Hargis v. McWilliams Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 August 1928
• Docket Number: 11,305
• Citation: 9 La.App. 108,119 So. 88
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: HARGIS v. McWILLIAMS CO., INC

119 So. 88

9 La.App. 108

HARGIS v. McWILLIAMS CO., INC

No. 11,305

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Orleans

August 13, 1928

Rehearing Refused September 4, 1928.

Writ of Certiorari and Review denied by Supreme Court October 3 1928.

Appeal from Civil District Court. Div. "D." Hon. Porter Parker, Judge.

Action by Claude P. Hargis against McWilliams Co., Inc.

There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed.

Judgment affirmed.

Hopkins and Talbot, of New Orleans, attorneys for plaintiff appellee.

Spearing and Mabry, of New Orleans, attorneys for defendant appellant.

OPINION

CLAIBORNE, J.

This is a suit under the Employers' Liability Act.

The plaintiff, a citizen of Louisiana, alleged that on August 1, 1925, he was employed by the defendant, the McWilliams Co., a Louisiana corporation, to go to Long Beach in the State of Florida to work as engineer in a floating steam dredge operated and controlled by the defendant, through their superintendent, W. R. Pennington; that plaintiff at the time of his employment was living in the Parish of Terrebonne; that the defendant, through its president, R. H. Williams, Sr., agreed with said Pennington that its employees, especially plaintiff, would be covered by the Workmen's Compensation Insurance of this State; that on May 23, 1926, while plaintiff was engaged in the course of his employment in making repairs to the boiler on the dredge, plaintiff was struck in the left eye by a metal chip which came off of the head of the hammer used by plaintiff in making his repairs; that the said object penetrated plaintiff's left eye ball and lodged therein, making it impossible for plaintiff to see out of said eye; that plaintiff had lost the sight of his right eye about eight years prior thereto and is now totally blind, and is permanently and totally disabled to do any work of a reasonable character; that plaintiff was receiving at the time of the injury $ 150 per month wages, and board and lodging estimated at $ 45 per month; that defendants furnished plaintiff hospital services estimated at $ 75, but have failed to pay for medical services employed by plaintiff; that plaintiff is entitled to compensation for 400 weeks at $ 20 per week and $ 175 for medical services, or $ 8175 with interest from May 23, 1926.

The defendant filed an exception of want of jurisdiction in State courts because the accident occurred in admiralty jurisdiction.

This objection is fully answered by the case of United Dredging Co. vs. Lindberg, (C. C. A. 1927), 18 F.2d 453 (1927), and the exception was not pressed in this Court.

The next exception was "that the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Law had no exterritorial effect."

In support of that exception the defendants quote the case of Nunemacher vs. Barnes, No. 162,180 of the Civil District Court, in which Judge Cage maintained the exception. They also quoted the cases of Perlis vs. Lederer, 189 A.D. 425, 178 N.Y.S. 449; In re Gould, 215 Mass. 480, 102 N.E. 693; Union Bridge Co. vs. Industrial Commission, 287 Ill. 396, 122 N.E. 609; Johnson vs. Nelson, 128 Minn. 158, 150 N.W. 620; North Alaska vs. Pillsbury, 174 Cal. 1, 162 P. 93, L. R. A. 1917E, 642; Kruse vs. Pillsbury, 174 Cal. 222, 162 P. 891, L. R. A. 1917E, 645; Merrill vs. Boston & Lowell R. R., 63 N.H. 259; 3 N. C. C. A. 639 (Mich.); Altman vs. N. D. Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 50 N.D. 215, 195 N.W. 287, 28 A. L. R. 1337; and Logan vs. Mo. Valley Bridge & Iron Co., 157 Ark. 528, 249 S.W. 21.

The principal argument in some of these cases, is that "there is no provision of the Act (compensation) which can be construed to authorize compensation for an injury occurring outside of the State." The answer to that is that there is no provision in the law restricting the liability to accidents within the State, nor any general law to that effect. It is true that Article 10 of our code provides that the effect of Acts passed in one country to have effect in another country is regulated by the laws of the country where such acts are to have effect.

But this Article does not pretend to affect the rights acquired by parties under a contract made in another country. If the Employers' Liability Act of Louisiana protects an employee against an injury suffered in another State, then this Article 10 has no application.

The object of the Compensation Act is to protect a contract made in Louisiana.

It is immaterial under the Act where the work has to be done; the law looks to the workman, not to the place where the work is done. The workman is not deprived of the protection of the law because the work is done outside of Louisiana.

The Act provides, Sec. 1 of Act 20 of 1914, "That this Act shall apply only to the following:

"1st. * * *

"2nd. Every person performing services arising out of and incidental to his employment in the course of his employer's trade, business or occupation, etc.

"Section 2: That if a workman employed as hereinabove set forth * * * receives personal injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of such employment his employer shall pay compensation in the amounts, etc."

Nothing in this act restricts liability for work within the State. It suffices that the contract of employment be made in Louisiana to carry with it the liability of the employer fixed by that statute.

It matters not where the work is to be performed; the question is where was the contract made. If the law of the place where the contract was made fixes liability, the liability follows the employer wherever the work is done. Any other view would leave the workman without remedy or relief contrary to the object and spirit of the law and against the principle that the compensation law must be interpreted liberally, in a sense favorable to the workman.

The Employers' Liability Act of Louisiana forms part of every contract made in Louisiana for the employment of labor and carries with it the liability of the employer under said Act for every injury suffered by the employee in the course of his employment in executing the work within or without the State. Sec. 28, Ruling Case Law, 723 S. 19; Bradbury on Workmen's Compensation (3d Ed.) p. 92; Rounsaville vs. Central R. Co. (1915) 87 N.J.L. 371, 94 A. 392; Pettiti vs. Pardy Const. Co. (1925) 103 Conn. 101, 130 A. 70; Zurich, etc., Ins. Co. vs. Industrial Commission (1927) 193 Wis. 32, 213 N.W. 630; Shurtliff vs. Oregon, etc., R. Co. (1925) 66 Utah 161, 241 P. 1058; Krekelberg vs. M. A. Floyd Co. (1926) 166 Minn. 149, 207 N.W. 193; Leader, etc., Co. vs. Chapman (1926) 85 Ind.App. 296, 152 N.E. 872; Ind. Com. vs. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1918) 64 Colo. 480, 174 P. 589; Anderson vs. Miller Scrap Iron Co. (1919) 169 Wis. 106, 170 N.W. 275, 171 N.W. 935; Donohue vs. Robertson Co. (1923) 205 A.D. 176, 199 N.Y.S. 470; Anderson vs. Jarrett Chambers Co. (1924) 210 A.D. 543, 206 N.Y.S. 458; McGuire vs. Pehlan-Shirley Co. (1924) 111 Neb. 609, 197 N.W. 615; Smith vs. Van Noy Interstate Co., 150 Tenn. 25, 262 S.W. 1048, 35 A. L. R. 1409; 3 A. L. R. 1351; L. R. A. 1916A, 444; Bullowa vs. Gladding, 40 R.I. 147, 100 A. 249, L. R. A. 1917D, 841, 18 A. L. R. 292; Altman vs. N. D. Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 50 N.D. 215, 195 N.W. 287, 28 A. L. R. 1337; United Dredging Co. vs. Lindberg (C. C. A. 1927) 18 F.2d 453.

Such was the understanding of his liability by the defendant on page 19 of his testimony W. R. Pennington was asked:

"p. 15. Q. What was your connection with them (McWilliams Co., Inc.)?

"A. I was superintendent on this work they were doing in Florida.

"p. 19. When you made your arrangements with Mr. McWilliams to go to Florida as superintendent on this job did you discuss with him insurance for the men?

"A. We asked about compensation insurance. He said he carried that on all his work, visitors and all; he had a blanket policy to cover all his operations."

This testimony is confirmed by McWilliams himself on page 8. He was asked:

"Q. Did you tell him (Pennington) the men would be protected by insurance, leaving off the word compensation?

"A. I told him we carried insurance, which we did, everywhere.

"Q. You meant the men would be protected?

"A. I meant we would be protected.

Protected against what, if not liability?

The defendants produced a policy in their favor in the Fidelity Guaranty Company, of Baltimore, covering work to be done in the State of Florida with the admission that it covered the liability of defendant to its employees as therein set forth, on jobs in the States of Mississippi, Florida and Arkansas and that the premium on this policy was based upon only the payrolls covering the wages paid by defendant to its employees on the jobs in those States, in which payrolls were included the wages of plaintiff.

The defendants admitted the contract of employment and that it was made at Houma in this State, and that the wages were $ 45 per week. They denied all the other allegations.

There was judgment for plaintiff at the rate of $ 20 per week for 400 weeks with interest and for $ 175 for medical services.

De...