Rauk v. Clarke
| Decision Date | 26 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 4285,4285 |
| Citation | 91 So.2d 47 |
| Parties | Adeliah Davis James RAUK v. John P. CLARKE, d/b/a Johnnie Clarke's Sea Food House. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
D'Amico & Curet, Parker & Parker, Baton Rouge, for appellant.
Kantrow, Spaht, West & Kleinpeter, Baton Rouge, for appellee.
This is a workmen's compensation suit wherein the plaintiff, Adeliah Davis James Rauk, alleges herself to be totally and permanently disabled as the result of an accident which occurred on or about March 26, 1954, while employed by the defendant, John P. Clarke, d/b/a Johnnie Clarke's Sea Food House. The petition alleges that on the day aforesaid, the plaintiff while pouring a cup of coffee, spilled same on her feet, burning them severely. The burns resulted in dermatitis, it is alleged, which assumed such aggravated proportions that she can no longer stand on her feet for long periods of time and is consequently unable to do the type of work for which she is trained and qualified.
The answer is in the form of a general denial admitting only the plaintiff's employment.
Following trial on the merits in the court below, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant and the matter is now before us on a devolutive appeal taken by the plaintiff.
The first question presented is whether the business of the defendant is hazardous within the meaning of the compensation statute. Counsel for plaintiff concedes that a restaurant is not one of house businesses which is classified as being hazardous per se and we must, therefore, determine whether it is covered by the so-called omnibus clause of the statute, which reads, in part, as follows:
'The construction, installation, operation, alteration, removal or repairs of wires, cables, switchboards or apparatus charged with electrical current * * * installation, repair, erection, removal or operation of boilers, furnaces, engines and other forms of machinery.' LSA-R.S. 23:1035.
The record establishes that the defendant was engaged in operating a rather small restaurant in the City of Baton Rouge, the equipment of which consisted of a gas stove, one or more refrigerators, a food freezer, a steam table, to keep food warm, ice cream cooler and a coffee urn. The latter appliance was of the type customarily used by restaurants and consisted of the urn itself surrounded by a water jacket with a small gas flame underneath.
We feel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kramer v. Etie
...of a restaurant business is not within the contemplation of LSA-R.S. 23:1035. Prevost v. Felix's, Inc., La.App., 121 So.2d 91; Rauk v. Clark, La.App., 91 So.2d 47; Claiborne v. Smith, La.App., 2 So.2d 714. Thus, insofar as plaintiff's workmen's compensation claim is concerned, the sole issu......
-
Prevost v. Felix's, Inc.
...160 So. 655; Richardson v. American Employers' Ins. Co., La.App., 31 So.2d 527; Claiborne v. Smith, La.App., 2 So.2d 714, and Rauk v. Clarke, La.App., 91 So.2d 47. Counsel for plaintiff have vehemently criticized the decision of this Court in the Atkins case in which we said that the busine......