Vinton Petroleum Co. v. L. Seiss Oil Syndicate, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | 917 |
| Citation | 139 So. 543,19 La.App. 179 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
| Parties | VINTON PETROLEUM CO. v. L. SEISS OIL SYNDICATE, INC |
Rehearing Refused March 8, 1932.
Appeal from the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu. Hon. Jerry Cline, Judge.
Action by Vinton Petroleum Company against L. Seiss Oil Syndicate Inc.
There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
C. R Liskow, of Lake Charles, attorney for plaintiff, appellee.
Moss & Siess, of Lake Charles, attorneys for defendant, appellant.
Plaintiff company and defendant syndicate had each a derrick near the dividing line between their oil leases standing at a distance of about seventy or eighty feet from each other. Plaintiff's derrick was constructed of steel, that of defendant of wood.
Jesse Burton was employed by defendant to remove this wooden derrick of defendant and to replace it by another. While Burton was endeavoring to remove it, the derrick broke about forty feet above its foundation and its top fell on the crown of plaintiff's derrick, completely demolishing it.
This suit is brought by plaintiff for $ 1,275 for the destruction of its derrick with legal interest, for which judgment was rendered in its favor.
Defendant appeals.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant company had allowed this wooden derrick to stand on its property for a long period of time, without being repaired; that it had rotted, was decayed and dangerous; that when defendant attempted to remove it from its location, because of its rotten and decayed condition, it fell on plaintiff's steel derrick and wrecked it completely.
In the alternative, plaintiff avers that if the destruction of defendant's derrick was not caused by its decayed condition, it was allowed to fall on plaintiff's derrick through the lack of care and negligence of defendant in endeavoring to remove it.
After denying all of the foregoing allegations, defendant company answered that Jesse Burton, who undertook to remove the derrick, under its agreement with defendant, was an independent contractor.
The rules of law governing the issues presented under the pleadings are simple enough, the difficulty arising as usual in correctly applying them to the facts of the case.
We will consider the questions submitted in their reverse order and will therefore, first consider the defense as to whether defendant can shield itself from responsibility under its plea that Burton was an independent contractor.
The proof shows that the contract for the removal of defendant's derrick was made between Burton and Savoie, the representative of defendant company.
There were only two ways, the evidence shows, that could be followed in removing the derrick. One was by tearing it down, and the other was by pulling it down.
Burton says the derrick was in a condition that made it dangerous to tear it down.
Savoie, field representative of defendant who entered into the contract with Burton, as hereinabove stated, says before entering into the agreement they both examined the derricks, and looked at the distance "he had to move the other derrick and where this one (meaning defendant's derrick) would be throwed." He says also that he does not remember that he spoke to Burton about tearing the derrick down. "The understanding," he says, "was to throw it down and clear just enough of the foundation to put the new derrick in place."
That understanding or agreement constituted the contract between defendant company and Burton. It is clear from that agreement that he was to "throw down" the derrick and was not to tear it. The method of its demolition was therefore not left to the choice or discretion of Burton as it had been provided for in the contract itself. As the particular method which was to be pursued in demolishing the derrick resulted from the direct act of defendant, as expressed in its agreement, Burton was not an independent contractor; and defendant cannot find shelter from responsibility under that defense. Faren, Tutrix, v. Sellers & Co., 39 La.Ann. 1011, 3 So. 363, 4 Am. St. Rep. 256.
The next question is as to whether the damage resulted from the decayed or rotten condition of defendant's wooden derrick.
This part of plaintiff's complaint is based on the provisions of article 2322, Civil Code, which says:
"The owner of a building is answerable for the damage occasioned by its ruin, when this is caused by neglect to repair it," etc.
Burton testifies that sometimes derricks are dismantled a piece at a time, but that this derrick was old, and that he "hardly ever took one down that way when it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olsen v. Shell Oil Co.
...Henson are cases involving claims under Article 2322, whether these cases support the holding of the district court is indeed uncertain. The Vinton case involved damage to the property of an adjoining property owner and not injury to an employee of an independent contractor. In addition, th......
-
Olsen v. Shell Oil Co.
... ... S. A., Inc. and Exxon Corp ... TATE, Justice ... Vinton Petroleum Co. v. L. Seiss Oil Syndicate, 19 La.App. 179, ... ...
-
Moczygemba v. Danos & Curole Marine Contractors, Inc.
...Co., 472 F.2d 248 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 923, 93 S.Ct. 2734, 37 L.Ed.2d 150 (1973), citing, Vinton Petroleum Co. v. L. Seiss Oil Syndicate, Inc., 19 La.App. 179, 139 So. 543 (Ct. of App. 1932). Once the "building" criterion is met, in order for liability to attach under Article ......
-
Majestic Realty Associates, Inc. v. Toti Contracting Co.
... ... Harrington, 3 Terry 547, 42 Del. 547, 41 A.2d 461 (Sup.Ct.1945); Vinton Petroleum Co. v. L. Seiss Oil Syndicate, 19 La.App. 179, 139 So. 543 ... ...