Smith v. Marine Oil Co., Ltd, 10,880
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US) |
| Writing for the Court | JANVIER, J. |
| Citation | 10 La.App. 674,121 So. 782 |
| Parties | SMITH v. MARINE OIL CO., LTD |
| Docket Number | 10,880 |
| Decision Date | 15 April 1929 |
121 So. 782
10 La.App. 674
SMITH
v.
MARINE OIL CO., LTD
No. 10,880
Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Orleans
April 15, 1929
Rehearing Refused April 29, 1929.
Appeal from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans. Hon. Hugh C. Cage, Judge.
Action by Murphy Smith against Marine Oil Company, Ltd.
There was judgment for defendant and plaintiff appealed.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
Weiss, Yarrut and Stitch and W. M. Barnett, of New Orleans, attorneys for plaintiff, appellant.
Spearing and Mabry, of New Orleans, attorneys for defendant, appellee.
OPINION
JANVIER, J.
This is a suit in compensation.
Plaintiff alleges that he received injuries arising out of, and incidental to, his employment "as a laborer in defendant's service station."
He also alleges that "the work for which he was employed, and in which he was engaged at the time of such injuries was dangerous and hazardous."
Defendant excepted to the petition, contending that it shows no cause of action, because it contains no allegation of fact showing the nature of the work, and that the allegation that the work was dangerous and hazardous is merely a conclusion of the pleader. [121 So. 783]
The trial court maintained the exception and dismissed the suit and from this judgment plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.
The sole question for determination is whether or not the allegation that petitioner was employed as a laborer in a service station sets forth facts sufficient to warrant our holding that he was engaged in a hazardous occupation, such as is under the protection of the Compensation Laws of this State.
There can be no doubt that the only occupations protected by the Compensation Laws of this State are those which are specifically designated in the Act, or which, by agreement made in advance, or by judgment of court obtained in advance, are determined to be hazardous.
See Dejan vs. Ujffy, 14 Orleans App. 230 and Anderson vs. Tharp, C. of App. Par. of Orleans.
Therefore, since the occupation in which plaintiff was engaged was not the subject of special agreement, or judgment, prior to the accident, he can recover only if the occupation is one of those denominated as hazardous under the Statute.
On this point we find that this Court in Conaway & Clark vs. Marine Oil Co., Ltd., 5 La.App. 134, a case involving the same defendant and the same kind of employment, held that because of the fact that the employees of service stations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleury v. Wentorf, 75-477
...309, 316 (Okl.1956); Huckleberry v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 324 Mo. 1025, 26 S.W.2d 980, 986 (1930); and Smith v. Marine Oil Co., Ltd., 10 La.App. 674, 121 So. 782, 783 The cases holding that petroleum products are not explosives have various rationales in the face of the recognized explos......
-
Robbins v. Caraway-Rhodes Veterinary Hospital, CARAWAY-RHODES
...So. 758 (La.App., Orl., 1935); Stockstill v. Sears-Roebuck & Company, 151 So. 822 (La.App., 2d Cir., 1934); Smith v. Marine Oil Company, 10 La.App. 674, 121 So. 782 In Stockstill v. Sears-Roebuck & Company, supra, the court emphasized that: 'The business of a merchant is not named by the ac......
-
Guidry v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., Civ. A. No. 4511.
...not such as would place her "in the regular proximity" of the gases. Plaintiff cites the cases of Smith v. Marine Oil Co., Orleans, 1929, 10 La.App. 674, 121 So. 782 and Rigsby v. John W. Clark Lumber Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 1946, 28 So. 346 in support of her view that this feature of her empl......
-
Stephens, for Use and Benefit of Stephens v. Catalano, 17753.
...in which many cases were reviewed--this entire subject was fully discussed by this court. Also, see Smith v. Marine Oil Company, Ltd., 10 La.App. 674, 121 So. 782; Stockstill v. Sears-Roebuck & Company, La.App., 151 So. 822; Atkins v. Holsum Cafeteria, Inc., La.App., 159 So. 758; Rester v. ......