Laine v. Junca

• Decision Date: 15 January 1945
• Docket Number: 37466.
• Citation: 207 La. 280,21 So.2d 150
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: LAINE v. JUNCA.

21 So.2d 150

207 La. 280

LAINE v. JUNCA.

No. 37466.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 15, 1945

Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 1945.

Certiorari to Court of Appeal, Parish of St. Mary.

Charles E. Fernandez, of Franklin, for plaintiff and relator.

Rene H. Himel, of Franklin, for defendant and respondent.

HAMITER Justice.

The loss of the sight of his right eye was sustained by plaintiff, John B. Laine, while in the employ of defendantHugh Junca, the business of whom is that of operating a large farm in St. Mary Parish; and for the loss he seeks an award of compensation under the specific injury provisions of the Louisiana employer's liability statute, ActNo. 20 of 1914, as amended.

The accident occurred as plaintiff attempted to drive some mules from defendant's main stable lot into a nearby catchpen (an enclosure used in the harnessing of the work animals), the snapper of cracker at the end of the whip he was using having struck his eye.

The district court, after a trial of the merits, rejected plaintiff's demands and dismissed the suit.On an appeal to the Court of Appeal that judgment was affirmed.16 So.2d 85.

The case is before us for consideration on a writ of certiorari or review granted principally because of the insistence of plaintiff's counsel, in his application for the writ that both of those courts had incorrectly applied the law to the facts found by them.In his brief on the instant hearing he declares:

'We are not asking Your Honors to pass upon the facts, but we are merely asking Your Honors to decide, whether or not, under the law, because of the facts established, plaintiff, Laine is or is not entitled to the relief which he seeks, * * *.'

Defendant did not raise by his pleadings the question of whether or not his business was of a hazardous nature under the employer's liability statute.He offered only the defense that plaintiff was not employed to drive the mules from the stable lot into the catch-pen, and that, therefore, the injury did not arise out of his employment; and it was on the issue thus created that the case was tried.

From the evidence adduced, which was exceedingly conflicting, both the District Court and the Court of Appeal found that plaintiff was not employed to drive the mules into the catch-pen and had never before the accident attempted to perform a task of that kind; that under his employment no duty required him to be in the location he occupied when injured; and that it was unnecessary for him to assist in the driving since the person regularly in charge of the animals was present at the time and was meeting with success in his efforts to pen them.And those courts concluded that as the act of plaintiff when injured was in no manner authorized by or beneficial to his employer the injury did not arise out of the employment.The mentioned finding of fact is sustained by the record to which, including the transcript of testimony, we...