d 767.

On the other hand, the employees of a contractor may proceed against the principal in tort for accidental injuries under the laws of the State of Texas. Employers Casualty Co. v. Howard P. Foley Co., 5 Cir., 158 F.2d 363; Standard Oil Co. of Texas v. Swinney, 5 Cir., 201 F.2d 133; Harbour v. Graham Mfg. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 700.

Thus, it is seen that Brooks, the injured employee in the instant case, had, under the laws and jurisprudence of Texas, a right of action in tort against the principal, which right he did not have under the Louisiana statute. The basis for the annulment of the settlement is that appellees were not informed of such rights and, in making settlement, there was no intention to relinquish or to release such rights. The error or misunderstanding was a mistake as to the very existence of legal rights. Such a mistake is sufficient to warrant the nullification of a judgment.

In McCastle v. Architectural Stone Co., La.App.1st Cir., 1941, 4 So.2d 120, plaintiff settled his compensation claim against his immediate employer, a subcontractor. He was advised by the latter's counsel, who was found to be acting in good faith, that he had valuable rights against the principal contractor in tort. This advice was, of course, erroneous. Plaintiff, however, settled his claim against the subcontractor and, upon later learning he had no rights in tort against the principal contractor, sought to have the compromise settlement set aside. It was held that, where one was in error as to the existence of his legal rights, such a mistake partook both of the nature of an error of law and an error of fact. Such an error was held sufficient to annul the compromise settlement.

Moreover, a mistake as to the existence of legal rights of remedies is a mistake of fact, particularly where the pertinent law is that of another state. Sampson v. Mudge, C.C., 13 F. 260; Haven v. Foster, 9 Pick. 112, 26 Mass. 112, 19 Am.Dec. 353; Walker v. Walker, 138 Tenn. 679, 200 S.W. 825; Farrell v. Third Nat. Bank in Nashville, 20 Tenn.App. 540, 101 S.W.2d 158.

Where the error relates solely and simply to a mistake of law as to relief sought, nullification of a judgment predicated upon such mistake will be recognized. Phillippine Sugar Estates Development Co. v. Government of Philippine Islands, 247 U.S. 385, 38 S.Ct. 513, 62 L.Ed. 1177; In re Smith-Flynn Commission Co., 8 Cir., 292 F. 465.

This principle has been applied by the courts of Louisiana which have granted relief notwithstanding that the error was one merely of law, particularly in instances where the error was mutual. Hello World Broadcasting Corp. v. International Broadcasting Corp., 186 La. 589, 173 So. 115, 119; Reynaud v. Bullock, 195 La. 86, 196 So. 29; Southwest...