Dupuis v. Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 March 1924
• Docket Number: 26426
• Citation: 99 So. 709,155 La. 953
• Parties: DUPUIS v. LOUISIANA RY. & NAV. CO. In re DUPUIS
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

99 So. 709

155 La. 953

DUPUIS v. LOUISIANA RY. & NAV. CO.

In re DUPUIS

No. 26426

Supreme Court of Louisiana

March 3, 1924

Rehearing Denied by Division C April 7, 1924

Judgment annulled, and judgment of trial court reinstated and made judgment of Supreme Court.

W. M Barrow and Warren O. Watson, both of Baton Rouge, for relator.

Lawrason & Kilbourne, of St. Francisville, for respondent.

BRUNOT J. OVERTON, ST. PAUL, and THOMPSON, JJ.

OPINION

BRUNOT, J.

This is a suit by the surviving wife against the Louisiana Railway & Navigation Company for compensation for herself and her two minor children for the accidental killing of her husband, an employee of defendant, while he was engaged in work arising out of and in the course of his employment. The suit was brought under the provisions of Act No. 20 of 1914, as amended by Act No. 38 of 1918 and Act 43 of 1922. The district court sustained plaintiff's suit and demands; awarded her compensation at the rate of $ 18 per week for 300 weeks, and $ 50 additional compensation. On appeal the Court of Appeal annulled and avoided the judgment of the district court and dismissed the suit without prejudice to the rights of the parties to institute a proper suit under the federal Employers' Liability Act. Thereupon application was made to this court for a writ of certiorari. The writ was issued, and the case is now before us for review.

All of the facts alleged in the petition are admitted, except defendant's liability and plaintiff's right to institute and prosecute the suit. The defense is that the deceased was killed while he was engaged in interstate commerce, and that the rights, duties, and liability of defendant are to be determined and governed by the provisions of the federal Employers' Liability Act.

Relator tenders an assignment of errors, but, as the sole question to be determined is whether the state or the federal Employers' Liability Act has application to the facts of this case, the assignment of errors need not be considered separately. The facts are:

The deceased was a bridge foreman. He was assisting in unloading piling from a car. He was struck by one of the piles, and died a short time thereafter from the injuries received. The accident occurred at the Thompson creek bridge in West Feliciana parish. The shipment of piling originated at Paloma, a station a few miles from Thompson's creek. The piles were loaded on intrastate cars. The cars were hauled to their destination in a local train handling only intrastate commerce. The piling was intended for use along the banks of Thompson's creek, about 600 feet from the railroad bridge, for the purpose of diverting a current of water and securing the bridge abutments. The defendant's entire line of railroad lies within the state of Louisiana. At times it engages in interstate commerce, but the record does not disclose to what extent.

The ground upon which the Court of Appeal annulled the judgment of the district court was:

"That the deceased was injured while performing duties connected with interstate commerce, and that the rights of the survivors and the duties of his employer are regulated by the federal law."

The Court of Appeal appears to have reached the conclusion that because the piling was to be ultimately used to deflect the waters of Thompson's creek, and thus to secure the abutments of a railroad bridge over which defendant's trains operated and hauled interstate and intrastate shipments, the act of unloading the piles from a car at or near the bridge was so closely related to the ultimate use of the piles and to the preservation of a facility already in the service of commerce that a person so employed was engaged in interstate commerce. In the opinion it is said:

"In the present case there is the closest relationship of the track and bridge to commerce, and there is an assumed continual application of these instrumentalities to the use of interstate commerce.

"It will be seen that the immediacy of the relationship depends upon the purpose of the act far more than upon the place of its performance. * * * And it is a mere accident of place and not one affecting the purpose, nor the incidental connection with commerce, if...