Merritt v. Victoria Lumber Co.

Citations

• 111 La. 159
• 35 So. 497
• 1903 La. LEXIS 513

Syllabus

<p>-'INJURY TO SERVANT—FELLOW SERVANTS— NEGLIGENCE OF FOREMAN—DEFECTIVE MACHINERY.</p> <p>1. When servants are engaged in different duties in the same establishment, an injury resulting to one by the carelessness or negligence of another, in the course of the latter’s peculiar work, does not fall within the rule which exempts the master from liability by reason of a fellow servant’s negligence.</p> <p>2. To bring a case within the exemption (exemption of the master from liability) this material fact must appear, that the servants engaged, one of whom is injured or killed, must be men in the same common employment and engaged in the same eommon work under that common employment.</p> <p>On Rehearing.</p> <p>3. In this action, sounding in damages, the workman killed in the accident was in no way at fault.</p> <p>4. The foreman knew that the one immediately in charge of the rip-saw, a dangerous machine, was indolent and careless, and therefore close supervision was the more necessary.</p> <p>5. A piece or “guard” had been removed from this machine, and the accident happened thereafter about 12 hours. Careful inspection would have, it is reasonable to presume, enabled the master, or his representative, to discover that it had been removed.</p> <p>6. The superintendent had the power to employ and discharge those under him.</p> <p>7. The ease does not fall under the “fellow-servant” rule.</p> <p>8. The master was not relieved of all responsibility, for the want of supervision and inspection are traced to the foreman or representative.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>