Welch v. Travelers Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 July 1969
• Docket Number: No. 7731,7731
• Parties: Patricia WELCH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 623

225 So.2d 623

Patricia WELCH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 7731.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

July 2, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 28, 1969.

Taylor, Porter, Brooks, Fuller & Phillips, by William A. Norfolk, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Cecil N. Bankston, Baton Rouge, for appellee.

Before LANDRY, SARTAIN and MARCUS, JJ.

SARTAIN, Judge.

This is a workmen's compensation case which involves an employee of Associated Pipeline Contractors, Inc. (Associated) who died as a result of an automobile accident which occurred in the State of Arkansas. Plaintiff, decedent's wife, individually and on behalf of her four minor children, seeks maximum benefits, medical and funeral expenses, occasioned by the death of her husband and the children's father, Raymond L. Welch. Judgment in the trial court was rendered against Associated and its workmen's compensation insurer from which judgment said defendants appeal.

The legal status of the widow, the children, the automobile accident, and the resulting death of Welch are not in dispute. What is in dispute are the questions of (1) whether or not the contract of employment between Associated and Welch was made in Louisiana so as to vest the courts of this state with jurisdiction and (2) whether or not at the time of the automobile accident, Mr. Welch was acting within the course and scope of his employment. For reasons hereinafter stated we are of the opinion that the resolution of these two issues by the trial judge against the defendants is proper and that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

Associated is in the business of constructing pipelines and at the time of Welch's death was engaged in a project which required work in Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas. Decedent had on previous occasions worked for this company. Several months before his last employment Welch was told by Mr. Samuel Parrish, a foreman for defendant, that when and if the occasion arose and employment became available for decedent, he, Parrish, would call for him. There was no definite understanding as to when this call would come or any definite commitment on the part of Welch that he accept when called. However, around July 1, 1967, Mr. Parrish had defendant's office manager call Welch at his home in Baton Rouge to advise decedent that work was available and to ask if he could come. Decedent stated that he would and left the next day for Clarksdale, Mississippi to join Associated at his construction site. When the company's work in Mississippi was completed the equipment and personnel were then moved to a new job site near Eudora, Arkansas.

Mr. Welch was fatally injured at about 5:20 P.M. o'clock on September 14, 1967 as he was traveling north on U.S. Highway 65, when he was going from the job site to his motel room at Lake Village, Arkansas.

Defendants initially filed a declinatory exception contending that both plaintiff's contract of employment and his fatal injury occurred outside of the State of Louisiana and that the district court was without jurisdiction to hear the matter. This exception was properly overruled by the trial judge.

In Williams v. Travelers Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn., 19 So.2d 586 (1st La.App., writs refused, 1945) this court had occasion to determine whether or not a particular contract of employment was entered into in Louisiana, notwithstanding the fact that final arrangements were made in South Carolina and the employee was killed in Illinois. In Williams, it was determined that the intention of the parties, as clarified by the existing circumstances, clearly evidenced the fact that the parties consummated the contract in Louisiana. Cited therein was 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 356, page 813 which states '* * * As a rule, * * * a contract is considered as entered into at the place where the offer is accepted, or where the last act necessary to a meeting of the minds or to complete the contract is performed'. In McKane v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., La .App., 199 So. 175, the court stated, '* * * With relation to the applicability of the workmen's compensation law the better rule is that the intention of the parties to the contract should be the determination factor'.

In the case at bar the record is very clear that Mr. Welch was called at his home in Baton Route from Clarksdale, and could he come to work for Associated. and could he come to work for Associated. He accepted this offer of employment in Baton Rouge and left the next morning for Mississippi. Accordingly, in the absence of any facts to the contrary, it is clear that the contract of employment was consummated in Louisiana and L.R.S. 23:1021 et seq., can and must be given extra-territorial effect. See Selser v. Bragmans Bluff Lumber Co., La.App., 146 So. 690; McKane v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., supra, and Hunt v. Magnolia Petroleum Company, La.App., 10 So.2d 109: and Ohlhausen v. Sternberg Dredging Co., 218 La. 677, 50 So.2d 803 (1951).

The second contention of defendants is that at the time of Mr. Welch's demise he was not acting within the course and scope of his employment. The intrinsic facts upon which this argument in premised are as follows: When Mr. Welch reported to Associated...