Fontenot v. J. Weingarten, Inc.
Also decided on this docket: La., April 3, 1970 233 So. 2d 248
Fontenot v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 249 So. 2d 886 (La. 1971).
Cited by
Distinguished in 1
- Hall v. Joiner 324 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
- Grant v. Olive Gardens, Inc. 321 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
- Robbins v. Caraway-Rhodes Veterinary Hospital 315 So. 2d 688 La. 1975
- Robbins v. Caraway-Rhodes Veterinary Hospital 299 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
- Shepherd v. Fort Sherwood Apartments 270 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
- Jason v. Blanchard 261 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
- Humphries v. Jones 260 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
- Fontenot v. J. Weingarten, Inc. 254 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Opinion text
SUMMERS, Justice (dissenting). The pertinent language of the Workman’s Compensation Act provides: The provisions of this Chapter shall also apply to every person performing services arising out of and incidental to his employment in the course of his employer’s trade, business, or occupation in the following hazardous trades, businesses and occtipations: * * sK * • * ' * The construction, installation, ■ operáation; alteration, removal or repairs of wires, cables, switchboards or' apparatus *239 charged with electrical current. (Emphasis'added.) In my view the Act applies to “hazardous occupations” which for the purpose of this case are defined as “operation of apparatus charged with electrical current.” When these terms are read together in a comr monsensical light the conclusion must be reached that the occupation to be hazardous must involve “hazardous apparatus charged with electrical current.” This record does not support a finding that the electrically motivated cash register and counter are hazardous in fact. This being so, they are not properly to be considered hazardous under the Act. There is every reason to believe that apparatus charged with electrical current as contemplated in 1914 when the Act was passed by the Legislature, which may then have been universally hazardous, had not attained the degree of refinement and sometimes perfection which has been attained in the manufacture of much of today’s electrical apparatus; including this cash register and .counter. The Act’s charge that courts accord a liberal interpretation to its provisions in favor of the claimant does not, in my opinion, require that relief be granted in this case. Even a mandate for a liberal attitude does not require the courts to depart entirely from logic, reason or common sense. I respectfully dissent.