Turner v. Maryland Cas. Co.
Decision Date | 17 February 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 3204,3204 |
Parties | TURNER v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Julius T. Long, Shreveport, for appellant.
King, Anderson & Swift, Lake Charles, for appellee.
Plaintiff has filed this suit on behalf of his minor son claiming compensation for total disability from the Maryland Casualty Company as insurer of the Allen Parish Police Jury for an alleged injury to his son on August 4, 1947, while employed by said Police Jury.
To the petition the defendant filed an exception of no right or cause of action which was sustained by the Lower Court and from which judgment the plaintiff has appealed.
The exception filed by the defendant and the ruling of the lower court in sustaining same was based upon an allegation of the plaintiff's petition which reads as follows:
* * *
* * *
The defendant therefore contended in the lower court and again in this court that the petition on its face showed that Kenneth W. Turner, minor son of the plaintiff, on the date of the alleged accident was less than sixteen years of age and was working in connection with a road grader and that same was a power driven machine and therefore the workmens' compensation act of Louisiana did not apply to the minor at the date of the accident.
This contention is based upon Act No. 210 of 1944 which amended Section 8 of Act No. 301 of 1908, and upon Paragraph 6 of Section 3 of Act No. 20 of 1914, as amended, Act No. 85 of 1926. Also, Kennedy v. Johnson Lumber Company, La.App., 33 So.2d 558, and Honeycutt v. National Automobile & Casualty Insurance Company, La.App., 41 So.2d 119.
The material and pertinent part of the district court's opinion is as follows:
'Since plaintiff's son was under sixteen years of age and his work was in connection with power driven machinery, it is obvious that his employment was prohibited by Act 210 of 1944.'
It will be noted that the learned judge of the District Court recognizes in his reasons for judgment that there is no specific allegation to the effect that the grader was power driven, but that he is personally satisfied that such a grader is a power driven piece of machinery. Such a fact is susceptible of proof and should have been proven. It is not an affirmative allegation that it is a power driven machine. There is nothing in the petition to indicate that the grader had an engine built in or upon it as a part thereof, nor is there anything in the petition to indicate that it was being pushed or pulled by a tractor or any other power machine at the time of the accident. Under the liberal construction given to the compensation act and pleadings necessary thereunder, it would have been proper to have treated the exception of no cause or right of action as one of vagueness and ordered the plaintiff to amend his petition.
It is also shown by the record that counsel for the plaintiff filed a timely motion for a re-hearing, as well as a supplemental motion for a re-hearing, in which he prayed that he be allowed to amend. In this supplemental and amended motion and application for re-hearing it was alleged:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Succession of Guidry v. Bank of Terrebonne & Trust Co.
... ... Co-operative Cab Co., 37 So.2d 452 (La.App.1948); Turner v. Maryland Casualty Co., 44 So.2d 374 (La.App.1950); Doyle v. Thompson, 50 So.2d 505 ... ...
-
Menard v. Associated Royal Crown Bottling Co.
...Highway Commission, 5 So.2d 20 (La.App.1941); Pancoast v. Cooperative Cab Co., 37 So.2d 452 (La.App.1948); Turner v. Maryland Casualty Co., 44 So.2d 374 (La.App.1950); Doyle v. Thompson, 50 So.2d 505 (La.App.1951).' (Emphasis It would seem that the circumstance surrounding the plaintiff's p......