Greene v. Catalytic, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 11078,11078 |
| Citation | 341 So.2d 1172 |
| Parties | Leonard J. GREENE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CATALYTIC, INC., and Elbert Fletcher, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
James D. Thomas, II, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant.
Edward W. Gray, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees.
George F. Riess, New Orleans, for intervenor-appellee.
Before ELLIS, CHIASSON and PONDER, JJ.
This is an appeal of a judgment of the District Court in favor of Catalytic, Inc. and Elbert Fletcher, defendants-appellees, and against Leonard J. Greene, plaintiff-appellant, dismissing appellant's suit with prejudice.
On January 27, 1972, while walking through a maintenance shop operated by Catalytic, Inc., the appellant tripped over an airhose lying on the floor. The airhose, which was in intermittent use by Elbert Fletcher, ran from a wall of the maintenance shop along the floor and up to a vice on a work bench. The hose had been laid in the vice by Fletcher where it would be easy to reach when he needed it.
At the time of the accident, the appellant was taking an occasionally used short cut through the maintenance shop. The short cut was not a regular aisle or passageway, but merely a space between two pieces of equipment. The appellant testified that he knew that there were frequently airhoses and welding leads on the floor of the shop and that when he entered the shop he had seen the specific hose over which he tripped.
After a trial on the merits the District Court found that:
(1) The conduct of Fletcher was that of an ordinarily prudent man under the circumstances;
(2) The airhose on the floor was not a 'trap'; and
(3) There was no independent negligence on the part of Catalytic, Inc.
The appellant contends that:
This Court can not say that the conduct of Elbert Fletcher was not that of a reasonably prudent man or that there was any breach of duty on his part. The appellant's contention that a 'taut' airhose obstructed a 'passageway' is without merit. The airhose merely lay in the vice and the space across which it ran was not a regular 'passageway'.
The appellant also argues that Catalytic, Inc. was negligent because it failed to provide adequate safety supervision. There has been no showing by the appellant that the failure of Catalytic to employ a separate safety officer of its own (Ciba-Geigy who owns the shop employed a safety officer) was a cause in fact of the injury or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tate v. Jacobs Engineering Co., 15062
...the one having garde of the thing is responsible to the one injured in the course of that use of the thing. Greene v. Catalytic, Inc., 341 So.2d 1172 (La.App. 1 Cir.1977), writ denied, 344 So.2d 4 In reaching his decision, the trial judge rendered oral reasons for judgment, in part, as foll......
-
Stablier v. City of Baton Rouge
...thing whose act caused the damage, and that the damage resulted from this vice." This court in the case of Greene v. Catalytic Inc., et al, 341 So.2d 1172 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1976), writ denied 344 So.2d 4 (La.1977), involving a case where plaintiff tripped over an airhose lying on the floor ......
-
Poe v. State Farm General Ins. Co.
...(perhaps none Can be given). A brief review of the jurisprudence, however, makes the standard more lucid. In Greene v. Catalytic, Inc., 341 So.2d 1172 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1976), writ refused, the court held that there was no unreasonable danger created by a completely visible air hose on a work......
-
Greene v. Catalytic, Inc.
...In re: Leonard J. Greene applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 341 So.2d 1172. Writ denied. On the facts found, the court of appeal judgment is ...