Brown v. Toler, 2659.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US) |
| Citation | 19 So.2d 680 |
| Decision Date | 09 November 1944 |
| Docket Number | 2659. |
| Parties | BROWN v. TOLER. |
19 So.2d 680
BROWN
v.
TOLER.
No. 2659.
Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit
November 9, 1944
Durrett & Hardin, of Baton Rouge, for appellant.
Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Fuller and W. G. Randolph, all of Baton Rouge, for appellee.
OTT, Judge.
Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by the defendant to work in the store and market operated by the defendant, and that his duties were to do whatever he was told to do by the defendant in the operation of the store and market; that some of the duties performed by him were to open oysters, grind meat on an electrically operated meat grinder, and take the grinder apart and clean it; clean out the coffee mill, cook dog meat on a furnace over a fire, and work flower beds with a hoe in the yard; sweep the store and dust the merchandise on the shelves, deliver merchandise on foot for the store, and do various other things in connection with the operation of the store and market, and in the operation of the machinery and electrical appliances which were ordinarily and customarily used in the operation of the store.
He alleges that on or about November 25, 1939, while opening oysters in the course of his employment, he cut his right hand and forefinger on an oyster shell; that his hand became infected from the cut, and chronic osteomyelitis developed, making it necessary to remove the index finger of his right hand; that he has become totally and permanently disabled by reason of said injury. He sues for compensation at the rate of $3.90 per week for four hundred weeks.
Defendant filed an exception of no cause or right of action which was overruled. He then answered denying that plaintiff was employed by him, but alleged that his wife employed plaintiff on a temporary basis to work in her yard and garden. He admits that plaintiff was required to sweep the floor in the store and dust the merchandise, but denies that plaintiff was required to open oysters or operate the meat grinder and coffee mill. While he denies that plaintiff was employed to open oysters, he admits that plaintiff might have done so voluntarily. He also denies that plaintiff was injured and suffers any disability, and denies that he was employed to do any hazardous work.
The trial resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing plaintiff's suit, and he has appealed.
The plaintiff evidently seeks to bring his claim for compensation under the principle laid down by the courts that an employe is entitled to compensation where he is injured in performing nonhazardous duties, if his duties require him to perform both hazardous and nonhazardous work. In other words, he alleges and so testified that he was required to feed and clean the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Talbot v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., No. 4534
...Atkins v. Holsum Cafeteria (La.App.), 159 So. 758; Harrington v. Franklin Stores (La.App.), 55 So.2d 647; and Brown v. Toler, (La.App.), 19 So.2d 680. 'In Foret v. Paul Zibilech Co., Inc., it was held that an oyster shucker was not covered by the act, the business not being specifically des......
-
Mercer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 813
...Stores Corp. of New Iberia, supra, Leleau v. Jacomine, La.App. 4 Cir., 144 So.2d 921 (Cert. denied); Brown v. Toler, La.App. 1 Cir., 19 So.2d 680; Richardson v. American Employers' Ins. Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 31 So.2d 527; Boggs v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, La.App. 3 Cir., 125 So.......
-
Guidry v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., Civ. A. No. 4511.
...Catalano, La.App. Orleans 1942, 7 So. 2d 38; Scott v. Dalton Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 1941, 1 So.2d 412; Brown v. Toler, La.App. 1 Cir., 1944, 19 So.2d 680; Storm v. Johnson, La.App.1945, 23 So.2d 639; and Hammer v. Lazarone, La.App. 2 Cir., 1956, 87 So.2d Cake slicers, food mixers, dishwashers......
-
Richardson v. American Emp. Ins. Co., 2910.
...incidental and were not a major and material part of plaintiff's employment, but merely incidental thereto. See Brown v. Toler, La.App., 19 So.2d 680. As to the automobile, the situation is different. The operation of motor vehicles was early held, in Haddad v. Commercial Truck Company, 146......
-
Talbot v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., No. 4534
...Atkins v. Holsum Cafeteria (La.App.), 159 So. 758; Harrington v. Franklin Stores (La.App.), 55 So.2d 647; and Brown v. Toler, (La.App.), 19 So.2d 680. 'In Foret v. Paul Zibilech Co., Inc., it was held that an oyster shucker was not covered by the act, the business not being specifically des......
-
Mercer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 813
...Stores Corp. of New Iberia, supra, Leleau v. Jacomine, La.App. 4 Cir., 144 So.2d 921 (Cert. denied); Brown v. Toler, La.App. 1 Cir., 19 So.2d 680; Richardson v. American Employers' Ins. Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 31 So.2d 527; Boggs v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, La.App. 3 Cir., 125 So.......
-
Guidry v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., Civ. A. No. 4511.
...Catalano, La.App. Orleans 1942, 7 So. 2d 38; Scott v. Dalton Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 1941, 1 So.2d 412; Brown v. Toler, La.App. 1 Cir., 1944, 19 So.2d 680; Storm v. Johnson, La.App.1945, 23 So.2d 639; and Hammer v. Lazarone, La.App. 2 Cir., 1956, 87 So.2d Cake slicers, food mixers, dishwashers......
-
Richardson v. American Emp. Ins. Co., 2910.
...incidental and were not a major and material part of plaintiff's employment, but merely incidental thereto. See Brown v. Toler, La.App., 19 So.2d 680. As to the automobile, the situation is different. The operation of motor vehicles was early held, in Haddad v. Commercial Truck Company, 146......