Adams v. Germain & Boyd Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Adams v. Germain & Boyd Lumber Co.

58 So. 815, 130 La. 920, 1912 La. LEXIS 960

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 20, 1912

DocketNo. 18,960

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 58 So. 815 (Adams v. Germain & Boyd Lumber Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Germain & Boyd Lumber Co., 58 So. 815, 130 La. 920, 1912 La. LEXIS 960 (La. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMMERVILLE, J.

This is a personal injury suit for $10,000, brought by the parents of a boy, who was some 18 years of age. He is alleged to have been hurt while working in the employ of the defendant company. There was judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $2,000, from which defendant prosecutes this appeal.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendant did not furnish a sufficient number of men to do the work; that it failed to instruct plaintiffs’ son, a minor, of the danger attending the work assigned him; that said minor was directed to do the work in a dangerous way; that the machine was broken and out ■of repair; and that the wrench furnished the boy to work with was dangerous and unfit for the work.

[1, 2] Plaintiffs have clearly failed to make their case certain by a preponderance of evidence. The only witness to the accident was the son of plaintiffs. He testified that he was given work to do which should have been done by another man, who was absent from the mill. He also testifies to the other allegations made in the petition. He is contradicted by the foreman, who was over him, in the employ of defendant company. The latter positively testifies that he did not assign the boy to do duty at the part of the machine where he was hurt, and that he had instructed the boy to come to him if the machine got out of order during the absence of the man who had the machine in charge, and that the boy failed to notify him of any trouble whatever.

In view of the testimony of the main witness for the plaintiffs', some of which is negative in its character, being contradicted by that of the main witness for the defendant, it is impossible to affirm the judgment appealed from. No good reason suggests itself why the statement made by plaintiffs’ son should be taken in preference to that made by the chief witness for the defendant. There is no preponderance of evidence in favor of the plaintiffs. The testimony of defendant’s foreman is rational and reasonable, and it is supported in many particulars; and we shall give judgment for defendant.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that there be judgment reversing the judgment appealed from, and dismissing the suit, at plaintiffs’ costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SOMMERVILLE, J.

This is a personal injury suit for $10,000, brought by the parents of a boy, who was some 18 years of age. He is alleged to have been hurt while working in the employ of the defendant company. There was judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $2,000, from which defendant prosecutes this appeal.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendant did not furnish a sufficient number of men to do the work; that it failed to instruct plaintiffs’ son, a minor, of the danger attending the work assigned him; that said minor was directed to do the work in a dangerous way; that the machine was broken and out ■of repair; and that the wrench furnished the boy to work with was dangerous and unfit for the work.

[1, 2] Plaintiffs have clearly failed to make their case certain by a preponderance of evidence. The only witness to the accident was the son of plaintiffs. He testified that he was given work to do which should have been done by another man, who was absent from the mill. He also testifies to the other allegations made in the petition. He is contradicted by the foreman, who was over him, in the employ of defendant company. The latter positively testifies that he did not assign the boy to do duty at the part of the machine where he was hurt, and that he had instructed the boy to come to him if the machine got out of order during the absence of the man who had the machine in charge, and that the boy failed to notify him of any trouble whatever.

In view of the testimony of the main witness for the plaintiffs', some of which is negative in its character, being contradicted by that of the main witness for the defendant, it is impossible to affirm the judgment appealed from. No good reason suggests itself why the statement made by plaintiffs’ son should be taken in preference to that made by the chief witness for the defendant. There is no preponderance of evidence in favor of the plaintiffs. The testimony of defendant’s foreman is rational and reasonable, and it is supported in many particulars; and we shall give judgment for defendant.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that there be judgment reversing the judgment appealed from, and dismissing the suit, at plaintiffs’ costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 So. 815, 130 La. 920, 1912 La. LEXIS 960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-germain-boyd-lumber-co-la-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack