Veasey v. Peters

• Decision Date: 25 February 1918
• Docket Number: 22435
• Citation: 142 La. 1012,77 So. 948
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: VEASEY v. PETERS et al

77 So. 948

142 La. 1012

VEASEY v. PETERS et al

No. 22435

Supreme Court of Louisiana

February 25, 1918

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

PROVOSTY, J., concurs on ground that act of Congress confers jurisdiction.SOMMERVILLE and O'NIELL, JJ., concur in decree.

OPINION On Rehearing.

LECHE, J.

Viewing the question of law upon which this case was decided, with the additional light shed upon it by reargument of counsel, we have, after mature consideration, reached the conclusion that our former decree is erroneous.

That decree rests entirely upon the interpretation which we placed upon the cases of Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 37 S.Ct. 524, 61 L.Ed. 1086, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 900, and Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U.S. 52, 34 S.Ct. 733, 58 L.Ed. 1208, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1157.

It must be observed that the statute of this state, under which plaintiff has founded his demand is not one giving redress for torts. The fundamental idea of the Employers' Liability Act is to provide means of subsistence to the employe during a specific time, when his earning capacity has been either partially or entirely destroyed, either temporarily or permanently, by injury received in the course of his employment, whether that injury be caused by his negligence, that of his fellow servant, or that of his employer. The right to compensation on the part of the employe does not therefore depend upon the commission of a tort towards him by his employer, and it may arise when the employer is neither negligent nor at fault. It also follows that defendants' liability, if they are liable, is purely statutory and it is neither the result of a tort nor of a contract.

In the Jensen Case, libelant was endeavoring to fasten this statutory liability upon a ship which is generally subject to the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States courts, while in the present suit plaintiff seeks to enforce liability upon a citizen of this state who is subject to the jurisdiction of its courts and whose business is not necessarily of a maritime nature.

In the Imbrovek Case, it was held that the occupation of stowing goods in the hold of a ship was maritime in its nature because on the proper performance of that duty depend in large measure the safe carrying of the cargo and the safety of the ship itself. In the present case the occupation of plaintiff was to unload the ship, and that could have no possible relation to the safety of the ship or its navigation. Nor does the decision in the Imbrovek Case rest upon the question of the locality where the injury was inflicted; but, on the contrary, the Supreme Court seems rather to support its conclusions on the fact that in that...