Laughlin v. Magnolia Petroleum Co

• Decision Date: 14 June 1938
• Docket Number: 1866
• Citation: 182 So. 178
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: LAUGHLIN v. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO

182 So. 178

LAUGHLIN v. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO

No. 1866

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 14, 1938

Griffin T. Hawkins and J. J. Tritico, both of Lake Charles for appellant.

Liskow & Lewis, of Lake Charles, for appellee.

OPINION

OTT Judge.

Plaintiff sues for compensation in the sum of $ 8,000, being the maximum of $ 20 per week for 400 weeks for the loss of the sight of both eyes, plus medical expenses of $ 250. His cause of action is set forth in Article 4 of his petition as follows:

"That for approximately ten years prior to May 28th, 1936, your petitioner was in the employ of the Magnolia Petroleum Company doing manual labor in firing furnaces and boilers for the said company, and while working within the scope of his employment during this period, his eyesight became impaired from the extensive amount of heat given off from the furnaces and boilers which were fired by the petitioner herein for the said Magnolia Petroleum Company, and especially on May 28th, 1936, his sight was finally lost, the resultant consequences being the total loss of his eye-sight, from the glaring heat being given off by the above mentioned furnaces and boilers."

The defendant filed an exception of no cause or right of action, which was overruled. As this exception is not pressed in this court, and as the conclusion which we have reached in the case renders it unnecessary for us to discuss the exception further, we will give it no consideration.

Defendant admits that plaintiff was in its employ on the date he claims to have been injured, but denies that he suffered any compensable injury as alleged in the petition. Further answering, the defendant alleges that it had no notice of the alleged injury and had no knowledge of it within 6 months after it is alleged to have occurred. In the alternative, defendant averred that plaintiff received payments under its gratuitous benefit system for non-compensable disabilities amounting to $ 674.70, and as he had voluntarily applied for and received these benefits, he is now estopped from claiming that his injury is compensable; and, pleading further in the alternative, the defendant alleges that if the court finds that plaintiff is entitled to compensation, that it should be permitted to deduct the amount paid under these sick benefit payments.

Judgment was rendered by the trial court rejecting the demands of the plaintiff, and he has appealed from that judgment.

There is no question but that plaintiff is blind in both eyes, at least to the extent of rendering him disabled from pursuing his occupation. The medical testimony is unanimously to the effect that the blindness is caused from atrophy of the optic nerve. The serious and only question in the case is whether or not the atrophy of the optic nerve was caused from an "accident" arising out of and in the course of plaintiff's employment within the terms and meaning of the compensation law, Act No. 20 of 1914, particularly Section 38, as amended by Act No. 38 of 1918, §1, which section reads as follows:

"The word "Accident,' as used in this act shall, unless a different meaning is clearly indicated by the context, be construed to mean an unexpected or unforseen event happening, suddenly or violently, with or without human fault and producing at the time objective symptoms of an injury. The terms "Injury' and "Personal Injuries' shall include only injuries by violence to the physical structure of the body and such diseases or infections as naturally result therefrom. The said terms shall in no case be construed to include any other form of disease or derangement, howsoever caused or contracted."

The evidence shows that some 5 or 6 years before plaintiff claims to have sustained the injury resulting in his blindness, he was treated at his request for syphilis by Dr. Marshall, at which time plaintiff complained of his eyes. The treatment was not completed as plaintiff did not return to finish it. There is other evidence to show that plaintiff had been troubled with his eyes for some time before he lost his sight entirely. In January, 1936, a few months before the alleged injury, he consulted Dr. Moody for treatment of his eyes. At that time Dr. Moody found that plaintiff's vision was only about one-fifth of normal, but, according to Dr. Moody, plaintiff's sight was restored after treatment.

Plaintiff gives the following account of the occurrence which he claims resulted in the loss of his sight:

"When I went to work that morning at 7 o'clock I had normal eyesight, I thought, and I fired up this boiler to put it on the header line with the other boiler, and about 10 o'clock or 10:30, some time along there, the boiler was just about ready to cut into the line, the boiler was smoking and I went over there to adjust the fire, and when I stooped over to adjust the fire shooting pains hit me in the eye. I paid no attention to it at the time, and when I got my fire adjusted I straightened up and when I did I had no eyesight left, I was blind."

Further on in his testimony, in answer to questions propounded by the court, plaintiff said:

"Q. At the time you were adjusting these valves, or at the time you said you became totally blind, was there anything unusual of any character around the fire box or around the boiler or anything that was out of the ordinary? A. No sir, only this fire was smoking and I went to adjust the fires and cut the smoke out.

"Q. Did the smoke get in your eyes, or did a tongue of flame come out and strike you in the eyes? A. No sir, it was just a beaming heat.

"Q. Was that the ordinary heat that you experienced every day when you were firing those boilers? A. Yes sir, I guess it was.

"Q. The heat that came out was not extraordinary in any way? A. No sir.

"Q. Did you strike your forehead or eyes on anything? A. On the target there is a target in those...