Rochon v. Consolidated Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-766,83-766 |
| Citation | 452 So.2d 404 |
| Parties | Raymond ROCHON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. 452 So.2d 404 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Raymond Rochon, in pro. per.
Allen, Gooch & Bourgeois, Sera H. Russell, III, Lafayette, for defendants-appellees.
Before DOMENGEAUX, C.J., and FORET and STOKER, JJ.
Raymond Rochon filed this worker's compensation suit against his former employer, Consolidated Construction Company, and its insurer, Automobile Owners Insurance Company. From a judgment dismissing his suit without prejudice, plaintiff appeals. At issue on appeal is the propriety of the trial court's action in dismissing plaintiff's suit.
Raymond Rochon, through the services of an attorney, filed suit seeking worker's compensation benefits for an injury which allegedly arose out of an on-the-job accident which occurred on April 17, 1979. Before the suit came to trial, however, plaintiff was convicted of several criminal offenses and was subsequently incarcerated in the state penitentiary at Angola, Louisiana. He remains in Angola to this date.
Plaintiff's counsel withdrew from the civil suit on June 11, 1981. Trial was originally set for March 21, 1983, but the matter was continued by the plaintiff so that he could seek new legal representation. Subsequently, the case was refixed with the trial date being set for July 5, 1983. On the day of the trial, no one was present to represent the plaintiff. Thus, pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. Article 1672, the trial court dismissed plaintiff's case without prejudice.
Plaintiff now appeals, alleging that the trial court erred in dismissing his case without prejudice because the court should have had him subpoenaed so that he could appear in court on his own behalf. We disagree.
LSA-C.C.P. Article 1351 provides:
(Emphasis added.)
The language is clear that a request for a subpoena must be made by a party to the suit. The record shows no evidence that this request was made. We know of no authority, either jurisprudential or statutory, which requires a judge, on his initiative, to subpoena parties to appear in court.
We note that because plaintiff has been unable to obtain counsel since his first attorney's withdrawal, he has had to prosecute this claim in proper person. Nevertheless, although we may not always hold laymen to the same standards of skill and judgment that is required of an attorney, when a layman chooses to appear in propria persona, he assumes all responsibilities for his own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 91-2636
...106 Idaho 264, 678 P.2d 56 (1984); Terpstra v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 483 N.E.2d 749 (Ind.Ct.App.1985); Rochon v. Consolidated Constr. Co., 452 So.2d 404 (La.Ct.App.1984); McGowan v. Director of Div. of Employment Sec., 388 Mass. 1003, 445 N.E.2d 1066 (1983); State v. Pilla, 380 N.W.2d 2......
-
Gray v. State
...assumes responsibility for his own inadequacy and lack of knowledge of both procedural and substantive law. Rochon v. Consolidated Constr. Co., 452 So.2d 404 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984)." Rader v. Dep't of Health and Hosps., Office of Public Health, Eng'g Servs., 94-0763, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/3......
-
Moss v. Barrett, No. 07-1120 (La. App. 1/30/2008)
...assumes responsibility for his own inadequacy and lack of knowledge of both procedural and substantive law. Rochon v. Consolidated Constr. Co., 452 So.2d 404 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984)." Rader v. Dep't of Health and Hosps., Office of Public Health, Eng'g Servs ., 94-0763, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/......
-
Dixon v. Houck
...under no duty to secure plaintiff's presence at the hearing nor to continue it because of his absence. See Rochon v. Consolidated Const. Co., 452 So.2d 404 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984). We also note plaintiff has failed to show how he was prejudiced by not being present at the The burden of provin......