Hale v. Gilliland Oil Co
| Decision Date | 03 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | 24666 |
| Citation | 151 La. 500,91 So. 853 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | HALE v. GILLILAND OIL CO |
Rehearing Denied by Division A, May 15, 1922
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; J. R Land, Judge.
Action by Jeff A. Hale against the Gilliland Oil Company for damages for tort, or, in the alternative, for compensation under the Employers' Liability Law. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals.
Annulled and reversed, exception overruled, and case remanded.
Jacobson & Brooks, of Meridian, Miss., and David B. Samuel, and Edward Barnett, both of Shreveport, for appellant.
Milling & Pugh and Pugh & Boatner, all of Shreveport, for appellee.
PROVOSTY, Chief Justice, OVERTON, LECHE, Justices.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment sustaining an exception of no cause of action. The petition alleges that he was, at the time, employed by defendant, but when injured was not within the course of his employment, and hence founds his claim for injuries in tort under article 2315 of the Civil Code. In the alternative, he asks that, if the court should find that his claim is under the Employers' Liability Law (Act No. 20 of 1914), then that he have judgment accordingly.
Conceding, for the moment, that the facts alleged do not show that he was injured while in the course of his employment, has he alleged a cause of action under the Code? We think not. He says, in substance, that, as a part of his employment, he was assigned to a particular bunk in a bunkhouse furnished by his employer for his exclusive use, and had so occupied it; that late one night he returned to the said house and found his bunk occupied by some one else; that he thereupon went to the foreman in charge of the bunkhouse, "as he was in duty bound to do," and asked him to have the bunk vacated or to furnish another; that the foreman became angry at having been thus awakened, placed his hand upon plaintiff's shoulder, and said, "I have a mind to blow your damn brains out;" and that he then pulled a .45 caliber pistol and shot plaintiff through the head, totally disabling him for life.
The petition does allege that the foreman was acting within the scope of his agency when he shot the plaintiff, but that is only a conclusion of the pleader. He was not employed to assault or murder people, but to see that the employees were properly cared for in the bunkhouse, and suddenly turned away to vent his anger upon the plaintiff for purposes of his own. The employer was therefore not liable for his act. Dyer v. Rieley, 28 La.Ann. 6; Williams v. Pullman Palace...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Floyd v. Vicksburg Cooperage Co.
......Co. 84 So. 115;. Hogan v. Buja, 262 F. 224; Nash v. Longville. Lumber Co., 88. So. 226; Thaxton v. La. Ry. & Nav. Co., 95 So. 773; Hale v. Gilliland Oil Co., 91. So. 853; Labourdette v. Doulett & Williams Shipbuilding. Co., 100 So. 547; American Radiator Co. v. Rogge, 86 N.J.L. ......
-
LeBrane v. Lewis
...... See, e.g.: Mendel v. W. G. Coyle Co., 153 La. 1056, 97 So. 38 (1923); Hale v. Gilliland Oil Co., 151 La. 500, 91 So. 853 (1922); Strawder v. Harrall, 251 So.2d 514 (La.App.1st Cir. 1971); Terito v. McAndrew, 246 So.2d 235 ......
-
Bearman v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
...... . See,. also, the following cases and authorities: May v. Yellow. Cab Co., 164 La. 920, 114 So. 836; Moore v. Day, 3 La.App. 575; Hale v. Gilliland, 151 La. 500, 91 So. 853; Nash v. Longville Lumber Co., 148. La. 943, 88 So. 226; Matthews v. Otis Mfg. Co., 142. La. 88, 76 So. 249; ......
-
Wisemore v. First Nat. Life Ins. Co., Inc
...allegation that an agent's acts are done in the scope of his employment is only a conclusion of the pleader. Hale v. Gilliland Oil Co., 151 La. 500, 91 So. 853. In the early case of Henry Etting v. Commercial Bank of New Orleans, 7 Rob. 459, 464, this court said: "The true rule seems to be,......