Woodruff v. Producers' Oil Co
| Decision Date | 16 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | 22219 |
| Parties | WOODRUFF v. PRODUCERS' OIL CO |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
On Rehearing, November 26, 1917
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Where a suit for damages was instituted by an employe of an oil company, under the general law set forth in article 2315 of the Civil Code, and was dismissed on an exception of no cause of action, the judgment will bar the plaintiff from bringing another suit on the same state of facts, but will not preclude him from suing for compensation under Act No. 20 of 1914, known as the Employers' Liability Law.
The injured employe in such a case is without interest to question the constitutionality of said statute.
J. H Stephens and John B. Files, both of Shreveport, for plaintiff.
Hampden Story and J. S. Atkinson, both of Shreveport, for defendant.
OPINION
The plaintiff, employed by the defendant as a helper on a drilling rig on a certain oil well in the parish of Caddo, sustained serious personal injuries in the course of his employment on March 27, 1915.
On December 1, 1915, plaintiff filed suit against the defendant to recover the sum of $ 20,250, as damages for the said injuries, alleged to have been occasioned by the gross negligence of the defendant in using an improper and defective derrick, in furnishing a worn and defective swivel and in placing in charge of the machinery and engine, an inexperienced man, all of which acts of carelessness contributed to and caused the aforesaid injuries, without any fault on the part of the plaintiff.
The defendant filed an exception of no right of action, which was sustained, and the suit was dismissed, for reasons assigned by the court.
On January 31, 1916, the plaintiff filed the present suit, reiterating the allegations of the petition filed in the previous suit, with the additional allegations to the effect that plaintiff did not contract expressly or impliedly with the defendant to operate under the provisions of Act 20 of 1914, and that the employment and business engaged in by the plaintiff is not controlled and determined by the provisions of said act; and the plaintiff pleaded in the alternative that, if the court should hold that said employment was governed by said Act 20 of 1914, then same is unconstitutional, null, and void for six different reasons, and further pleaded in the alternative, should the court hold said Act 20 of 1914 to be valid and applicable, then for certain compensation under its provisions.
The defendant pleaded the judgment in the first suit as res judicata, and then excepted that the second petition failed to disclose a right or cause of action both on the main demand and the alternative demand for compensation.
The plea and...
To continue reading
Request your trial