Jiles v. Venus Community Center Benev. Mut. Aid Ass'n

186 So. 342, 191 La. 803, 1939 La. LEXIS 1032
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJanuary 10, 1939
DocketNo. 33859.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 186 So. 342 (Jiles v. Venus Community Center Benev. Mut. Aid Ass'n) 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
Jiles v. Venus Community Center Benev. Mut. Aid Ass'n, 186 So. 342, 191 La. 803, 1939 La. LEXIS 1032 (La. 1939).

Opinion

ROGERS, Justice.

Israel Jiles and his wife, Ruby Jiles, appeal from a judgment rejecting their suit to recover $3,000 each from the Venus Community Center Benevolent Mutual Aid Association for an alleged breach of contract.

The defendant is a corporation engaged in the business of providing doctors, medicines, weekly relief and burial to its members. The by-laws of the defendant association provide for two classes of membership, namely, juvenile members from one month to fifteen years, and adult members from sixteen years to fifty years. On payment of dues at the rate of 5 cents a week, juvenile members are entitled to doctors, medicines and burial when in need thereof.

On February .25, 1933, a female child, named Octavia Jiles, was born of the marriage of Israel Jiles and Ruby Jiles. On August 28, 1933, upon the application of Ruby Jiles, her mother, Octavia Jiles was made a member of the defendant association, entitling her to doctors, medicines and burial on payment of dues at the rate of 5 cents a week. In the certificate of membership issued by the defendant association, Ruby Jiles was designated as the beneficiary.

The plaintiffs allege that the infant, Octavia Jiles, became ill on Tuesday, April 24, 1934, and that, availing themselves of the provisions of the certificate of membership issued to Octavia Jiles, a physician, employed by the defendant for the purpose, was summoned to the home of the plaintiffs where he attended the child and prescribed medicine for her use; that on the following day, Wednesday, April 25, 1934, the condition of the child was somewhat improved and further medical attention was neither asked for nor received, the plaintiff, Ruby Jiles, keeping close touch on the child and personally ministering to her needs; that on the morning of Thursday, April 26, 1934, observing that the child was feverish, Ruby Jiles summoned the physician of the defendant association but he did not respond to the call, and noting that the child was worse, Ruby Jiles again summoned the physician in the afternoon'; that while awaiting the arrival of the physician, who was expected at any moment, Ruby Jiles did everything within her power to relieve the condition of the child; that; in the evening of the same day, the physician of the defendant who had been summoned by the two previous telephone calls not having appeared, the plaintiffs sent a messenger to the office of the defendant association, which messenger personally communicated with the president of the association who was informed of the severe illness of the child and the fact that the doctor had failed to put in his appearance, and that the president promised the physician would be sent immediately; that about 11 o’clock P. M., on April 26, 1934, the physician of the defendant association, who had been summoned that day in the *807 morning, in the afternoon and in the evening, not having appeared, and the condition of the child havjng grown constantly worse, plaintiffs hurriedly carried her to the Charity Hospital of New Orleans where it was found she was in such a weak condition that she probably would not live; that on the following day, April 27, 1934, at about noon, the child died, the cause of death being given as acute gastroenteritis, dehydration, dysentery, and bronchopneumonia.

Plaintiffs allege that if the physician of the defendant association had arrived when summoned the condition of the child, to which reference is made, could have been arrested in its early -stages and the child would not have died. They claim damages for the pain and suffering of their child and for the mental anguish and loss of her companionship.

The defense, as set forth in the answer, is substantially that at no time on Thursday, April 26, 1934, did the plaintiffs call the physician of the defendant association, nor did they take the necessary steps to notify the defendant that their child needed the services of a physician.

The court below dismissed plaintiffs’ suit on the ground that “the facts developed in this case show that the defendant has complied with all the obligations imposed on it by its contract.”

The testimony concerning the summoning of the physician of the defendant association on April 26, 1934, is conflicting. We think, however, from our examination of the record that the conflict must be resolved in favor of the plaintiffs.

Three witnesses were produced by plaintiffs in support of their allegations relative to the summoning of the physician. The first witness Pearl Ramsey is a sister of the plaintiff, Ruby Jiles. Her testimony is that she telephoned for the doctor at 9 :30 o’clock in the morning of Thursday, April 26, 1934, the day before the child, Octavia Jiles, died. She states that she used the telephone of Mrs. Joseph, who resides across the street from the plaintiffs, and that Mrs. Joseph was present when she called the telephone number of the office of the defendant association. She further testified that. at 3:30 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day she made another call by telephone to the office of the defendant association, again using the telephone of Mrs. Joseph, and that Mrs. Joseph was also present when this call was made. The witness states, with reference to these telephone calls, that:

“When I rang I asked for the doctor to be sent to 1361 Columbus Street (which was the residence of the plaintiffs) and they told me why did I not call earlier for the doctor just went in that neighborhood and asked me if the child was seriously sick and I told them ‘Yes’ and they told me the doctor would be there. So the doctor never did come at all and in the evening at 3:30 I called back again and a woman answered me at that time and I told her the doctor never came to the address of Octavia Jiles and the child was seriously sick. She said ‘The child was seriously sick’? and I said ‘Yes’ and we still waited *809 on the doctor. She said the doctor will be out there.”

Pearl Ramsey is corroborated by Mrs. Joseph at whose home the calls were made. This witness remembers the times, namely, 9:30 o’clock, A. M., and 3:30 o’clock, P. M., at which the calls were made to the office of the defendant association for the doctor. The third witness to the summoning of the physician of the defendant association on April 26, 1934, is Lionel Boswell, the thirteen year old brother of the plaintiff, Ruby Jiles. His testimony is that about 7 o’clock in the evening he was sent by his sister to the office of the defendant association; that he saw Labat, the president of the association, and told him his sister wanted to know why the doctor had not come and that he was told by Labat the doctor would be there right away.

On behalf of the defendant association, Labat, its president, testified that the boy Lionel Boswell never called at the defendant’s office on Thursday night but called there twice on Tuesday — the first time, in the afternoon to ask that the doctor be sent, which was done, and the second time, the same night to get medicines. Lucille Fernandez, a young woman employed in the office of the defendant association, testified that she never received any telephone message whatever on Thursday, April 26, 1934, that the child Octavia Jiles was sick and requesting that a doctor be sent to attend her.

It is argued on behalf of the defendant that the testimony of Pearl Ramsey is improbable and untrue. We do not think so.

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

Related

Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
595 So. 2d 1123 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1992)
Blackwell v. Oser
436 So. 2d 1293 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1983)
Tano Corp. v. LA. HEALTH SERVICE & INDEM. CO.
355 So. 2d 604 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1978)
Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
332 So. 2d 433 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1976)
Hickman v. Parish of East Baton Rouge
314 So. 2d 486 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1975)
Bean v. Texas International Airlines, Inc.
305 So. 2d 553 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1974)
Gullatt v. Ashland Oil & Refining Company
243 So. 2d 820 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1971)
Fontenot v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
80 So. 2d 845 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1955)
McGee v. Yazoo M. v. R. Co.
19 So. 2d 21 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1944)
Vogel v. Saenger Theatres
17 So. 2d 467 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
186 So. 342, 191 La. 803, 1939 La. LEXIS 1032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jiles-v-venus-community-center-benev-mut-aid-assn-la-1939.