Hill v. Big Creek Lumber Co.
Citations
- 108 La. 162
Syllabus
<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. Whatever application the “fellow servant” doctrine may have under the law of Louisiana it cannot be given the effect of defeating recovery against the* master for injury to a servant when it is shown that the mill, or that part of it where the casualty occurred, was, from the standpoint of safety, being run with an insufficient force.</p> <p>2. A master must be held responsible, not only for the employment of competent persons to do his work, but also for failure to employ enough of them to do* it safely, as respects others employed, at all times.</p> <p>3. He must also be held responsible for such reasonably constant and steady-supervision of his workmen that they will not be permitted to become grossly and criminally negligent. He is in a position to exercise that supervision ; no other person is.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the plaintiff’s “30-day keeplock confinement alone [was] insufficient to create a liberty interest triggering due process protections” (collecting cases)
- holding that the plaintiff did not possess a “liberty interest implicating the Fourteenth Amendment” when he was “sentenced to only thirty days in keeplock”
- noting that “the Court has discretion to consider the applicability of a qualified immunity defense before determining whether Plaintiff has stated a claim” (citing Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236)
- dismissing a plaintiff’s due process claim because his statement that a hearing officer was biased was only supported by conclusory allegations, not “factual details rendering such a claim plausible”
- finding no personal involvement where “[t]he Complaint contains no allegations whatsoever that these Defendants were involved in, aware of, or somehow permitted [the alleged constitutional violation] to take place”
- dismissing due process claim where “Plaintiff also does not allege any facts suggesting that he was exposed to any conditions of confinement more harsh than typical keeplock; indeed, he cites only the loss of unspecified privileges.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Blanchard
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.