Welch v. Robert Campbell, Inc.
Welch v. Robert Campbell, Inc., 321 So. 2d 523 (La. 1975).
Cited by
- Niemann v. Crosby Development Co. 92 So. 3d 1039 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
- State v. Young 663 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
- Nu-Lite Electrical Wholesalers, Inc. v. Colonial Electric 527 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
- NU-LITE ELEC. WHOLE., INC. v. Colonial Elec. 527 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
- Smith v. White 411 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
- Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp. 393 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
- Sizeler v. Sizeler 375 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
- Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp. 365 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
- Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp. 359 So. 2d 154 La. 1978
- Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp. 351 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
- State v. Williams 340 So. 2d 1382 La. 1976
- State v. McClinton 329 So. 2d 676 La. 1976
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Wade v. Calcasieu Paper Company 229 La. 702
- Wade v. Calcasieu Paper Co. 86 So. 2d 540
Opinion text
321 So.2d 523 (1975) Barney Edward WELCH v. ROBERT CAMPBELL, INC. and Southern Casualty Ins. Co. No. 56903. Supreme Court of Louisiana. October 22, 1975. Denied. No error of law in the ruling of the Court of Appeal. TATE, J., I respectfully dissent. A grave injustice through legal technicality has been caused this admittedly totally disabled employee. By the defendants' interrogatories Campbell's status as statutory employee was admitted. Although the trial court may have been in error in considering these interrogatories, since technically not admitted in evidence although filed as part of the court record prior to trial, remand should have been ordered rather than denying this admittedly disabled employee workmen's compensation to which he is clearly entitled. See Wade v. Calcasieu Paper Co., 229 La. 702, 86 So.2d 540 (1956), and many other decisions requiring this result in view of the paternalistic purposes of the compensation statute, including its provision that technical rules of evidence are relaxed. La.R.S. 23:1317. DIXON, J., is of the opinion the court of appeal disposition of this case was clearly erroneous; the case should have been remanded to the district court. CALOGERO, J., is of the opinion this writ should have been granted. Plaintiff's judgment for permanent and total workmen's compensation benefits awarded by a trial judge who obviously considered defendant's answer to interrogatories admitting the requisite statutory employer-employee relationship, has been taken away for the hypertechnical and in my view unsound legal reason that the interrogatories and answer filed in the trial court record before trial were not formally introduced in evidence.