Levins v. Bancroft, Ross & Sinclair

Citations

• 114 La. 105
• 38 So. 72
• 1905 La. LEXIS 425

Syllabus

<p>INJURY TO EMPLOYÉ — ASSUMPTION OF RISK— NEGLIGENCE OF ANOTHER EMPLOYÉ.</p> <p>1. The fact itself of the happening of an accident does not prove or even tend to prove negligence on the part of the servant.</p> <p>2. The one by whom an appliance was used failed to use it properly, and failed to close it down as should have been done. The result was an accident to plaintiff.</p> <p>3. It was not foreseen by the injured workman, nor could it well have been foreseen, that an employé of defendants would use this appliance whilst he was away attending to other work, and he (plaintiff) could not see him from where he was.</p> <p>4. On the injured workman’s return to the place where the appliance was, he met with the accident caused by the improper and negligent use made of it by the employé of defendants. It became dangerous owing to the negligence of this employé.</p> <p>5. The danger was not apparent, and the workman did not assume the risk of the employment.</p> <p>6. The master is liable for the negligence of the servant within the scope of his employment.</p> <p>7. The fellow workman’s doctrine is not in the case. The employe was working in a different department.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>