Pipes v. Jones-McCann, Inc.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Pipes v. Jones-McCann, Inc.

8 La. App. 96, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 440

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 14, 1928

DocketNo. 3201

StatusPublished

This text of 8 La. App. 96 (Pipes v. Jones-McCann, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pipes v. Jones-McCann, Inc., 8 La. App. 96, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 440 (La. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, J.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment rejecting his demands for compensation for disability alleged to have resulted from a traumatic hernia alleged to have been received by him while in the course and. arising 'out of his employment with defendant.

The cause was decided on a question of fact, that is, whether or not the hernia was sustained while the plaintiff was in the course of his employment, and the fact being dependent entirely on the testimony of the plaintiff, and his testimony being in conflict with itself and with many material facts established by the preponderance of the evidence, the trial court did not accept his testimony, and under such conditions the finding of the trial court, before whom the witnesses appeared, will not be reversed. (See La. Dig., Appeal, No. 625, et seq.)

Aside from this, however, the evidence does not show that the employer was notified of any claim of such injury within forty-eight hours of the time the plaintiff claimed to have been injured, as required by Section 8, Subsection 1(d), Paragraph 17 of the Statute (Act No. 20 of 1914 as amended by Act' No. 85 of 1926).

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

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

WEBB, J.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment rejecting his demands for compensation for disability alleged to have resulted from a traumatic hernia alleged to have been received by him while in the course and. arising 'out of his employment with defendant.

The cause was decided on a question of fact, that is, whether or not the hernia was sustained while the plaintiff was in the course of his employment, and the fact being dependent entirely on the testimony of the plaintiff, and his testimony being in conflict with itself and with many material facts established by the preponderance of the evidence, the trial court did not accept his testimony, and under such conditions the finding of the trial court, before whom the witnesses appeared, will not be reversed. (See La. Dig., Appeal, No. 625, et seq.)

Aside from this, however, the evidence does not show that the employer was notified of any claim of such injury within forty-eight hours of the time the plaintiff claimed to have been injured, as required by Section 8, Subsection 1(d), Paragraph 17 of the Statute (Act No. 20 of 1914 as amended by Act' No. 85 of 1926).

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 La. App. 96, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pipes-v-jones-mccann-inc-lactapp-1928.