Smith v. Minden Lumber Co.
Citations
- 114 La. 1035
- 38 So. 821
- 1905 La. LEXIS 586
Syllabus
<p>INJURY TO EMPLOYÉ — DEFECTIVE APPLIANCES</p> <p>—CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE — EVIDENCE.</p> <p>1. While plaintiff, a sawyer, was in a stooping position in the narrow space 20 inches wide between the sawyer’s platform and the log deck, and engaged in removing sawdust which had accumulated beneath the platform and around the levers, his coat was caught by the collar of the shaft beneath the log deck, and plaintiff’s arm was broken and his shoulder dislocated. One of the screws of the collar projected about one inch beyond the rim of the collar, and one of its flanges was broken. Held, that the defective condition of the collar was the direct and immediate cause of the injury, that this defective condition was known or should have been known to' the management, and that defendant was negligent in not furnishing reasonably safe appliances.</p> <p>2. Contributory negligence is an issue of fact, and where the evidence is conflicting the finding of the trial judge will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong.</p> <p>.3. Where the evidence does not show that plaintiff was aware of the defective condition of the collar, the circumstance that he did not take precautions against an unknown danger is insufficient to charge him with negligence.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- declining to address plaintiff’s contention that the Appeals Council “failed to properly address new evidence” where remand was appropriate for reevaluation of opinion evidence
- declining to consider a plaintiff’s contention that the Appeals Council “failed to properly address new evidence,” because remand was required for reevaluation of opinion evidence
- remanding for further proceedings where the ALJ rejected a detailed medical source statement from the plaintiffs treating physicians without providing sufficiently good, nonconclusory reasons for rejecting it
- remanding for further proceedings where the ALJ A| rejected a detailed medical source statement from the plaintiff’s treating physicians without providing sufficiently good, nonconclusory reasons for rejecting it
- “The ALJ's failure to explain her assessment of portions of [the] medical opinion prevents the Court from meaningfully reviewing [her] decision, and warrants remand.’”
- “The ALJ's failure to explain her assessment of portions of [the] medical opinion prevents the Court from meaningfully reviewing [her] decision, and warrants remand.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Land
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.