Davis v. Queen City Furniture Mfg. Co.

Citations

• 116 La. 1070
• 41 So. 318
• 1906 La. LEXIS 632

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant—Injury to Servant —Action for Damages—Pleading.</p> <p>There was a cause of action and in consequence an exception on the ground was properly overruled.</p> <p>On the Merits.</p> <p>2. Same—Defective Appliance—Evidence.</p> <p>Whilst it is true that corporations following dangerous occupations assume certain primary obligations to secure the safety of their employés, on the other hand, a plaintiff to recover must prove that needful appliances were wanting and due to that fact an accident was the result.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—Eor cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, §§ 895, 900.]</p> <p>3. Same^-'Tnexpebience.”</p> <p>The weight of the testimony does not sustain that plaintiff was green and inexperienced.</p> <p>4. Same—Instruction.</p> <p>The preponderance of the testimony shows that plaintiff was warned against dangers incident to the occupation.</p> <p>5. Same—Evidence—Adjustable Speings.</p> <p>There were no adjustable springs on the machine fed by plaintiff. A number of witnesses testified that there is no necessity for such “springs.” Some of the witnesses were employes of other factories than that of defendant. Plaintiff must make out his case with reasonable certainty.</p> <p>The court holds that plaintiff has not made out his case with required certainty.</p> <p>6. Same—Piece oe Wood.</p> <p>The plaintiff was feeding the machine with small pieces of wood. One of these pieces was brought up with the record. The court holds that the preponderance of evidence sustains the defense.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>