Case ID: la-app_6/html/0216-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LECHE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No.--
    First Circuit
    LEBOURGEOIS v. LYON LUMBER CO.
    (February 12, 1927. Opinion and Decree.)
    (March. 8, 1927. Rehearing Refused.)
    
      (Syllabus by the Editor)
    
    1. Louisiana Digest — Master and Servant —Par. 158.
    An employee killed by lightning while under a tree near the place where he was at work and where he had gone for shelter to eat his lunch at the noon hour was killed by an- accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, as ¡provided by the Workmen’s Compensation Act No. 20 of 1914 and amendments.
    Appeal from the Parish of Livingston. Hon. Columbus Reid, Judge.
    Action by Mrs. Noah Lebourgeois against Lyon Lumber Company.
    There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed.
    Judgment affirmed.
    M. C. Rowne, of Springfield, attorney for plaintiff, appellee.
    Leslie P. Beard, of New Orleans, attorney for defendant, appellant.
   LECHE, J.

Plaintiff and her children were dependents of Noah LeBourgeois; who was killed by lightning • on July 8, 1925, while working for the defendant company. She sues for compensation under the Employers’ Liability Act and from a judgment in her favor defendant has appealed.

Defendant has made no appearance in this court either by brief or by oral argument, but we understand from the pleadings that the sole question at issue is whether death by lightning is such an accident as entitles the employee’s dependents to compensation under the statute.

T'he employee was, at the time, under a tree very near the place where' he was at work in the woods, and he had gone there for shelter to eat his lunch, at the noon hour. These facts are all admitted.

Although the instrumentality causing death had no connection with the work which the employee was performing, and although the employee was not actually at work at the time, the accident, nevertheless, occurred during the course of the employment and as a result of the employment. Dyer vs. Rapides Lumber Company, 154 La. 1093, 98 South. 677; Myers vs. La. R. & N. Co., 140 La. 937, 74 South. 256. The question involved must then be decided against the defendant. Travino Gasea vs. Texas Pipe Line Co., 2 La. App. 483.

For these reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed.