Hogan v. T. J. Moss Tie Co.

Decision Date14 June 1946
Docket Number38083.
Citation210 La. 362,27 So.2d 131
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court
PartiesHOGAN v. T. J. MOSS TIE CO. et al.

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1946.

Wood & Wood, of Leesville, for plaintiff-applicant.

John B. Files, of Shreveport, for defendant-respondent.

PONDER Justice.

The plaintiff, Sam Hogan, brought suit against the T. J. Moss Tie Company and its insurer seeking to recover compensation at the rate of $20 per week for 400 weeks. The suit is predicated on the ground that the plaintiff received a hernia from an accident in the course of his employment which renders him totally and permanently disabled to do manual labor of a reasonable character.

The defendant Tie Company is engaged in manufacturing, transporting and selling railway crossties. Its operations are quite extensive. The plaintiff is an illiterate colored man, forty years old, who earned his livelihood by manual labor. He had been in the employ of the defendant company for approximately two years performing strenuous manual labor.

On the morning of November 30, 1943, the plaintiff and other employees of the defendant were loading crossties into a railway boxcar. While the plaintiff was carrying a tie on his shoulder towards the boxcar, one of his feet slipped on a tie upon which he was walking. The plaintiff testified to the effect that when his foot slipped his stomach began paining him and he became nauseated. He put the tie down and told two of his co-workers that he was sick and felt very badly. He attempted to continue loading ties but was unable to do so because of the pain. His testimony is corroborated by the two co-workers. The plaintiff and the two co-workers were the only witnesses who testified to what happened on that occasion.

The foreman of the defendant Tie Company was absent at the time of the alleged accident, but, on his return in the afternoon the plaintiff informed him of his injury. The foreman suggested that the plaintiff see Dr. Frazer and informed the plaintiff that he was going to the town of Many on the following morning and the plaintiff could go with him. The plaintiff was due to report to the draft board on the following morning a Many. On arriving at Many the next morning, the plaintiff went to the doctor's office and was examined. Dr. Frazer found that the plaintiff had a large, fully developed, right inguinal hernia. Dr. Sanders examined the plaintiff a few days before the trial of the cause, a year after the alleged accident, and found the plaintiff to have a large, inguinal hernia.

Dr. Frazer was of the opinion that the hernia was not of recent origin. He stated in effect that he found no evidence of any bruise hemorrhage or unusual tenderness. Dr. Sander's testimony is to the effect that a hernia of this character renders one unable to do hard, laborious work.

Upon trial of the case, the lower court gave the plaintiff judgment as prayed for. On appeal, the judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeal and the plaintiff's suit dismissed. The plaintiff applied for and obtained a review.

Counsel for the defendants contend that the writ herein was issued improvidently and must be recalled for the reason that this Court is without jurisdiction to review a decision of the appellate court where only questions of fact are involved. This same question was determined in the case of Madison Lumber Co. v. Helm et al., 202 La. 1061, 1062, 13 So.2d 349. We pointed out therein that this Court had consistently refrained from issuing the writ of review where only questions of fact were involved, but, once the writ had issued, that we were obliged to decide the questions of fact as well as the questions of law presented in the case.

We granted the writ in this case for two reasons: First, because we were of the opinion that the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that no inference was raised that the hernia was not of recent creation by the fact that the plaintiff performed heavy work prior to the date of the accident. Second, we though the Court of Appeal was in error in suggesting that a rupture of a potential hernia was not at issue.

The pleadings in compensation cases must be liberally construed and compensation should be granted whenever the evidence justifies it in order to carry out the purpose of the compensation statute.

The evidence shows that the plaintiff was carrying crossties, ranging in weight from 125 to 250...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Rayfield v. City of New Orleans
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • May 5, 1981
    ...995, 245 So.2d 151 (1971); Herbert v. Your Food Processing & Warehouse, Inc., 248 La. 197, 177 So.2d 286 (1965); Hogan v. T. J. Moss Tie Co., 210 La. 362, 27 So.2d 131 (1946); White v. E. A. Caldwell Contractors, Inc., La.App., 276 So.2d 762 (1973); Richard v. Guillot, La.App., 271 So.2d 71......
  • Kidder v. Nekoma Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • October 30, 1952
    ...853, 47 S.E.2d 605, 607. Also see Peterson v. State Industrial Accident Comm., supra, 140 Or. 326, 12 P.2d 564; Hogan v. T. J. Moss Tie Co., 210 La. 362, 27 So.2d 131; Karger v. Wangerin, 230 Minn. 110, 40 N.W.2d 846, 851; 25 Words and Phrases, page Plaintiff's complaint and notice of lien ......
  • Gremillion v. Babst Services, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • October 13, 1981
    ... ... Jordan v. Travelers, 257 La. 995, 245 So.2d 151 (1971); Hebert v. Your Food Processing & Warehouse, Inc., 248 La. 197, 177 So.2d 286 (1965); Hogan v. T. J. Moss Tie Co., 210 La. 362, 27 So.2d 131 (1946); White v. E. A. Caldwell Contractors, Inc., La.App., 276 So.2d 762 (1973); Richard v ... ...
  • Gorbach v. Prager, Inc.
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • March 31, 1975
    ... ... Jordan v. Travelers, 257 La. 995, 245 So.2d 151 (1971); Hebert v. Your Food Processing & Warehouse, Inc., 248 La. 197, 177 So.2d 286 (1965); Hogan v. T. J. Moss Tie Co., 210 La. 362, 27 So.2d 131 (1946); White v. E. A. Caldwell Contractors, Inc., La.App., 276 So.2d 762 (1973); Richard v ... ...
  • 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