Moore v. Thompson-Ritchie Grocer Co.

• Decision Date: 04 June 1935
• Docket Number: 5027
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: MOORE v. THOMPSON-RITCHIE GROCER CO. et al

161 So. 654

MOORE v. THOMPSON-RITCHIE GROCER CO. et al

No. 5027

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

June 4, 1935

R. W Oglesby, of Winnfield, for appellant.

Thornton Gist & Richey, of Alexandria, for appellees.

OPINION

DREW Justice.

In this case the learned judge of the lower court has rendered a written opinion which, we find from a careful study of the record, clearly states the issues, facts and law applicable thereto, which is that a plaintiff, even in a compensation suit, must make out his case by a preponderance of the evidence, and in this case the plaintiff has failed in that respect. We find no manifest error in the judgment of the lower court, so adopt it as the opinion of this court. It is as follows:

"Plaintiff sues for $ 7.80 per week, for 400 weeks, as compensation under the Employers' Liability Act (Act No. 20 of 1914 as amended) growing out of an alleged injury received on May 17, 1933, while performing services for and under employment by Ritchie-Grocer Company. Said company is a wholesale grocery concern domiciled at Camden, Ark., operating a branch place of business in the city of Alexandria, Rapides parish La., under the then trade-name of Thompson-Ritchie Grocer Company. Said defendant company was insured at the time by the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, and both companies are joined as defendants.

"Plaintiff, on May 17, 1933, was, and had been for some five years, in the employment of said Ritchie Grocer Company as a truck driver, delivering groceries to various customers. While so engaged he had carried a load for delivery in the warehouse or storeroom of the United States Veterans' Hospital, near Alexandria; the load consisting of various and sundry groceries, among which was a 100-pound sack of sugar. It was late in the afternoon when he made the delivery. On said occasion, plaintiff alleges that he had backed his truck so that its rear end was down in the roadside ditch in front of the door of the warehouse, the floor of the truck being about a foot above the ground; that "when he had the truck almost unloaded and while in the act of putting a 100-pound sack of sugar on his shoulders to place the same in the warehouse (3)5C he suffered a severe strain to his left hip, his lower abdomen and the small of his back in the sacroiliac region in which the muscles, ligaments and nerves were torn and disarranged to such an extent that he has been left permanently and totally disabled from doing work of a reasonable character.'

"Defendants, in answering, deny the accidental injuries alleged, deny any and all liability, and allege upon information and belief that, "some time during May, 1933, plaintiff, as a result of a diseased condition, received treatment from and was examined by a physician, and that any disability which the said Charles L. Moore was then suffering from, or which he may have been suffering from subsequently, is entirely due to disease and natural causes. (3)5C'

"Suit was filed April 7, 1934. The plaintiff upon trial, November 8, 1934, testified that in lifting the sack of sugar to his shoulder a severe pain struck him in lower part of his back and extended to his left hip; that it was late in the evening and he finished unloading the truck of a few light articles remaining in it, drove it back to his employer's place of business in Alexandria, some few miles, caught a ride home with a friend in a car; that Mr. Thompson, manager of defendant company, had left his office when he (plaintiff) got back with the truck; that he suffered all that night, went next morning and told Mr. Thompson about his injuries, was directed and did go to the office of Simmons, Rand & Barber, defendant insurance company's physicians, was questioned, but not examined by Dr. Barber, who prescribed some medicine; that he continued to use the medicine and go back and forth to the doctor for a week, when feeling better he went back to work, drove the truck three days, and had to quit work on account of the pain and suffering, and has been unable to do any work since; that he went back to the physicians and Dr. Barber then examined him and placed him in a cast.

"Dr Barber testified that he examined plaintiff on May 18th; that plaintiff complained of pain in his groin, and said he thought he was ruptured, but Dr. Barber says he found no symptoms of rupture; that plaintiff told of having a few days prior, pains in the region of his prostate gland and thought it might have been caused by constant sitting on the seat of the truck and the jolting from the truck. Dr. Barber says, from plaintiff's complaints and statements, he was led to suspect the existence of a congenital disease; that he then examined plaintiff's urine, found pus and blood, evidencing congenital infection; therefore, concluded that to be the trouble and made out his report to that effect classing it as not an insurance case. Dr. Barber is still of the opinion that plaintiff's trouble was due to this infection and that same was not due to any injury plaintiff might have...