Dupre v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 25 February 1918 |
| Docket Number | 22171 |
| Citation | 78 So. 241,143 La. 69 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | DUPRE v. COLEMAN |
Rehearing Denied April 1, 1918
(Syllabus by the Court.)
One who suffers personal injuries while working for a partnership and as a result of the employment cannot maintain an action against a member of the partnership alone, either for damages for the neglect of the employer to perform a duty required by law of a master to his servant, or for compensation for the disability suffered by the employe, on the allegation that the individual defendant was the employer.
E. T Lewis and R. Lee Garland, both of Opelousas, for appellant.
W. J. Sandoz, of Opelousas, and J. Zach Spearing, of New Orleans, for appellee.
O'NIELL, J.
Having suffered personal injuries in an accident while employed in a sawmill, the plaintiff based his suit upon the allegations that the defendant was his employer, proprietor of the mill. He alleged that the Employers' Liability Act was unconstitutional, and he therefore prayed for damages under article 2315 of the Civil Code for the alleged neglect of the employer to provide a safe place and safe tools for the work to be done. In the alternative, that is, if the Employers' Liability Act should be held valid, he prayed for compensation under the statute for his physical disability.
The defendant filed the following exceptions to the suit, viz.: (1) That the suit was improperly brought against him, the defendant, instead of being brought against the copartnership of R. H. Coleman & Co., composed of the defendant and J. S. Coleman; (2) that, if that plea or exception should be overruled, the suit was premature; and (3) that, if the first plea or exception should be overruled, the alternative demands of the plaintiff were inconsistent, and he should be required to elect whether to claim damages under article 2315 of the Civil Code or compensation under Act No. 20 of 1914.
On the evidence heard, the district court held that the exceptions were well founded and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.
As the testimony was not reduced to writing, the parties have submitted the matter to this court on an agreement as to the facts that were proven, viz.: The mill was being operated and the business carried on by a partnership styled R. H. Coleman & Co., composed of the defendant and his father, J. S Coleman, when the plaintiff was employed and when the accident occurred. All contracts for timber for the mill were made in the name of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Floyd v. Vicksburg Cooperage Co.
...Co., 81 So. 328; Colorado v. Johnson Iron Works, 83 So. 381; Graft v. Gulf Lbr. Co., 83 So. 736; Veasey v. Peters, 77 So. 948; Dupre v. Colman, 78 So. 241; Gray v. N. O. Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Co., 84 109; Williams v. Boldgett Const. Co. 84 So. 115; Hogan v. Buja, 262 F. 224; Nash v. Longv......
-
Roberson v. Gordon, No. 2009 CA 0472 (La. App. 10/23/2009), 2009 CA 0472.
...Practice § 59 (4th ed.) (citing Richard v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 247 La. 943, 175 So.2d 277 (1965); Dupre v. Coleman, 143 La. 69, 78 So. 241 (1918); Latiolais v. BFI of Louisiana, Inc., 567 So.2d 1159 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1990); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. ......
-
Smith v. Crossett Lumber Co.
...party to this litigation, hence the basis for this contention. On this point the Supreme Court had before it the case of Dupre v. Coleman, 143 La. 69, 78 So. 241, 242. The business was operated as a partnership in the name of R. H. Coleman and Company, composed of defendant and his father. ......
- State v. Shoemake