Castille v. Sibille
| Decision Date | 31 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 5778,5778 |
| Citation | 342 So.2d 279 |
| Parties | Elrick J. CASTILLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald SIBILLE et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
C. Kenneth Deshotel, Opelousas, for plaintiff-appellant.
Allen, Gooch & Bourgeois, by Paul J. Breaux, Lafayette, for defendants-appellees.
Before DOMENGEAUX, WATSON and FORET, JJ.
This is a workmen's compensation suit which was filed in the Twenty-Seventh Judicial District Court, St. Landry Parish, in which Elrick J. Castille sought compensation from Donald Sibille and Jerry Sibille for injuries he sustained as a result of a motor vehicular accident at the intersection of U.S. Highway 167 and the Sunset-Grand Couteau Highway on Friday, November 22, 1974. Judgment was rendered in favor of defendants. From such judgment, plaintiff perfected this devolutive appeal.
Plaintiff Castille was a carpenter employed by Sunset Fixture Works, owned and operated by defendants, Donald Sibille and Jerry Sibille. In the morning of November 22, 1974, Castille had worked for defendants at Opelousas General Hospital. In the early part of the afternoon, he returned to defendants' shop in Sunset. There he was told by defendant Donald Sibille and James Stelly, an employee of defendants, that there was no more work for him to do and Castille was paid for the hours that he had worked that week. Castille stated that he would 'just knock off for the day' and go home. Castille testified that after he left the shop and while on his way home he had decided to return to Opelousas General Hospital to continue working. While operating his motor vehicle upon the highway, Castille was involved in the accident about which this suit was brought.
Prerequisite to an award of workmen's compensation are three factual findings: That a contract of employment existed as between plaintiff and defendant; that plaintiff was engaged in a hazardous occupation; and that plaintiff was injured while in the course and scope of his employment. LSA-R.S. 23:1031; R.S. 23:1035. In this case, defendants readily concede the first two elements of plaintiff's workmen's compensation cause of action. At issue is the third element necessary for an award of workmen's compensation, that is, whether or not plaintiff, while operating his own motor vehicle, was in the course and scope of his employment.
Normally, an employee injured while in transit to and from the jobsite is not within the course and scope of his employment and is thus not entitled to workmen's compensation from his employer for injuries sustained at such time. To such general rule, however, there are exceptions. The courts have held employees entitled to workmen's compensation in those cases in which the employer had concerned himself with the transportation of his employees--he has furnished transportation (Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co., 219 La. 846, 54 So.2d 121 (1951); Jackson v. Long, 289 So .2d 205 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1974); Gardner v. Industrial Indemnity Co., 212 So.2d 452 (La.App 1 Cir. 1968); Callihan v. Firemen's Fund Indemnity Co., 110 So.2d 758 (La.App.1959); and/or the employee is furnished travel expenses or is paid wages for time spent in traveling (Jackson v. Long, supra; Pierre v. Gulf Janitorial Service of Baton Rouge, 277 So.2d 509 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1973), writ denied 279 So.2d 689; Welch v. Travelers Inc. Co., 225 So.2d 623 (La.App. 1 Cir . 1969), writ refused 254 La. 852, 227 So.2d 594; Gardner v. Industrial Indemnity Co., supra)--and in those cases in which the operation of the motor vehicle was the performance of one of the duties of the employment of plaintiff (Stephens v. Justiss-Mears Oil Co., La., 312 So.2d 293 (1975); Jackson v. Long, supra; Fabre v. Travelers Ins. Co., 286 So.2d 459 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1973), writ denied, La., 288 So.2d 646; Pierre v. Gulf Janitorial Service of Baton Rouge, supra; Keller v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
96-100 La.App. 3 Cir. 8/21/96, Kennedy v. Martin Gas Transp. Co., Inc.
...v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 387 So.2d 1340 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980), writ denied, 393 So.2d 746 (La.1980); Castille v. Sibille, 342 So.2d 279 (La.App. 3d Cir.1977), and Gardner v. Industrial Indemnity Company, 212 So.2d 452 (La.App. 1st See also Francisco v. Energy Drilling Co., 26,23......
-
Phipps v. Bruno Const.
...v. All American Insurance Company, 550 So.2d 334 (La.App. 3d Cir.1989), writ denied, 556 So.2d 1261 (La.1990); Castille v. Sibille, 342 So.2d 279 (La.App. 3d Cir.1977). Clearly none of these exceptions is applicable to the case sub Our final inquiry concerns the effect of Claimant's employe......
-
93-1528 La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/94, Dupre v. Exxon Pipeline Co.
...the employee is furnished travel expenses or is paid wages for time spent in traveling... (citations omitted) Castille v. Sibille, 342 So.2d 279, 281 (La.App. 3 Cir.1977). Another exception has been recognized when an accident occurs at a place with an unusually hazardous travel risk not co......
-
White v. Frenkel
...of his employment as to render his employer liable to third persons as a result of the employee's negligent acts. Castille v. Sibille, 342 So.2d 279 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1977). Ten years before deciding the Castille case, the Third Circuit had acknowledged the difficulty of making this determin......