Duos v. Gravier Harper
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., January 11, 1939 185 So. 665
Duos v. Gravier Harper, 187 So. 332 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939).
Cited by
- Badeaux v. Patterson Truck Line, Inc. 247 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
- McCain v. Tatman 53 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
- Neal v. Deax 51 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
- Ledoux v. Beyt 35 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
- Duet v. Tramontana 26 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
- Coffey v. Lalanne 20 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1945
- McCook v. Rebecca-Fabacher 10 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
- Finger v. M. Romano Son 4 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1941
- Millet v. Rizzo 2 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
- Bates v. Hayden 188 So. 751 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. We have carefully read the application for rehearing and the brief thereon, and fail to find therein any point which we have not heretofore carefully considered before arriving at our final conclusion and decision. The crux of the whole case seems to hinge on an interpretation of that part of the statute which reads as follows: “ * * * as the amount contributed by the employee to such partial dependents in the year prior to death bears to the earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident.” Act No. 242 of 1928, p. 357, § 8, subd. 2. Our decision is to the effect that plaintiffs were dependent upon and receiving the whole income of the deceased and that therefore the proportion provided by the statute was 1:1. According to defendants’ contention, they would have us to interpret the section of the statute to read: “ * * * as the average weekly contribution of the deceased employee for their support during the year preceding the accident.” By doing so, we would be legislating by adding words to the statute which are not found therein. The application f'or rehearing is denied.