Luce v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc.

Citation234 La. 1075,102 So.2d 461
Decision Date21 April 1958
Docket NumberNo. 43452,43452
PartiesMrs. Edna VIATOR, Widow of Arthur J. LUCE v. NEW HOTEL MONTELEONE, Inc. and American Mutual Liability Insurance Company.
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

Thomas Barr, III, New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellant-relator.

Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Burke & Hopkins; Nolan Kammer, New Orleans, for defendants-respondents.

HAMITER, Justice.

A writ of certiorari was granted in this cause so that we could review the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Orleans Circuit, which affirmed a decree of the district court denying the claim of plaintiff for benefits under the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Law on the ground that the statutory provisions were inapplicable to her.

The facts are undisputed. Plaintiff, Mrs. Edna Viator, was employed by the New Hotel Monteleone, Inc., one of the defendants herein (the other being its insurer), as an inspectress. In that position she was obliged to supervise maids in the care of approximately one hundred hotel rooms situated on six floors and, in carrying out her duties, to travel frequently each day from floor to floor by means of an electrically powered freight elevator owned and maintained by the hotel. The alleged injury for which she seeks compensation resulted from an accident that occurred, during the scope and course of her employment, as she alighted from the elevator. Plaintiff was not required to, and she did not, operate such equipment.

The conducting of a hotel business is not hazardous per se. However, as we pointed out in Fontenot v. Fontenot, 234 La. 480, 100 So.2d 477, 480, '* * * an occupation or a business not hazardous per se becomes amenable to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law, and the employer is required to pay benefits to an injured employee under certain circumstances if it entails the operation of mechanized equipment * * * as a necessary incident thereto. * * *' See also Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., 157 La. 1030, 103 So. 303; Robinson v. Atkinson, 198 La. 238, 3 So.2d 604; Collins v. Spielman, 200 La. 586, 8 So.2d 608; Reagor v. First National Life Insurance Company, 212 La. 789, 33 So.2d 521; Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Company, 219 La. 846, 54 So.2d 121; and Meyers v. Southwest Region Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists, 230 La. 310, 88 So.2d 381. Moreover, the statute specifically provides that it applies to every person performing services arising out of and incidental to his employment in the course of his employer's business wherein freight or passenger elevators are maintained and operated. LRS 23:1035.

Here the defendants urge, and the district court and Court of Appeal held, that since plaintiff was employed wholly in the nonhazardous portion of her employer's business she is not covered by the provisions of the compensation act. But our jurisprudence has given a far broader interpretation to the statute than is thus contended for. It is now well settled that an employee is covered Where he is regularly exposed to or is frequently brought in contact with the hazardous feature of the business, even though he is primarily engaged in the nonhazardous part. Reagor v. First National Life Insurance Company, Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Company (rode to and from work in a motor vehicle as a passenger), Meyers v. Southwest Region Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists, all supra; and Richardson v. Crescent Forwarding & Transportation Company, Ltd. (engaged in loading and unloading trucks), 17 La.App. 428, 135 So. 688, Snear v. Eiserloh (same as in Richardson case), La.App., 144 So. 265, Crews v. Levitan Smart Shops, Inc., (rode in an automobile as passenger to perform duties of sales...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Allen v. Travelers Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 15 Noviembre 1960
    ...Co., La.App., 28 So.2d 527, amended 212 La. 789, 33 So.2d 521; Fontenot v. Fontenot, 234 La. 480, 100 So.2d 477; Luce v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc., 234 La. 1075, 102 So.2d 461; Talbot v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., La.App., 99 So.2d In Fontenot v. Fontenot, supra (234 La. 480, 100 So.2d 48......
  • Fontenot v. J. Weingarten, Inc.
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 4 Mayo 1971
    ...employment. Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., 157 La. 1030, 103 So. 303; Collins v. Spielman, 200 La. 586, 8 So.2d 608; Luce v. New Hotel Monteleone, 234 La. 1075, 102 So.2d 461; and Richard v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 247 La. 943, 175 So.2d The pertinent part of R.S. 23:1035 provi......
  • Mercer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 9 Abril 1963
    ...the law is whether a substantial part of the employment or duties of the employee is hazardous. In the case of Luce v. New Hotel Monteleone, 234 La. 1075, 102 So.2d 461 (1958), the Supreme Court '* * * It is now well settled that an employee is covered where he is regularly exposed to or is......
  • Richard v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 3 Mayo 1965
    ...the non-hazardous phase does not preclude amenability to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law. Cf. Luce v. New Hotel Monteleone, 234 La. 1075, 102 So.2d 461. It is now well settled that an employee is covered where he is regularly exposed to or is frequently brought in contact w......
  • 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