· 4/26/1909

Rossey v. Lawrence

Citations

123 La. 1053
49 So. 704
1909 La. LEXIS 819

Syllabus

1. Master and Servant (§ 153*) — Dangers oe Employment — Warning oe Minor. It is the duty of the master to give to his servant, a minor of immature years, such instructions and warning of the dangers incidental to the employment as may reasonably enable him to understand its perils and to avoid them. [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 314-317; Dec. Dig. § 153.*) •2. Master and Servant (§ 286*) — Injury to Minor — Negligence oe Master — Question por Jury. Where a minor servant not quite 13 years ■old, who had not been instructed and warned of the danger incidental to his employment, and who was ignorant of them, in attempting to enter a narrow and dangerous passageway slipped on a wet floor and fell, and in falling one of his hands was caught and crushed by an expos•ed cogwheel located on one side of the passageway, held, that the question of the negligence of the master was one for the jury under all the facts and circumstances of the case. [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 1044, 1046; Dec. Dig. § •286.*] 3. Master and Servant (§ 129*) — Injury to Employé — Proximate Cause. In such a ease the negligent exposure of the gearing was the efficient cause of the injury, and the slip and fall a mere condition. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and ■Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 257-263; Dec. Dig. § 129.*] ■4. Damages (§ 132*) — Personal Injuries— Inadequacy op Yerdict. Where a boy not quite 13 years old lost the thumb and forefinger and portions of the next two fingers as the result of an accident, an award of $1.000 as damages is manifestly inadequate. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Damages, ■Cent. Dig. §§ 178, 372-385, 396; Dec. Dig. § 132.*] Monroe, J., dissenting. (Syllabus by the Court.)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

“[T]he ADA places a duty on employers to ascertain whether there are some jobs that the employee might be qualified for.”
“Plaintiff nonetheless fails to allege how or why a Lieutenant—an officer with a different job title—is similarly situated to a Detective or Patrol Officer.”
“Plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to raise the inference that the failure was motivated by discriminatory intent.”
analyzing ADA and NYSHRL claims together
analyzing ADA and NYSHRL claims together
analyzing ADA and NYSHRL claims together

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Decree, Land, Monroe, Provosty

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.