Verret v. Travelers Ins. Co.

Decision Date01 July 1964
Docket NumberNo. 6187,6187
CitationVerret v. Travelers Ins. Co., 166 So.2d 292 (La. App. 1964)
PartiesEloise VERRET et al. v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana

Rogers & Mills, by Golden Mills, Baton Rouge, for appellants.

Taylor, Porter, Brooks, Fuller & Phillips, by Robert J. Vandaworker, Baton Rouge, for appellees.

Before ELLIS, LOTTINGER, HERGET, LANDRY and REID, JJ.

LOTTINGER, Judge.

This is a suit for workmen's compensation benefits filed by Mrs. Eloise Verret, individually and on behalf of her two minor children, against Rogers Terminal and Shipping Corporation, Cargill, Inc., and the Travelers Insurance Company, as insurer of Rogers Terminal and Shipping Corporation, Cargill, Inc. and the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission.The Lower Court rendered judgment dismissing petitioner's suit with prejudice.The petitioner has appealed.

The facts disclose that Abner Verret, the husband of petitioner, was a longshoreman employed by Rogers Terminal and Shipping Corporation, a stevedoring company, to assist in the loading of a ship which was tied to the grain dock near Port Allen, Louisiana.At about six o'clock p.m. on December 3, 1959, Verret concluded his work for that day and walked to the top of the levee where he was checked off by the time keeper for the stevedoring company.He then walked down the levee to Wilson Drive which is a wide street running parallel with the levee and is a private drive on property belonging to the Port Commission.When he reached the East side of Wilson Drive, he then proceeded to go to his automobile which was situated on the West side of Wilson Drive, but was struck and killed by an automobile.The evidence discloses that the deceased stepped out into Wilson Drive from between two parked vehicles.

It is contended by petitioner that in order to reach the grain dock in coming to work it was necessary for the deceased to cross over the levee and a railroad track then proceed down Wilson Drive until he came to the elevated grain conveyor and cat-walk.There he recrossed the railroad track, mounted a stairway on top of the levee which connected with the cat-walk and from there proceeded down the conveyor to the grain elevator.After checking out at six o'clock p.m., decedent proceeded to leave the dock by the same route, i.e., by returning along the cat-walk to the stairway at the top of the levee and down the stairway to the base of the levee where he was checked off by the time keeper, then he proceeded down the levee and at a point within twenty (20 ) feet of the conveyor which runs overhead, he attempted to cross Wilson Drive when he was struck and killed by an automobile driven by a fellow employee.The accident occurred about 6:05 p.m.

Petitioner contends that, in addition to the liability of Rogers Terminal and Shipping Corporation, the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission and Cargill, Inc., are also liable as statutory employers of Verret and hence their insurer, the Travelers Insurance Company is also liable.They invoked the 'Threshold' or 'Proximity Doctrine' to determine liability on the part of the defendants.

The relationship between the various defendants, as determined from the evidence indicates that the Port Commission is the owner of the grain elevator, the grain dock and the property surrounding these installations.There is no question but that the property upon which the deceased was killed was owned by the Port Commission which is a public corporation.The Port Commission leases its installations to Cargill, Inc., which purchases, stores and resells grain to various individuals or firms.The proprietors of the vessel 'The Fontenoy' had purchased grain from Cargill, Inc. and they were in the process of loading the Fontenoy prior to and at the time of the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • Chapman v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1995
    ...and crosswalk as a safer alternative, to assist employees. 903 S.W.2d at 201. Coverage was also denied in Verret v. Travelers Insurance Company, 166 So.2d 292, 294-95 (La.App.1964) (Employee was hit by a car and killed while crossing a private drive, not owned by the employer, adjacent to t......
  • Templet v. Intracoastal Truck Line, Inc., 49734
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • December 15, 1969
    ...of these cases would not be 'adopted.' The holding of the court is stated in the following summation: 'Thus Verret (Verret v. Travelers Ins. Co., La.App., 166 So.2d 292) seems to say, in the above quoted language, that recovery is refused both because the employment-connected risk had alrea......
  • Templet v. Intracoastal Truck Line, Inc., 3205
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • January 6, 1969
    ...recover, if at all, under the theory referred to as the proximity rule or threshold doctrine. Defendant argues from Verret v. Travelers Ins. Co., 166 So.2d 292 (La.App.1964), that plaintiff is not entitled to compensation under the proximity rule because there was 'no hazard peculiar in thi......
  • Chancellor v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • October 12, 1978
    ...refer to the cases of Fife v. Allied Super Markets, Inc., 284 So.2d 561 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1973) and Verret v. Travelers Insurance Company, 166 So.2d 292 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1964). Considering the facts in this case we cannot find that the employee faced any unusual, peculiar or greater hazard......