Richardson v. Crescent forwarding & Transp. Co., Ltd

• Decision Date: 01 July 1931
• Docket Number: 13,806
• Parties: RICHARDSON v. CRESCENT FORWARDING & TRANSP. CO., LTD
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

135 So. 688

17 La.App. 428

RICHARDSON v. CRESCENT FORWARDING & TRANSP. CO., LTD

No. 13,806

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Orleans

July 1, 1931

Rehearing Refused July 20, 1931.

Writs of Certiorari and Review Refused by Supreme Court October 6 1931.

Appeal from First City Court of New Orleans, Section "C." Hon. William V. Seeber, Judge.

Action by Monroe Richardson against Crescent Forwarding &amp Transportation Company, Ltd.

There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed.

Judgment affirmed.

A. H Reed, of New Orleans, attorney for plaintiff, appellee.

John May, A. M. Suthon and John A. Smith, of New Orleans, attorneys for defendant, appellant.

HIGGINS J. JANVIER, J., takes no part.

OPINION

HIGGINS, J.

Plaintiff claims compensation under the provisions of Act No. 20 of 1914 (as amended), alleging that he was employed by defendant as a laborer in its drayage business and that he was injured on the river front on November 20, 1930, while loading 1,000-pound drums on defendant's truck.

The sole defense is that plaintiff does not come under the provisions of the Compensation Law because drayage business is not listed in the said law as a hazardous occupation or business.

There was judgment in favor of plaintiff as prayed for, and defendant has appealed.

The evidence shows that defendant is engaged in the drayage business of hauling heavy freight with motortrucks. Plaintiff had been in its employment for a number of years, formerly as a driver of one of its trucks, but for several years prior to the accident as a member of a crew of four men, who went with the trucks for the purpose of loading and unloading the freight from them.

On the day in question the crew was attempting to load heavy steel drums on the truck and the "skidder" on which they were attempting to roll the drums upon the truck slipped, causing a drum to fall on plaintiff's foot and resulting in the injury complained of.

The issue presented here was decided by this court in the case of Labostrie v. Weber, 15 La.App. 241, 130 So. 885, 886. In that case plaintiff was a negro laborer employed by defendant to drive his motortruck and assist in loading and unloading it. At the time he was injured he had been ordered by his employer to assist in demolishing a building where defendant intended to erect a new building to house the motortrucks. The defense was that the employer's business was not enumerated among those classifications mentioned as hazardous under the Compensation Act and that the injury did not arise out of or during the course of plaintiff's employment. In disposing of these issues we said:

"Did Weber's business come within the enumeration of occupations classified as hazardous under the compensation statute? Subsection (a) of paragraph 2 of section 1 of Act 20 of 1914 reads as follows:

"'Every person performing services arising out of and incidental to his employment in the course of his employer's trade, business or occupation in the following hazardous trades, businesses and occupations: * * *

"'The installation, repair, erection, removal or operation of boilers, furnaces, engines and other forms of machinery.'

"In considering this section, the Supreme Court, in Haddad v. Commercial Truck Co., 146 La. 897, 84 So. 197, 9 A. L. R. 1380, held that the operation of a motortruck was a hazardous occupation because motortrucks are propelled 'by gasoline engines or motors, which by the use of gasoline produce their own energy or motive power. The driving of such motortrucks necessarily involves the operation of such engines.' The court then gives a definition of the word 'engine,' and concludes that the operation of a gasoline engine is as much contemplated by the statute as hazardous as the operation of a stationary engine.

"It follows, therefore, that an employer, who is engaged in moving furniture by means of a motor-driven vehicle, is engaged in an occupation which comes within those enumerated in subsection (a) of paragraph 2 of section 1 of Act 20 of 1914. Consequently, we find as a fact that Labostrie, by reason of his employment in the operation of a motor-driven vehicle, was engaged in a hazardous occupation. See, also, Beebe v. McKeithen Const. Co., 5 La.App. 179; Plick et al. v. Toye Bros. Auto & Taxicab Co., 13 La.App. 525, 127 So. 59.

"Finally it is contended that Labostrie was not injured in the course of his employment. This argument is based upon the fact that Labostrie was not driving the motortruck when injured. Hence it is said that his injury was not received during and did not arise out of his employment. He was attempting to remove the roof from the building, when a part of it fell and injured him. If he had been hurt while standing still upon his employer's premises, in a location where his business required him to go, he would, nevertheless, be entitled to recover,...