Henry v. Brackenridge Lumber Company, Limited

• Decision Date: 01 June 1896
• Docket Number: 12,098
• Citation: 20 So. 221,48 La.Ann. 950
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: JOSEPH HENRY ET AL. v. BRACKENRIDGE LUMBER COMPANY, LIMITED, ET AL

20 So. 221

48 La.Ann. 950

JOSEPH HENRY ET AL. v. BRACKENRIDGE LUMBER COMPANY, LIMITED, ET AL

No. 12,098

Supreme Court of Louisiana

June 1, 1896

Argued April 21, 1896

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

Benjamin Rice Forman, for Plaintiffs, Appellants.

Dart &amp Kernan, for Defendant, Appellees.

OPINION

NICHOLLS C.J.

ON THE JUDGMENT SUSTAINING EXCEPTIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT, TREASURER AND SUPERINTENDENT OF THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION.

Appellant has practically filed no brief on his appeal from the action of the court, sustaining the exceptions filed by the president, the treasurer and the superintendent of the company, but have contented themselves with saying that the authorities cited by the District Judge should have led up to a ruling directly the reverse of that which was made. We think the ruling correct. The petition fails to show what part, if any, these officers were called on to take in determining the construction of the building or its accessories, in fixing the character of the appliances, or in controlling the appointment of Green, as foreman of the company. It is not alleged that these matters fall within the scope of the duty of any one of them. Indirect allegations that "they had failed in their duty in all of these respects," that "they had not taken due precautions to ascertain Green's fitness before placing him in charge of such dangerous machinery" are totally insufficient to charge them with any liability in respect to the matters complained of.

The charter of the company is not annexed to plaintiffs' petition, and we know nothing of the duties assigned by it to these different officers. The judgment is affirmed.

ON THE MERITS.

This case comes to us on an appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment against them based on the verdict of a jury. We have examined the record and find no ground upon which we could reverse it.

Plaintiffs' petition contains many allegations as to the defective construction of the building and its different parts, and as to the improper character of the appliances, and evidence was introduced endeavoring to sustain the same, but the conclusions we have reached do not call for any expression of opinion in respect to the same for let their condition be what it might, such fact would not enter as a factor in the case, unless it should appear that the injury received was the result of the same. Nivette vs. New Orleans & Lake Shore Railroad Company, 42 An 1153; Clements vs. Electric Light Company, 44 An. 694; Snider vs. Railroad Co., 48 An. 11. The mere fact of an accident does not carry with it a presumption of negligence or fault. The facts and circumstances connected with the accident must be shown so as to enable the court to trace results to definite causes. This has not been done in this case. We are unable to say how the accident occurred. The only person who seems really to have had any knowledge of it at all is the foreman Green. Though he was so excited and matters occurred so suddenly as to render his account not thoroughly reliable in all respects, yet it is clear and positive on certain points, and those negative the condition of things on which plaintiffs base their action. Plaintiffs' contention is that the deceased, an inexperienced youth, was directed by his superior Green, the foreman of the establishment, to hold a certain belt, as he, Green, laced it, while the shaft and other machinery was still in motion, revolving at a highly dangerous rate of speed -- that the deceased, ignorant of the danger, obeyed; that the...