Claiborne v. Smith, 17518.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US) |
| Citation | 2 So.2d 714 |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | 17518. |
| Parties | CLAIBORNE v. SMITH ET AL. |
2 So.2d 714
CLAIBORNE
v.
SMITH ET AL.
No. 17518.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Orleans.
June 2, 1941
Harry R. Cabral and Harry Herman, both of New Orleans, for appellant.
Posey R. Bowers, of New Orleans, for appellees.
JANVIER, Judge.
Charles Claiborne, while working as a cook in the kitchen department of a cafe owned and operated by defendant, Cunningham, sustained second-degree burns on his right foot and ankle when a pot of hot grease was knocked from a stove. He was disabled for a few weeks and seeks to recover the compensation to which he claims he is entitled under the laws of Louisiana, to-wit: Act No. 20 of 1914, as amended.
He brought suit originally against two defendants, Cunningham and Walter Smith, alleging them to be the owners and operators of the establishment known as "Dave's Cafe", but, when the matter was called for trial, it was stipulated "that the judgment, if any be rendered against any of the defendants, will be against Dave Cunningham".
Cunningham answered, admitting the employment of Claiborne as a cook and averring that "the duties of his occupation was that of preparing meals and doing other duties in and around the kitchen". Defendant also alleged that "this kitchen is equipped merely with a gas stove, or range, an ice box and other conveniences used in the modern home and is not equipped with any hazardous machinery of any kind or character". In other words, Cunningham resists the claim in compensation on the ground that the business in which he is engaged and in which Claiborne is employed is not one of those specifically set forth in the compensation laws as hazardous; has not been declared to be hazardous by a judgment of court rendered prior to the occurrence of this accident and that the parties have not, by agreement, stipulated that the employment of Claiborne shall be within the contemplation of the statute.
From a judgment dismissing plaintiff's suit, he has appealed.
The record shows that Claiborne was employed as a cook in the establishment and that he did sustain injury substantially as alleged and that in the kitchen department there was an electric refrigerator operated by a small electric motor, which was not contained in the refrigerator box itself, but was located alongside, or under, the refrigerator (the record is not clear on this), and which operated the compressor of the refrigerator by means of a small belt some eighteen inches or two feet in length; that the motor,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fontenot v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 50455
...from the views expressed therein. --------------- 1 Tate and Fruge, JJ., dissented on application for rehearing. 2 Claiborne v. Smith, 2 So.2d 714; Harrington v. Franklin's Stores Corp. of New Iberia, 55 So.2d 647; Coleman v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 83 So.2d 469; Leleau v. Jacomine, 144 S......
-
Robbins v. Caraway-Rhodes Veterinary Hospital, CARAWAY-RHODES
...by this court.' (Emphasis supplied.) The following cases were cited as supporting the aforesaid holding: (Claiborne v. Smith et al., 2 So.2d 714 (La.Appp., Orl., 1941); Rester v. Community Stores, Inc., 169 So. 183 (La.App., 1st Cir., 1936); Atkins v. Holsum Cafeteria, Inc., 159 So. 758 (La......
-
Fontenot v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 2972
...machinery. We conclude that the duties which he performed in or around this cold-storage room were not hazardous. See Claiborne v. Smith, 2 So.2d 714 (La.App.Orl.1941); Hymel v. Employers Liability Assur. Corp., of Great Britain, 113 So.2d 481 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1959); and Boggs v. Great Atlan......
-
Bolton v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co., 3332
...refrigerating equipment, the duties which plaintiff performed in or around this cold storage room were not hazardous. Claiborne v. Smith, 2 So.2d 714 (La.App.); Boggs v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., supra. The same is true of the sealing iron. Harrington v. Franklin's Stores Corporatio......
-
Fontenot v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 50455
...from the views expressed therein. --------------- 1 Tate and Fruge, JJ., dissented on application for rehearing. 2 Claiborne v. Smith, 2 So.2d 714; Harrington v. Franklin's Stores Corp. of New Iberia, 55 So.2d 647; Coleman v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 83 So.2d 469; Leleau v. Jacomine, 144 S......
-
Robbins v. Caraway-Rhodes Veterinary Hospital, CARAWAY-RHODES
...by this court.' (Emphasis supplied.) The following cases were cited as supporting the aforesaid holding: (Claiborne v. Smith et al., 2 So.2d 714 (La.Appp., Orl., 1941); Rester v. Community Stores, Inc., 169 So. 183 (La.App., 1st Cir., 1936); Atkins v. Holsum Cafeteria, Inc., 159 So. 758 (La......
-
Fontenot v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 2972
...machinery. We conclude that the duties which he performed in or around this cold-storage room were not hazardous. See Claiborne v. Smith, 2 So.2d 714 (La.App.Orl.1941); Hymel v. Employers Liability Assur. Corp., of Great Britain, 113 So.2d 481 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1959); and Boggs v. Great Atlan......
-
Bolton v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co., 3332
...refrigerating equipment, the duties which plaintiff performed in or around this cold storage room were not hazardous. Claiborne v. Smith, 2 So.2d 714 (La.App.); Boggs v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., supra. The same is true of the sealing iron. Harrington v. Franklin's Stores Corporatio......