Leon v. Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co
| Citation | 151 La. 932,92 So. 389 |
| Decision Date | 15 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | 23536 |
| Parties | LEON v. CROWELL & SPENCER LUMBER CO |
| Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
Rehearing Denied by the Whole Court June 6, 1922
Appeal from Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides James Andrews, Judge.
Suit under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Creed S. Leon against the Crowell & Spencer Lumber Company, for compensation for injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff for an insufficient amount, he appeals.
Judgment set aside, and judgment rendered for plaintiff in a different amount.
John H Mathews, of Alexandria, for appellant.
Thornton, Gist & Richey, of Alexandria, for appellee.
Plaintiff suffered a broken ankle while in the employ of defendant company in February, 1918, and remained totally disabled until the following November, when, with the aid of an ankle brace and a crutch, he could go about and do light work, and he has continued in the latter condition, and, as we understand, is likely to continue, unless he has the foot amputated.
He claims compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1914, No. 20), as amended by Act 38 of 1918. This amendment can have no application to the case, since it was adopted after the accident had happened -- to wit, in June, 1918. The obligation of the employer to make compensation results from the contract of employment. Manifestly, after this contract has come to an end, as a result of the accident which has incapacitated the workman from performing his part of it, the Legislature cannot change it so as to make it more onerous to the employer. This court held, in Craver v. Gillespie, 148 La. 182, 86 So. 730, that the amendment of 1916 could have no application in a case that had arisen before its adoption. The Legislature may by an exercise of the police power read into the employment contract a provision for the protection of the workman; but it cannot, after the contract has terminated, increase the obligation of the employer, for to do so would be simply to take money from the pocket of one person and give it to another -- a thing the Legislature is obviously without power to do.
The amount to which plaintiff is entitled must therefore be ascertained from Act 243 of 1916, amending Act 20 of 1914. The case comes under paragraphs (a) and (c) of section 8 of this act; and, inasmuch as 50 per cent. of the salary plaintiff was earning would exceed the maximum of $ 10...
To continue reading
Request your trial