Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 December 1924 |
| Docket Number | 26647 |
| Citation | 103 So. 303,157 La. 1030 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | BYAS v. HOTEL BENTLEY, Inc In re BYAS |
Rehearing Denied March 2, 1925
Judgment of Court of Appeal annulled and set aside, and that of district court reinstated and affirmed.
Bruton T. Dawkins, and Julius B. Nachman, both of Alexandria, for applicant.
Thornton Gist & Richey, of Alexandria, for respondent.
This is a proceeding by plaintiff under the Workmen's Compensation Law to obtain compensation for the death of her husband while in the employ of the defendant company.
The defendant company operates and maintains, in connection with its hotel business, and under the same roof, a power plant waterworks, lighting system, and power-driven freight and passenger elevators.
Plaintiff's deceased husband was the chief bell boy in the hotel operated by the defendant. His general duties in said employment, as shown by the evidence, were to supervise the other bell boys; to assist in handling the baggage of guests when other bell boys were not available, and in their absence to perform such other work as is commonly performed by bell boys; to operate elevators, freight and passenger, instruct new elevator operators, make minor repairs or adjustments to the electric switch controlling the elevators, and, frequently, to go on errands to the engine room of the defendant hotel company.
In the performance of his duties of handling the baggage of guests of defendant's hotel, deceased was brought into contact with taxicab drivers and public chauffeurs. In an altercation with one of these taxicab drivers, arising out of a dispute over the carrying of baggage, plaintiff's husband, was shot and killed.
Plaintiff avers that her husband was killed as a result of an accident arising out of, and in the course of, his employment. She alleges that the defendant company is engaged in a hazardous occupation, and, recognizing its responsibility under the Employers' Liability Law, it effected insurance, and posted notices, in accordance with the provisions of the act.
Defendant denied that it was engaged in a hazardous occupation within the terms of the statute, and, in the alternative, denied that any recovery could be had by plaintiff for the reason that her husband was shot as the result of the willful intention on his part to injure another.
The district court rendered judgment in plaintiff's favor for $ 3.99 per week for 300 weeks, together with $ 100 for surgical and hospital services, and $ 100 for funeral expenses. The Court of Appeal reversed this judgment, and rejected plaintiff's demand, and plaintiff then applied to this court for certiorari or writ of review. The application was granted, and the case is now before us.
The Court of Appeal in its opinion found, and we think correctly, that the deceased was engaged in part in hazardous occupations, and in part in nonhazardous occupations in the performance of his duties about the hotel. The court stated that, if the plaintiff's husband had been killed while he was engaged in one of his duties of a hazardous nature, she would be entitled to compensation, but, in view of the fact that the major portion of the deceased's duties were nonhazardous, and that it was while in the discharge of duties in the nonhazardous line of his employment he met his death, plaintiff was not entitled to relief.
The clear-cut issue therefore presented by this case is whether, when an employee is engaged in both hazardous and nonhazardous branches of the same employment, and he is killed while performing his customary duties, as the result of a quarrel arising out of the nonhazardous branch of his employment, his widow is entitled to compensation under the statute.
The Court of Appeal has given the statute a narrow and technical, rather than the liberal, construction intended and contemplated by the lawmaker, and as expressed in numerous decisions of this court.
The Employers' Liability Act (No. 20 of 1914), under subsection 2 of section 1, applies to the following:
"Every person performing services arising out of and incidental to his employment in the course of his employer's trade, business or occupation," etc.
In the present case, plaintif...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Selser v. Bragmans Bluff Lumber Co., Inc
...pursuit of his own business or pleasure." See, also, Ferguson v. Cady-McFarland Gravel Co., 156 La. 871, 101 So. 248; Byas v. Hotel Bentley, 157 La. 1030, 103 So. 303; Brown v. Vacuum Oil Co., 171 La. 707, 132 So. Ward v. Standard Lumber Co., 4 La.App. 89; Parker v. Leton Gin Co., 5 La.App.......
-
Talbot v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co.
...manager who cut his left thumb while using the meat slicer. 'Both cases cite and rely upon the Supreme Court decision of Byas v. Hotel Bentley, 157 La. 1030, 103 So. 303, applying the proposition therein announced to factual situations which are, in the opinion of this Court, not entirely s......
-
Ideal Bakery v. Schryver
... ... carrying luggage, being a bell boy in a hotel, and was shot ... by a taxicab driver in a dispute concerning the ... said, in Byas v. Hotel Bentley, 157 La. 1030, 103 ... So. 303, 304: ... "The ... ...
-
Plick v. Toye Bros. Auto & Taxicab Co., Inc.
... ... Rapides Lumber ... Co., 154 La. 1091, 98 So. 677 ... And it ... was stated in Byas vs. Hotel Bentley, 157 La. 1030, ... 103 So. 303, 304: ... "The ... Court of Appeal ... ...