Lushute v. Diesi
| Decision Date | 19 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 59811,59811 |
| Citation | 354 So.2d 179 |
| Parties | Mrs. Charles Kinchen LUSHUTE v. Frank J. DIESI and Little Capitol of Louisiana. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
John M. Shaw, Lewis & Lewis, Opelousas, for defendant-applicant.
Vance R. Andrus, Fontenot, Gautreaux & Andrus, Lafayette, for plaintiff-respondent.
On May 21, 1975, Mrs. Charles Kinchen Lushute instituted suit against Frank J. Diesi to recover workmen's compensation benefits for the death of her husband, Charles Vincent Lushute, who died as a result of injuries sustained on May 23, 1974, while repairing the air-conditioning system at the Little Capitol restaurant allegedly owned and operated by Diesi. On September 16, 1975 (some sixteen months after the date of the accident), Mrs. Lushute filed a supplemental and amending petition making Little Capitol of Louisiana, Inc. a party defendant. It was alleged that the corporation was either a co-owner of the business with Diesi and as such liable in solido with him or alternatively was the sole owner of the restaurant. Exceptions of no cause or right of action filed on behalf of Diesi and of prescription filed on behalf of Little Capitol were referred to the merits. After trial, the district court concluded that Diesi and Little Capitol were both employers of Lushute and as such liable to plaintiff in solido; therefore, the supplemental and amending petition naming Little Capitol a party defendant was timely filed. Accordingly, the exceptions were overruled and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, in solido, for workmen's compensation benefits in the sum of sixty-five dollars per week for five hundred weeks, plus the additional amount of $1,849.13 representing medical and funeral expenses. Defendants appealed.
The court of appeal concluded that the trial court erred in finding that Diesi was an employer of Lushute; accordingly, it dismissed plaintiff's suit against Diesi. The court further found that Little Capitol was the sole owner and operator of the restaurant and that the suit timely filed by plaintiff against Diesi interrupted prescription as to Little Capitol. Accordingly, it found that the trial court correctly overruled the exception of prescription filed by Little Capitol. Next, finding that Lushute was as independent contractor, who just prior to his death, had spent a substantial part of his work time performing labor in carrying out the terms of his contract with the corporation to repair the air-conditioning system of the restaurant and that the work performed by Lushute was part of the trade, business or occupation of Little Capitol, the court of appeal concluded that Lushute was covered under the act and therefore affirmed that portion of the trial court's judgment awarding compensation benefits in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Little Capitol. 1 We granted Little Capitol's application for certiorari to review the correctness of this judgment. 2
At the outset, we find that the court of appeal correctly affirmed the overruling of Little Capitol's exception of prescription by the trial court for the reasons assigned in the opinion of the court of appeal.
We next address the principal issue presented for our determination, i. e., whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, decedent (Lushute) was within the class of persons extended coverage under the workmen's compensation act.
The pertinent facts are as follows. Lushute was a self-employed plumber, electrician and handyman who performed work for over two hundred fifty customers in the Melville, Louisiana area, one of which was Little Capitol. For several years when requested he repaired electrical, plumbing, refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment at the Little Capitol restaurant owned and operated by Little Capitol for which services he was paid six to seven dollars per hour. In performing these services, he used his own truck for transportation and his own tools. He made service calls to the restaurant on the average of about once or twice a month. On May 23, 1974, while attempting to repair one of the four air-conditioning units at the restaurant, Lushute fell through the ceiling sustaining serious injuries from which he died on the following day.
At the time of the accident, the pertinent provision of the workmen's compensation act was La.R.S. 23:1021(6) which provided:
As used in this Chapter, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following terms shall be given the meaning ascribed to them in this Section:
(6) "Independent Contractor" means any person who renders service, other than manual labor, for a specified recompense for a specified result either as a unit or as a whole, under the control of his principal as to results of his work only, and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished, and are expressly excluded from the provisions of this Chapter unless a substantial part of the work time of an independent contractor is spent in manual labor by him in carrying out the terms of the contract, in which case the independent contractor is expressly covered by the provisions of this Chapter. 3
After a review of the record, we are convinced that Lushute was an independent contractor as defined in the above provision. Evidence revealed that Lushute was employed by Little Capitol at an hourly rate to repair various items of equipment as they became inoperative. Little Capitol had no control as to the means by which Lushute repaired these items but rather had control as to the results of his work only. Having determined that Lushute was an independent contractor under La.R.S. 23:1021(6), we must next consider whether he was an independent contractor who was entitled to receive workmen's compensation benefits under the provisions of the act. Resolution of this issue necessitates a determination as to what requirements must be met in order for an independent contractor to be entitled to receive workmen's compensation benefits. In ascertaining these requirements, we find it necessary to briefly review the history and statutory scheme of the workmen's compensation act as a whole.
By Act No. 20 of 1914, the legislature prescribed for the first time the liability of an employer to make compensation for injuries received by an employee in performing services arising out of and incidental to his employment in the course of his employer's trade, business or occupation. Included in this act was a provision, the predecessor of La.R.S. 23:1061, 4 which extended workmen's compensation benefits to workmen employed by a "contractor" in the execution of work undertaken by the principal where the work was a part of the principal's trade, business or occupation. The term "contractor" appeared only in this provision and as defined therein referred to any person who contracted with the principal to execute work undertaken by the principal which was a part of the principal's trade, business or occupation. The contractor was not covered under the act.
Subsequently, by Act No. 85 of 1926, the legislature reenacted the above provision with minor changes not pertinent here and thereby retained the definition of a contractor as it appeared in the 1914 provision. The provision as reenacted is presently La.R.S. 23:1061. At the same time, the legislature enacted a new provision which defined an independent contractor as "any person who renders service, other than manual labor, for a specified recompense for a specified result either as a unit or a whole, under the control of his principal as to results of his work only, and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished." The new provision expressly excluded an independent contractor from coverage under the act. The clear intent of the legislature in enacting this new provision, while also reenacting the 1914 provision, was not to discard the earlier definition of a "contractor" as provided in the 1914 act, but rather to make additional qualifications as to who would be considered an independent contractor so as to distinguish between an employee of the principal who was covered under the act and the independent contractor who performed work for the principal which was a part of the principal's trade, business or occupation and who was not covered under the act. Considering the two provisions together, an independent contractor was defined as any person who rendered service which was part of the principal's trade, business or occupation, other than manual labor, for a specified recompense and for a specified result either as a unit or a whole, under the control of his principal as to the results of his work only, and not as to the means by which such result was accomplished.
By Act No. 179 of 1948, the legislature adopted a new definitional provision with respect to independent contractors which extended workmen's compensation benefits under limited circumstances to this class of persons. Retaining the 1926 definition of an independent contractor in its entirety, the new provision expressly excluded from coverage under the workmen's compensation act an independent contractor "unless a substantial part of the work time of an independent contractor is spent in manual labor by him in carrying out the terms of the contract, in which case said independent contractor is expressly covered by the provisions of this act." 5 The obvious purpose of extending compensation coverage to an independent contractor under the circumstances described in the provision was to prevent an employer from avoiding liability under the act by contracting with an independent contractor for the execution of work undertaken by the employer which was part of the employer's trade, business or occupation. Hence, by this provision, La.R.S. 23:1021(6), the legislature extended workmen's compensation benefits to an independent contractor as defined in the 1914 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jorge-Chavelas v. La. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., CIVIL ACTION 3:15–CV–00657–JWD–EWD
...support Plaintiffs' position that 1021(7) only applies to the manual laborer in direct contractual privity with the principal. In Lushute v. Diesi , the Louisiana Supreme Court examined the legislative history of the term "independent contractor" as the term is used in La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §......
-
Murphy v. Georgia Pac. Corp., GEORGIA-PACIFIC
...Chemical Co.-Oronite Division, 477 F.2d 361 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 858, 94 S.Ct. 67, 38 L.Ed.2d 109 (1973); Lushute v. Diesi, 354 So.2d 179 (La.1977); Reeves v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway, 282 So.2d 503 (La.1973); Doss v. American Ventures, Inc., 261 La. 920, 261 So.2d 615 (19......
-
Fuller v. U.S. Aircraft Ins. Group
...right of supervising the manner in which the work is performed, is suggestive of an independent contractor relationship. Lushute v. Diesi, 354 So.2d 179 (La.1977); Kamm v. Morgan, 157 So.2d 118 (La.App. 4th Mr. Ferguson testified that everyone in Blanco's "close knit operation" looked prima......
-
Talen's Landing, Inc. v. M/V Venture, II
...406 F.2d 1052, 1054 (5 Cir., 1969); Lushute v. Diesi, 343 So.2d 1132, 1135 (La.App. 3 Cir., 1977), aff'd in part & rev'd in part, 354 So.2d 179 (La., 1978), or where one corporation becomes the conduit of another, Mull v. Colt Co., 31 F.R.D. 154 (S.D.N.Y., 1962); In re Gibraltor Amusements,......