Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., 26647
| Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
| Writing for the Court | ROGERS, J. |
| Citation | 103 So. 303,157 La. 1030 |
| Parties | BYAS v. HOTEL BENTLEY, Inc In re BYAS |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1924 |
| Docket Number | 26647 |
103 So. 303
157 La. 1030
BYAS
v.
HOTEL BENTLEY, Inc
In re BYAS
No. 26647
Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 1, 1924
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.
OPINION
[157 La. 1031] ROGERS, J.
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 [157 La. 1032] 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Talbot v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., No. 4534
...his left thumb while using the meat slicer. Page 814 '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 similar.......
-
Ideal Bakery v. Schryver, 1695
...court's action and reversing that of the Intermediate Appellate Court, the Supreme Court of Louisiana said, in Byas v. Hotel Bentley, 157 La. 1030, 103 So. 303, 304: "The clear-cut issue therefore presented by this case is whether, when an employee is engaged in both hazardous and nonhazard......
-
Selser v. Bragmans Bluff Lumber Co., Inc, 14483
...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. 117; Ward v. Standard Lumber Co., 4 La.App. 89; Parker v. Leton Gin Co., 5 La.App. 72......
-
Allen v. Travelers Ins. Co., No. 5105
...by the courts to be hazardous in nature. In addition, there is that line of decisions (commencing with Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., 157 La. 1030, 103 So. 303), wherein recovery of compensation is permitted when, even though the primary business of the employer is non-hazardous, the employee......
-
Selser v. Bragmans Bluff Lumber Co., Inc, 14483
...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. 117; Ward v. Standard Lumber Co., 4 La.App. 89; Parker v. Leton Gin Co., 5 La.App. 72......
-
Talbot v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 4534
...his left thumb while using the meat slicer. Page 814 '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 similar.......
-
Ideal Bakery v. Schryver, 1695
...court's action and reversing that of the Intermediate Appellate Court, the Supreme Court of Louisiana said, in Byas v. Hotel Bentley, 157 La. 1030, 103 So. 303, 304: "The clear-cut issue therefore presented by this case is whether, when an employee is engaged in both hazardous and nonhazard......
-
Plick v. Toye Bros. Auto & Taxicab Co., Inc., 11,327
...they should be liberally interpreted." Dyer vs. 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 has given the statute a narrow and technical, rather than the liberal, construction intended and co......