Hunley v. Patterson

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Hunley v. Patterson

41 So. 54, 116 La. 736, 1906 La. LEXIS 562

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 9, 1906

DocketNo. 15,872

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 41 So. 54 (Hunley v. Patterson) 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

Hunley v. Patterson, 41 So. 54, 116 La. 736, 1906 La. LEXIS 562 (La. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PROYOSTY, J.

The plaintiff and other laborers, under a foreman, were laying a sewer pipe in a street. The rules were to brace the sides of the trench, so as to prevent them from falling in when the pipe was being laid; but the bracing material had given out, and the plaintiff, whose part it was to get into the trench and steady the joint of pipe as it was moved into position, hesitated to go in, and said to the foreman; “It looks kind of dangerous.” The foreman answered: “That’s nothing, I think [738]*738that’s solid enough; go ahead.” The sides fell in on plaintiff, and injured his leg.

The plaintiff had been doing the same kind of work for eight months, and the contention is that he knew of the danger and assumed the risk.

The plaintiff is a colored laborer, and was working under the directions of a white foreman. The trench was six feet deep. We think the case is a plain one for the application of the rule that the servant has the right to assume superior knowledge on the part of those under whose orders he is working. A. & E. Eney. of Law, vol. 20, p. 148. The danger was not so evident that plaintiff might not have relied on the supposedly better judgment of the foreman, or that no prudent man would have obeyed the foreman. One of plaintiff’s fellow workmen went into the ditch with him, showing that he, too, did not consider the situation sufficiently perilous to justify opposition to the orders of the foreman.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PROYOSTY, J.

The plaintiff and other laborers, under a foreman, were laying a sewer pipe in a street. The rules were to brace the sides of the trench, so as to prevent them from falling in when the pipe was being laid; but the bracing material had given out, and the plaintiff, whose part it was to get into the trench and steady the joint of pipe as it was moved into position, hesitated to go in, and said to the foreman; “It looks kind of dangerous.” The foreman answered: “That’s nothing, I think [738]*738that’s solid enough; go ahead.” The sides fell in on plaintiff, and injured his leg.

The plaintiff had been doing the same kind of work for eight months, and the contention is that he knew of the danger and assumed the risk.

The plaintiff is a colored laborer, and was working under the directions of a white foreman. The trench was six feet deep. We think the case is a plain one for the application of the rule that the servant has the right to assume superior knowledge on the part of those under whose orders he is working. A. & E. Eney. of Law, vol. 20, p. 148. The danger was not so evident that plaintiff might not have relied on the supposedly better judgment of the foreman, or that no prudent man would have obeyed the foreman. One of plaintiff’s fellow workmen went into the ditch with him, showing that he, too, did not consider the situation sufficiently perilous to justify opposition to the orders of the foreman.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 So. 54, 116 La. 736, 1906 La. LEXIS 562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunley-v-patterson-la-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack