Hebert v. Kingston Lumber Co

• Decision Date: 06 June 1910
• Docket Number: 17,844
• Citation: 126 La. 775,52 So. 1021
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: HEBERT v. KINGSTON LUMBER CO

52 So. 1021

126 La. 775

HEBERT v. KINGSTON LUMBER CO

No. 17,844

Supreme Court of Louisiana

June 6, 1910

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1910.

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; T. F Bell, Judge.

Action by Jude Hebert against the Kingston Lumber Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and judgment for plaintiff.

Williamson & Crain, for appellant.

Thatcher & Welsh (Alexander & Wilkinson, of counsel), for appellee.

PROVOSTY J. LAND, J., dissents.

OPINION

PROVOSTY J.

Plaintiff, aged 34, was engineer at the sawmill of the defendant company. Two engines were in his charge; and the only way for him to go from one to the other was over a three by four foot platform, or boxing, three feet high, between two upright posts three feet apart. A six by six inch crossbeam at each end of the platform, about eighteen inches below the top of the platform, served as a step for going up or down. This passageway was used by all the employes. Under this platform were fast revolving cogwheels. Upon the crossbeam, in the center of the space between the upright posts rested the slender iron shaft which ran the cogwheels.

A little more than a week after plaintiff had entered on this employment, his right heel got caught in the cogwheels, as he was stepping down from the platform, and his foot was so badly crushed that his leg had to be amputated. "Q. Where? A. About the middle third about here (witness pointing to the leg)." In plaintiff's brief it is stated to have been between the knee and ankle.

The edge of the platform was on a perpendicular line with the inner side of the crossbeam; and, for a space of 7 1/2 inches, nothing intervened between the cogs and the foot of the person stepping down on the crossbeam. So that the situation was pretty much the same as if a staircase were constructed without risers, and with the outer edge of each tread on a perpendicular line with the inner edge of the tread below; that is to say, without the outer edge of each tread projecting over the inner edge of the tread below it, so that the heel of a person descending from one tread to the other would strike, not two inches or so from the inner edge of the tread, but, possibly, at the very inner edge itself of the tread, and the treads were six inches wide, instead of twelve or more, as usual, and were eighteen inches apart, instead of seven or eight or ten inches, as usual; and there were rapidly revolving cogwheels within, say, two inches of the inner edge of one of the treads.

The petition describes with great particularity and minuteness the manner and the cause of the accident, and alleges that it was through no fault of plaintiff's, but through the negligence of defendant in not furnishing plaintiff a safe place to work in. It does not contain, however, any allegation of the danger having been hidden; or of plaintiff's not having known of, and assumed, it; or of the plaintiff's having been inexperienced, or not properly warned; and because of the absence of these negative allegations defendant's learned counsel contend that the petition does not show a cause of action.

The petition has advised defendant of the nature of the demand and of the facts upon which it is founded; and our Code Prac art. 172, does not require more. What more the defendant would have any interest in being advised of for...