Roff v. Summit Lumber Co.
Citations
- 119 La. 571
- 44 So. 302
- 1907 La. LEXIS 528
Syllabus
<p>1. Master and Servant— Safe Appliances.</p> <p>This is an action by an employé against his employer for damages for personal injuries received by him through the alleged fault and negligence of the latter. The proximate cause of the accident was the employer furnishing his employe with improper and unsafe appliances for the performance of the duty imposed upon him. The employer’s duty to furnish safe appliances to his employé is one of the basic obligations of the employer, and it is a continuing-duty. It is not sufficient for him to see that they be safe and proper at one time. He must see that they continue so, so long as the work is to be performed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. voi. 34, Blaster and Servant, § 173.]</p> <p>2. Same — Negligence.</p> <p>The employer in this instance was greatly at fault in knowingly allowing a shay engine to be operated as it was, without a screen or guard over the cogs upon it to protect parties from coming in contact with them, and in knowingly allowing the engine to be operated with the tank in the leaky condition it was in. The case is not one calling for the application of the doctrine of contributory negligence. The employé was guilty of no negligence. What he did was precisely what he was expected to do, and the manner in which his work was done was that which the character of the work called for. He performed his work in a careful manner.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Blaster and Servant, §§ 228, 229, 987, 996.]</p> <p>3. Same — Assumption oe Risk.</p> <p>When a servant enters into the employ of another, he assumes the risks “ordinarily”-incident to the business. The willful violation of an employer of his obligation to furnish hisemployé with appliances which are safe (particularly those with which he will have necessarily to come in contact), and the results to-flow from such violation, are not risks ordinarily incident to the business which the employé assumes
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting on motion for summary judgment that it is viewing evidence of the reasonableness of fees “in the light most favorable to Plaintiff,”
- “In a lodestar analysis, . . . the ‘quality of [an attorney’s] performance’ should be considered in determining the reasonable hourly rate.”
- “A reasonable fee has been described in this Circuit as ‘what a reasonable, paying client would be willing to pay.’” (quoting Arbor Hill, 522 F.3d at 184)
- “[T]he insured should pay for non-covered [claims].”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Decree, Monroe, Nicholls
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.