Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., No. 61235
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | DIXON |
| Citation | 359 So.2d 154 |
| Parties | B. E. WELCH v. CROWN ZELLERBACH CORPORATION. |
| Docket Number | No. 61235 |
| Decision Date | 22 May 1978 |
Page 154
v.
CROWN ZELLERBACH CORPORATION.
Rehearing Denied June 15, 1978.
Page 155
Charles B. W. Palmer, Amite, for plaintiff-applicant.
Charles M. Hughes, R. Bradley Lewis, Bogalusa, for defendant-respondent.
DIXON, Justice.
Plaintiff B. E. Welch brought suit against Crown Zellerbach Corporation (Crown) for workmen's compensation benefits. The trial court maintained peremptory exceptions of prescription, peremption and res judicata filed by the defendant and dismissed plaintiff's suit with prejudice. The First Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on the exception of peremption, not reaching the plea of res judicata. 351 So.2d 1255 (La.App.1977). We granted writs to review that ruling.
B. E. Welch, a timber cutter, was injured on May 20, 1970 when he stepped into a hole while loading logs onto a pulpwood truck. On April 28, 1971 Welch filed suit seeking workmen's compensation benefits against Robert Campbell, Inc., alleging that he was an employee of that corporation and that he was injured during the course of his employment. On August 19, 1971 Welch joined Austin Carpenter as defendant and amended his petition to allege that he was employed by Carpenter who in turn was a subcontractor of Campbell. The case went to trial and judgment was rendered in favor of Welch, holding the defendants liable in solido for workmen's compensation benefits. Only defendant Campbell appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the lower court insofar as it held Campbell liable, holding that because certain interrogatories taken from Campbell, although in the record before the court, had not been introduced at trial, there was no evidence which the court could consider establishing Campbell's status as statutory employer. Welch v. Robert Campbell, Inc., 316 So.2d 822 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1975), writ denied 321 So.2d 523 (La.1975).
On October 11, 1973 Welch filed the present action against Crown. In his petition plaintiff alleged that he was injured while employed by Carpenter; that Carpenter was a subcontractor of Campbell; and that Campbell was a subcontractor of Crown. Crown filed the peremptory exceptions mentioned above and the plaintiff responded with the argument that Crown was solidarily liable with Carpenter and Campbell and that the periods of prescription and peremption were interrupted by suit against those solidary obligors. R.S. 23:1209; C.C. 3552; see Malone, Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Law and Practice, § 384, p. 502 (1951). The trial court maintained the exceptions and dismissed the action.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that prescription was not interrupted because the Court of Appeal had previously held that Campbell was not liable to the plaintiff for workmen's compensation, and therefore could not be solidarily liable with Crown. The court thus gave preclusive effect to the prior judgment in Welch v. Robert Campbell, Inc., supra.
The Court of Appeal relied on Trahan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 314 So.2d 350 (La.1975), in sustaining the defendant's plea
Page 156
of prescription. In Trahan, four men were killed while working in a salt mine operated by Diamond...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sevin v. Parish of Jefferson, Civil Action No. 08-802.
...correctly note that Louisiana did not always recognize the doctrine of collateral estoppel, see B.E. Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 359 So.2d 154, 156-57 (La.1978), the preclusion statute enacted in 1991 "embraces the broad usage of the phrase `res judicata' to include both claim preclusi......
-
Trahan v. Superior Oil Co., No. 81-3081
...much narrower scope than have common law jurisdictions and has never recognized collateral estoppel. See Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 359 So.2d 154, 156 (La.1978); Scurlock Oil Company v. Getty Oil Company, 294 So.2d 810, 817-18 (La.1974). However, these doctrines, whose normal operatio......
-
Craig v. St. Martin Parish Sheriff, No. 90-CV-1967.
...estoppel did not exist in Louisiana law before the 1990 amendments of LA.REV.STAT. ANN. 13:4231. Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 359 So.2d 154, 157 (La.1978); S.J. v. P.M., 586 So.2d 662, 665 (La.Ct.App.1991). Although the 1990 amendments of § 4231 contain an issue preclusion provision31, ......
-
Avenal v. State, No. 99-C-0127
...the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Steptoe v. Lallie Kemp Hospital 634 So.2d 331, 335 (La.1994); Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 359 So.2d 154, 156 (La. 1978). In Welch, the Supreme Court rejected all forms of the doctrine, Collateral estoppel is a doctrine of issue preclusion alien to L......
-
Sevin v. Parish of Jefferson, Civil Action No. 08-802.
...correctly note that Louisiana did not always recognize the doctrine of collateral estoppel, see B.E. Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 359 So.2d 154, 156-57 (La.1978), the preclusion statute enacted in 1991 "embraces the broad usage of the phrase `res judicata' to include both claim preclusi......
-
Trahan v. Superior Oil Co., No. 81-3081
...much narrower scope than have common law jurisdictions and has never recognized collateral estoppel. See Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 359 So.2d 154, 156 (La.1978); Scurlock Oil Company v. Getty Oil Company, 294 So.2d 810, 817-18 (La.1974). However, these doctrines, whose normal operatio......
-
Craig v. St. Martin Parish Sheriff, No. 90-CV-1967.
...estoppel did not exist in Louisiana law before the 1990 amendments of LA.REV.STAT. ANN. 13:4231. Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 359 So.2d 154, 157 (La.1978); S.J. v. P.M., 586 So.2d 662, 665 (La.Ct.App.1991). Although the 1990 amendments of § 4231 contain an issue preclusion provision31, ......
-
Avenal v. State, No. 99-C-0127
...the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Steptoe v. Lallie Kemp Hospital 634 So.2d 331, 335 (La.1994); Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 359 So.2d 154, 156 (La. 1978). In Welch, the Supreme Court rejected all forms of the doctrine, Collateral estoppel is a doctrine of issue preclusion alien to L......