Budge v. Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Co.
Citations
- 108 La. 349
Syllabus
<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. Masters are not insurers. They are liable to their servants for the eon* sequences, not of danger but, of negligence, and negligence, in cases where the servant is injured by reason of defective appliances, consists of the failure of the master to exercise due care that the appliances furnished for the use of his servants shall be safe wken furnished and shall be maintained in a safe condition.</p> <p>2. Whatever may be the duty of the master as to the methods to be adopted for ascertaining, originally, whether the appliances so furnishSÜ are suitable and safe, due care requires him, especially in the use of dangerous appliances, or where the service in which they are used is dangerous, either by himself, or by some other, selected for the purpose, in either case, one competent and qualified, to inspect, and look after the condition of, such appliances, and see that they are kept in repair.</p> <p>3. This duty is personal to the master, and must be continuously performed by him, or by those whom he selects to represent him, and he is liable for its neglect, whether by his representatives or by himself, the danger resulting therefrom not being assumed by his servants as incidental to their employment.</p> <p>4. A railroad company drawing the cars of another company over its road owes a duty to its employees ill reference thereto. It is bound to inspect such cars, the same as its own, and is responsible for the consequences of such defects as would have been disclosed by ordinary inspection, as it is its duty either to remedy them or to refuse to take the cars. The employee no more assumes the risks of such defects than of those in the cars belonging to his employer.</p> <p>5. Men without scientific knowledge and without practical experience In the handling of moving cars and trains, who may be employed as car inspectors and charged with the duty of seeing that the parts and appliances of the cars are safe and sound and in their proper positions
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reasonable apprehension of litigation where petition for cancellation set out elements of 23 claim for trademark infringement
- “Other circuit courts have concluded that because section 38 was not amended by Congress, attorney’s fees under section 38 are barred.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Application, Monroe
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.