Day v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co
| Decision Date | 03 March 1919 |
| Docket Number | 22673 |
| Citation | 144 La. 820,81 So. 328 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | DAY v. LOUISIANA CENTRAL LUMBER CO |
Rehearing Denied March 31, 1919
Perrin & Perrin, of Jena, for plaintiff.
Thornton Gist & Richey, of Alexandria, for defendant.
OPINION
O'NIELL, J.
This suit was brought by an employe against his employer, primarily for $ 15,000 damages, and in the alternative for $ 950.25 compensation, for personal injuries received by plaintiff while performing services arising out of and incidental to his employment.
The primary demand for damages, is founded upon allegations of fault and negligence on the part of the employer, and upon plaintiff's contention that section 34 of Act No. 20 of 1914, the Employers' Liability Act, purporting to deprive an employe of a right of action against his employer for damages for personal injuries received while performing services arising out of and incidental to the employment, or making the rights and remedies granted by the statute in such case exclusive of all other rights or remedies, is unconstitutional.
Defendant filed a plea or exception of no cause or right of action for damages or for compensation. The district court, declaring Act No. 20 of 1914 valid, maintained the exception of no right of action for damages, and rejected plaintiff's primary demand. The court overruled the exception to the suit for compensation, and, after hearing evidence on that claim alone, in the form of an admitted statement of facts, gave judgment in favor of plaintiff for the amount of compensation sued for. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment rejecting his demand for damages, and defendant appealed from the judgment allowing compensation under the statute.
The only question presented by plaintiff's appeal from the judgment rejecting his demand for damages is whether Act No. 20 of 1914 is unconstitutional for any of the reasons urged. The arguments advanced are:
First. That the statute is an attempt to deprive every injured employe of an adequate remedy by due process of law, for personal injuries received, and therefore violates article 6 of the state Constitution.
Second. That the statute is an attempt to grant to certain corporations an exclusive privilege or immunity, and therefore violates the fourteenth paragraph of article 48 of the state Constitution.
Third. That the statute violates article 51 of the state Constitution, declaring that no law shall be passed fixing the price of manual labor.
Fourth. That the statute violates the Seventh Article of Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, declaring that, in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed $ 20, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.
Opinion.1. We have heretofore considered, and have reconsidered the question several times, whether section 34 of Act No. 20 of 1914 is violative of article 6 of the state Constitution; and we adhere to our ruling that the law is not invalid in that respect. See Whittington v. Louisiana Sawmill Co., 142 La. 322, 76 So. 754, Boyer v. Crescent Paper Box Factory, 143 La. 368, 78 So. 596, and Philps v. Guy Drilling Co., 143 La. 951, 79 So. 549.
2. Article 48 of the Constitution, in terms, applies only to local or special laws. Act No. 20 of 1914 is not a local or special law. It does not purport to grant any special or exclusive right or privilege or immunity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Floyd v. Vicksburg Cooperage Co.
... ... The ... relationship between employer and employee, in the state of ... Louisiana, as in other optional compensation states, is ... purely contractual, and the election by employer ... Ledford ... v. Tel. Co., 179 N.C. 63, 101 S.E. 533; Farr v. Babcocke ... Lumber Co. , 182 N.C. 725, 109 S.E. 833; 18 A.L.R. 294 ... For ... contrariety of decisions on ... 754; Boyer v ... Cresent Paper Box Factory, 78 So. 596; Day v ... Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 81 So. 328; Colorado ... v. Johnson Iron Works, 83 So. 381; Graft v. Gulf ... Lbr ... ...
-
Williams v. Gervais F. Favrot Co.
...schemes. See New York Central Railroad Co. v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 37 S.Ct. 247, 61 L.Ed. 667 (1917), Day v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 144 La. 820, 81 So. 328 (1919); Williams v. Blodgett Construction Co., 146 La. 841 84 So. 115 (La.1920), Miller v. Hoyle, 328 So.2d 757 (La.App. 1st Cir......
-
Ancor v. Belden Concrete Products, Inc.
...Company, 243 La. 108, 141 So.2d 832 (1962); Colorado v. Johnson Iron Works Ltd., 146 La. 68, 83 So. 381 (1919); Day v. Louisiana Central Lbr. Co., 144 La. 820, 81 So. 328 (1919). In Bergeron v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, supra, a female employee attacked the constitutionality of the st......
-
Perez v. Continental Cas. Co.
...Subsequent Louisiana cases likewise reflect that the statute has withstood attacks of constitutionality. Day v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 144 La. 120, 81 So. 328 (1919); Colorado v. Johnson Iron Works, 146 La. 68, 83 So. 381 (1919); and Williams v. Blodgett Construction Co., 146 La. 841......