Stockstill v. Sears-Roebuck & Co., 4751

CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
Citation151 So. 822
Docket Number4751
Decision Date03 January 1934

151 So. 822


No. 4751

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

January 3, 1934

T. A. Carter, of Alexandria, for appellant.

Thornton, Gist & Richey, of Alexandria, for appellee.

OPINION [151 So. 823]


Plaintiff seeks to recover compensation for injuries received by him from an accident that befell him while in defendant's employ. He alleges that defendant is engaged in a general mercantile business, selling hardware, electric refrigerators, and other merchandise; that it was a part of his duty to arrange the stock of goods on the floor of defendant's business house, and particularly was it his duty to arrange (presumably for display) the electric refrigerators, and to deliver and install same after being sold to customers. He further alleges that while engaged in moving or attempting to move one of the refrigerators, on June 14, 1932, he injured his back, and that since that time he has been unable to do any kind of work or pursue his regular occupation. He alleges permanent total disability and sues for compensation on that basis.

Defendant filed a plea of prematurity and an exception of no cause and no right of action. The exception was sustained and plaintiff's suit ordered dismissed. The plea of prematurity was not tried.

Plaintiff appealed.

Plaintiff does not allege that defendant's business is a hazardous one; neither does he allege that any department or special line of such business is hazardous; and defendant argues that since these allegations are absent, and in view of the fact that a mercantile business is not declared a hazardous business or occupation by the Workmen's Compensation Law of 1914 (Act No. 20), as amended by Act No. 85 of 1926, no cause or right of action is disclosed by the petition. The allegations of the petition are vague and somewhat indefinite; details of fact are lacking, which, if set up, would clarify what now is obscure and vague. However, in view of the liberal construction the courts generally place on the allegations of a petition for compensation, and that the technical rules of pleading and evidence are not strictly applied or enforced in such cases, we believe the exception not well founded in this case, and that a cause of action is set up in the petition sufficiently clear to justify trial on the merits. On this point the Supreme Court in Pierre v. Barringer, 149 La. 71, 88 So. 691, said: "A critical examination of the petition, which is carelessly drawn would show that it does not technically embrace a cause of action. But its general purport shows it to be a suit by an employee against his employer for compensation for an accident while the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant and while he was supposed to be acting in the performance of his duties." The exception of no cause of action was overruled. See, also, Clark v. Alexandria Cooperage & Lumber Co., 157 La. 135, 102 So. 96.

The business of a merchant is not named by the act as a hazardous...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Franz v. Sun Indem. Co. of New York, 17768.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • April 13, 1942
    ...399; Dartez v. Sterling Sugars, Inc., 7 La.App. 414; Tregre v. Kratzer, La.App., 148 So. 271; Stockstill v. Sears-Roebuck & Co., La.App., 151 So. 822; De Lony v. Lane, La.App., 155 So. 476. Thus the fact alone that McMahon drove an automobile or assisted in loading or unloading one is impor......
  • Coleman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 8425
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • November 2, 1955
    ...hazardous business has been uniformly recognized in the decisions of the courts of this State. Stockstill v. Sears-Roebuck & Co., La.App., 151 So. 822; Scott v. Dalton Co., Inc., La.App., 1 So.2d 412; Goodman v. National Casualty Co., La.App., 15 So.2d 173; Wells v. Morgan & Lindsey, Inc., ......
  • Collins v. Spielman, 36574.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • May 25, 1942 Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., 157 La. 1030, 103 So. 303; Rayburn v. De Moss, supra; Stockstill v. Sears-Roebuck & Co., La.App., 151 So. 822, and Staples v. Henderson Jersey Farms, Inc., La.App., 181 So. 48. In the Staples case, the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, relying o......
  • Staples v. Henderson Jersey Farms, Inc, 5651
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • March 8, 1938
    ...should be overruled. All doubts are resolved in favor of the sufficiency of the petition. Stockstill v. Sears-Roebuck & Co., La.App., 151 So. 822; Kinnard v. Rice Drilling Co. et al., La.App., 172 So. 592. It is not necessary to the efficacy of the petition that it be specifically alleged t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT