William T. Westerfield

The case involved an employee suing his employer for breach of contract after the employer refused to approve a $46,000 lump-sum workers' compensation settlement negotiated by the insurer, and also challenging the constitutionality of the statute requiring employer approval of such settlements. The trial court dismissed the entire suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court of appeal affirmed dismissal of the breach of contract claim on grounds that it was a workers' compensation matter within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Office of Workers' Compensation hearing officers, but reversed on the constitutional issue, holding that only courts have authority to decide the constitutionality of statutes.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Johnnie Mae Townsend and her husband sued Westinghouse Elevator Corporation and building owner Arkla after Townsend allegedly suffered back injuries when an elevator floor dropped slightly as she entered it at her workplace in 1987. The plaintiffs asserted claims under theories of strict liability and negligence, alleging a defect in the elevator or improper maintenance, while the defendants maintained that the incident resulted from normal elevator leveling functions. The district court rejected the claims after finding no unreasonable risk of harm or negligence, and the Court of Appeal of Louisiana affirmed that judgment. The appellate court reasoned that expert testimony established the elevator's movement was within normal operational limits of three inches, lay witness accounts were unreliable, and the circumstances did not support application of res ipsa loquitur or indicate any breach of duty by the defendants.

torts & liability

In Dubin v. Dubin, a former husband sought to cancel a judgment lien recorded against him in favor of his ex-wife following his Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge. The judgment stemmed from damages awarded to the ex-wife for impairment to her credit and emotional harm caused by the husband's failure to timely pay debts as required by their divorce judgment's alimony provisions. The trial court denied cancellation, classifying the judgment as arising from a tort proceeding involving willful negligence. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the underlying obligation was a passive breach of contract rather than a tort, making the judgment eligible for cancellation under Louisiana law after bankruptcy discharge.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involved real estate brokers Lally Lally suing homeowners Mr. and Mrs. Dossat for a sales commission after the owners rejected a purchase offer obtained under a written listing agreement for property in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. The trial court dismissed the suit on an exception of no cause of action, finding the contract invalid because it was not signed by the brokers and because the commission rate was uncertain. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, holding that the agreement was an employment contract for services that need not be signed by the agents and that acceptance could be shown by their performance, while the stated commission rate of the regular 4-5% was sufficiently definite to support the claim. The decision relied on Civil Code provisions regarding implied consent and precedent distinguishing service contracts from those affecting title to real estate.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Myrtle R. Jacobson, who was injured in a fall while working as a welder for Higgins Industries, resulting in alleged permanent disability from a dislocated coccyx. The insurance carrier paid compensation for 50 weeks before stopping payments on the ground of full recovery and denied further liability. The trial court awarded maximum compensation for 400 weeks at $20 per week (subject to credit for amounts already paid), and the appellate court affirmed, reasoning that medical testimony established the plaintiff's inability to work as a welder and that her refusal of coccyx removal surgery was not unreasonable in light of her prior unsuccessful operation and expert testimony on surgical risks.

labor & employment

This case involved a beneficiary's lawsuit against an industrial life insurance company to recover the face value of a policy on the life of the insured, who died from syphilitic heart disease (a venereal disease) two years after the policy was issued. The insurer denied the claim based on a policy provision excluding coverage for death from venereal diseases. The trial court ruled for the beneficiary, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the insurer was not liable. The court reasoned that the incontestability clause specifically referenced exceptions for limited diseases, the exclusion for venereal diseases was stated clearly and without ambiguity immediately following the clause, and prior precedents barring similar defenses did not apply because those policies presented ambiguities not present here.

business & regulatory

The case involved Mrs. Mary Schaefer Bonnelucq suing her former landlord, Louis H. Bernard, for treble damages under the federal Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 after the Office of Price Administration issued a certificate ordering Bernard to refund a $95 rent overcharge. Bernard had refused full payment and offered installments, leading Bonnelucq to file suit in state court while proceeding in forma pauperis; the defendant raised exceptions regarding her pauper status, the nature of the damages, and her authority as a surviving widow to pursue a claim tied to the dissolved community property estate following her husband's death. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Bonnelucq's interest was too small to meet the court's monetary threshold. The appellate court reversed, reasoning that the OPA order was directed to the plaintiff and could not be questioned by state courts under the Act's exclusive jurisdiction provisions for the Emergency Court of Appeals, and that the exception to her authority to prosecute the claim was improperly sustained, warranting remand for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case is a civil suit for damages in which plaintiff Edwin R. Thornton, a 72-year-old rooming house tenant, alleged that defendant John Lingle, the property owner, assaulted him over a dispute about trash in the hallway, knocking him down and causing a broken hip and other injuries. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's demand, finding the evidence insufficient, and the appellate court affirmed that judgment. The court reasoned that the burden of proof rested on the plaintiff, whose testimony contained inconsistencies (such as initially claiming to have been kicked after falling but later withdrawing it) and was supported only by his wife's discredited account, while the defendant presented corroborating witnesses and claimed self-defense after the plaintiff allegedly raised a cane. The court noted that both sides' stories were questionable, the incident involved a simple factual dispute, and the trial court's assessment of the evidence as unsatisfactory would not be disturbed absent manifest error.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Peter Hingle, a painter employed by Higgins Industries, sued Maryland Casualty Company, the employer's insurer, for workers' compensation benefits after injuring his right knee in a workplace fall on August 14, 1944, claiming total and permanent disability entitling him to 400 weeks of payments. The defendant admitted the injury occurred during employment but contended that Hingle had recovered or suffered only partial permanent disability under the applicable statute. The trial court awarded Hingle 400 weeks of compensation at $20 per week, subject to credits for prior compensation and wages, and the appellate court affirmed. The court based its decision on medical expert testimony indicating Hingle could not perform any painting duties without pain, his occupation as a journeyman painter, and the principle that pain-accompanied competency constitutes disability under the compensation law, while noting the award could be adjusted if his condition later improved.

labor & employment

In Chapital v. Walker, a stockholder sought a preliminary injunction barring an insurance company from holding its annual meeting, claiming that three other stockholders had acted in bad faith under a stock-purchase agreement and would use their disproportionate holdings to remove him from the board. The appellate court reversed the trial court's issuance of the injunction and dissolved it. The court reasoned that injunctive relief is a harsh remedy available only when ordinary legal processes cannot protect a party's interests, that no irreparable injury warranting suspension of corporate functions had been shown, and that a private quarrel among stockholders over share ownership does not justify preventing an orderly annual meeting and election.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a landlord, New York Life Insurance Company, seeking unpaid rent from tenants Charles A. Palermo and Augustus G. Williams under a one-year lease for office space in New Orleans that included an automatic renewal clause; the tenants vacated in 1940 owing $950 but later paid to release their furniture subject to the landlord's lien. After settling with Williams for $200 while expressly reserving rights against Palermo, the plaintiff sued both, and Palermo appealed a judgment against them in solido, arguing that the settlement released him, that the lease did not automatically renew, and that the three-year prescription period for rent claims had run. The court held that the settlement did not release Palermo under Civil Code articles on solidary obligations because rights against him were reserved, that the payments interrupted prescription making the suit timely filed on its final day, and that the lease renewal issue was irrelevant since no rent was claimed beyond occupancy. Due to errors in the judgment (including against the dismissed Williams) and the need to account for the partial settlement benefiting Palermo, the appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over a real estate contract in which buyer Eddie Harrison sought the return of his $120 deposit after seller Z.B. Crawford allegedly failed to convey two lots priced at $1,190. The trial court awarded Harrison the deposit amount, but the defendant appealed. The appellate court reversed and dismissed the suit, holding that the First City Court lacked jurisdiction because the claim effectively required rescission of a contract exceeding $1,190 in value, far above the court's $300 limit on monetary demands under the 1921 Constitution. Although jurisdiction was raised late, the court explained that subject-matter jurisdiction must be examined even without a timely exception, as it cannot be conferred by consent. Because the deposit could not be ordered returned without first addressing the validity of the underlying contract, the amount in controversy was the full contract value rather than the deposit alone.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a beneficiary suing an insurance company for the payout on an industrial life insurance policy after the insured's death. The insurer defended by claiming fraud due to the insured's false statements about her health in the written application. The court held that the defense of fraud was valid because the insured had willfully misrepresented her medical history, including multiple treatments for heart disease, making the policy void despite the passage of time. Therefore, the beneficiary was only entitled to a refund of the premiums paid, not the full policy amount.

business & regulatory

In Smith v. McDonough, a hod carrier injured on the job by hot tar dropped by employees of a third-party roofing company settled his tort claim against the roofing company for $1,234.16 without his employer's knowledge or consent, then sued his employer and its insurer for workers' compensation benefits alleging total disability. The employer raised a plea of estoppel, arguing the unauthorized settlement deprived it of its statutory right to indemnification from the third party, and alternatively sought credit for the settlement amount if compensation was awarded. The court rejected the estoppel defense, finding that the governing statute (Section 7 of Act No. 20 of 1914, as amended) permits the employee to pursue the third party independently and does not bar the compensation claim against the employer due to an unconsented compromise. On the merits, the court awarded the employee 400 weeks of compensation at $20 per week, subject to credits for prior payments and the full settlement amount, because the statute prioritizes the employer's reimbursement when damages or settlements from a third party are involved.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

Mrs. Burke sued Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Company and T.J. Normand for damages from injuries sustained as a passenger in a cab collision at a New Orleans intersection in 1944, alleging negligence by both the cab driver and the driver of Normand's car. The trial court awarded her $4,000 against both defendants jointly. On appeal, the court affirmed liability against the cab company, finding its driver negligent for entering a blind intersection at excessive speed without slowing, breaching the high duty of care owed to passengers. It reversed as to Normand, holding that his loaned car was not being driven as his agent or employee at the time, so he bore no vicarious responsibility. The opinion addressed damages based on medical evidence of contusions, a sprained ankle, and spinal injury but found no basis for additional future pain awards.

torts & liability

The case involved a contract dispute where A.B.C. Oil Burner Heating Co. sued George J. Palmer for the unpaid balance on an air conditioning installation contract after the system failed to function properly. Palmer counterclaimed, seeking a refund of his partial payment minus the value of the main unit he salvaged and reused after moving offices. The court dismissed the company's claim and awarded Palmer judgment on his reconventional demand. It reasoned that the contract placed responsibility on the contractor to ensure or notify about adequate water supply, and the failure was due to the contractor's fault rather than the unit itself; Palmer was required to pay only the fair value of the unit he used.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case involved a dispute between the seller of a property, Mrs. Catherine Geraci, and the buyer, Clyde Lasley, over whether Lasley owed rent for occupying the premises before the sale was finalized on September 20, 1945. Geraci sued for $289.15 in rent on a quantum meruit basis after Lasley took possession prior to the closing, which was delayed due to title issues with the late husband's succession. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no agreement or implied obligation to pay rent, especially since the delay was attributable to the seller and no claim for rent was made until after the sale.

property

In Brunies v. Morlet, a landlord sought to evict a tenant operating a saloon and dance hall under Louisiana's summary eviction statute requiring ten days' notice to vacate. The tenant raised a defense based on an alleged verbal agreement for thirty days' notice, verified only by his attorney, and sought a suspensive appeal, which the trial court denied. The appellate court addressed whether the tenant had complied with the statutory requirement that a special defense be supported by the defendant's own oath and a bond to suspend execution of the eviction judgment. The court held that the eviction proceedings are extraordinary and summary in nature, so the specific verification rule in Revised Statutes Section 2157 was not superseded by the general Pleading and Practice Act allowing attorney verification, and therefore the writ of mandamus compelling the appeal was denied.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Marcelien L. Daigle against his employer Higgins Industries and its insurer. Daigle alleged that a fall from a scaffold in 1944 caused permanent injuries to both wrists, rendering him totally and permanently disabled, and he sought compensation at $20 per week for up to 400 weeks. The defendants admitted the injury but maintained that all due compensation had been paid and offered to cover surgery for an ununited bone fragment in the left wrist along with related disability payments. The trial court ruled in the plaintiff's favor, and the appellate court affirmed an award of compensation for the duration of disability not exceeding 400 weeks, subject to credits for prior payments, after reviewing conflicting medical testimony and evidence that the plaintiff's reemployment wages did not constitute compensation credits since they were earned for actual work performed.

labor & employment

This case involved a claim for $299 in damages to the plaintiff's 1938 Chevrolet from a collision with a truck at the intersection of Tchoupitoulas and Poydras Streets in New Orleans on December 22, 1945. The plaintiff initially sued both the truck driver, Cornelius Edinburgh, and Creole Delicacies, Inc., as his alleged employer, but the company was dismissed after it emerged that Edinburgh was an independent contractor. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff against Edinburgh alone, and the appeals court affirmed, holding that Edinburgh was negligent for failing to moderate his speed or keep the plaintiff's vehicle under observation after seeing it preempt the intersection, while the question of contributory negligence was not properly presented because it had not been raised by formal plea rather than an exception of no cause of action.

torts & liabilityprocedure