Hauch v. Hernandez

Citation41 La.Ann. 992,6 So. 783
Decision Date01 December 1889
Docket Number10,298
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
PartiesMRS. B. HAUCH v. J. HERNANDEZ ET AL

APPEAL from the Civil District Court, for the Parish of Orleans Voorhies, J.

Henry L. Lazarus, for Plaintiff and Appellee.

E Howard McCaleb, for Defendant and Appellant.

OPINION

MCENERY, J.

The plaintiff brought this suit against the defendants for $ 7000 damages, the value of a saw mill destroyed by fire, which originated in the porcelain works of defendant and communicated to the property of plaintiff, which was adjoining. The suit is brought under Articles 2315, 2316, 2317 of the Civil Code. The plaintiff alleges gross negligence on the part of the defendants in the construction of the kiln and surrounding the same by wood work, and that the defendants were negligent in not having said kiln and the furnace sufficiently guarded by watchmen skilled in their business. That the fire which destroyed her property was the result of gross and criminal negligence upon the part of defendants and their employees in neglecting to take the proper and legitimate precaution in the construction, maintenance and repair of said kiln and in conducting the same by skilled labor, by which negligence and fault of defendants she has been damaged to the amount of the sum claimed in her petition.

The facts as disclosed by the record are that plaintiffs' saw mill was destroyed by fire which was communicated to the same by a fire which originated in the porcelain works of defendants on the morning of the 25th of November, 1886, at 5 o'clock in the morning.

The City Council had authorized the defendants to construct and operate the porcelain factory. The frame woodwork was about ten feet from the kiln.

The decree of heat necessary to bake the ware manufactured by defendants was 3000 degrees Farenheit. At the maximum heat for baking the porcelain the fires are stopped. It requires from twelve to fifteen hours for the kiln to cool. After the kiln had been cooled, the doors are taken down so as to get at the baked ware. The kiln requires constant attention until it has cooled in order to prevent a destruction of the kiln by the intense heat, and the danger of fire to surrounding objects by radiation.

On the 24th the feeding of the fires ceased at 11 o'clock. At 3:30 a. m. of the 25th the doors were taken down and some bricks placed on the outside to cool. At 4 o'clock the watchmen left the factory. The foreman retired to his bed, where he remained until awakened by the firemen. The fire alarm was sounded a short time before 5 o'clock, and the firemen were on the ground about 5 o'clock.

The kiln was well constructed, being laid inside with English fire brick and on the outside with the best of country brick. It had been reconstructed with the best of materials. The equipments for extinguishing fires were about the premises, although the proof is that a part of this equipment was out of order.

The damage suffered by plaintiff is shown to be five thousand dollars. For this amount there was judgment for the plaintiff,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Gibbons v. N. O. Terminal Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • January 5, 1925
    ......8288-9286, Ct. App., 168 F. 21. . . Ellen. Murray vs. Pontchartrain Railroad Company, 31 La.Ann. 490. . . Mrs. B. Hauch vs. Hernandez, 41 La.Ann. 992, 6 So. 783. . . Herman. Herlisch vs. The Louisville, New Orleans and Texas Railroad. Company, 44 La.Ann. ......
  • Balding v. Andrews
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • July 31, 1903
    ...... due regard for the safety of his property and that of his. neighbors McNally v. Colwell, 52 N.W. 70; Hanch v. Hernandez, 6. So. Rep. 783. . .          There. was no hose or any appliance for extinguishing fire about the. building, no well on the ... provided, the fire could have been extinguished. In neither. this case nor the Louisiana case cited ( Hauch v. Hernandez , 41 La.Ann. 992, 6 So. 783) did the proofs. show that fire extinguishers would have been unavailing [12. N.D. 280] if there. The ......
  • Dodd v. Read
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • December 3, 1906
    ...... 742; Lawton v. Giles, 90 N.C. 374;. Hoyt v. Jeffers, 30 Mich. 181:. Webster v. Symes, 109 Mich. 1, 66 N.W. 580;. Hauch v. Hernandez, 41 La.Ann. 992, 6 So. 783. . .          It is. further contended by appellant that the evidence is. insufficient to ......
  • Keyser Canning Co v. Klots Throwing Co
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 17, 1925
    ...613; Duer v. Allen, 96 Iowa, 36, 64 N. W. 682; McCord v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 76 S. C. 469, 57 S. E. 477; Hauch v. Hernandez, 41 La. Ann. 992, 6 So. 783; Orander v. Stafford, 127 S. E. 330, decided at this term. The degree of care that should be observed is such as a reasonable man......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT