Case Name: GRAY v. NEW ORLEANS DRY DOCK & SHIPBUILDING CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1919-06-30
Citations: 146 La. 826
Docket Number: No. 23150
Parties: GRAY v. NEW ORLEANS DRY DOCK & SHIPBUILDING CO.
Judges: MONROE, C. J., takes no part, not having heard the argument.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 146
Pages: 825–841

Head Matter:
(84 South. 109)
No. 23150.
GRAY v. NEW ORLEANS DRY DOCK & SHIPBUILDING CO.
(June 30, 1919.
On Rehearing, Feb. 2, 1920.
Rehearing Denied March 1, 1920.)
(ayllabus by Bditorial Staff.)
On Rehearing.
1. Admiralty/&wkey;>14 — 'Vessel being red aired IN DRY DOCK SUBJECT TO ADMIRALTY JU- . risdiction; “maritime CONTRACT.”
A vessel while undergoing repairs in a floating dry dock is subject to admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and a contract for repairs to a vessel in dry dock is a “maritime contract.”
[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words' and Phrases, First and Second Series, Maritime Contract.]
2. Admiralty <&wkey;20 — Employe repairing VESSEL IN DRY DOCK SUBJECT TO ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.
An employé engaged in making repairs to a vessel in dry dock is within the jurisdiction of admiralty; the work being maritime in its character.
3. Admiralty &wkey;>20 — Common-law remedy SAVED BY JUDICIAL CODE PRIOR TO AMENDMENT REGARDLESS OP STATE WORKMEN’S Compensation Act.
The provision of Judicial Code, § 24, cl. 3, and section 256 (OV S. Comp. St. §§ 991(3), 1233), saving to suitors in admiralty the right of a common-law remedy where the common law is competent to give it, did not save or reserve to suitors in such cases the rights and remedies under the Employers’ Liability Act or Workmen’s Compensation Act; hence prior to the amending act (Act Oct. 6, 1917, §§ 1, 2 [U. S. Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 991(3), 1233)), an employé engaged in work of a maritime nature is entitled to his common-law remedy regardless of the existence of a state Workmen’s Compensation Act, which purported to afford an exclusive remedy for injured employés.
4. Admiralty <&wkey;2 — Amendment to give SUITORS IN ADMIRALTY BENEFIT OF STATE Workmen’s Compensation Act does not APPLY TO CAUSES ACCRUING BEFORE AMENDMENT.
Act Oct. 6, 1917, §§ 1, 2 (Ü. S. Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 991 (3). 1233), adding to Judicial Code, § 24, cl. 3, and section 256, a provision saving to suitors in admiralty the remedy afforded by the state Workmen’s Compensation Act, does not apply so as to extend the benefit of such acts to suitors whose cause of action had already accrued.
5. Admiralty &wkey;20 — Employé injured WniLE ENGAGED IN MARITIME WORK HELD ENTITLED TO REMEDY AFFORDED BY CODE.
As Civ. Code, art. 2315, declaring that every act' whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it, is only an embodiment of the common-law right for tort, an employé of a dry dock company, injured while engaged in work of a maritime nature prior to the amendment by Act Oct. 6,1917, §§ 1, 2 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 991(3), 1233.), to judicial Code, § 24, cl. 3, and section 256, will be deemed entitled to the remedy afforded by the Code.
6. Master and servant <&wkey;>358 — Acceptance OF BENEFITS UNDER WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT HELD NOT TO ESTOP EMPLOYÉ FROM ASSERTING COMMON-LAW REMEDY.
Where an injured employé of a dry dock company accepted payments conceded to be due on being assured that acceptance would not be a waiver of his rights, and the only question was whether his claim was governed by the Workmen’s Compensation Act or not, the acceptance of such benefits will not be construed a waiver of his right to a common-law remedy to which he was entitled because engaged in work of an admiralty nature.
7. Master and servant <&wkey;382 — Payments underi Workmen’s Compensation Act HELD NOT A COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT.
Where it was conceded by the defendant employer and the insurer that plaintiff was under the Workmen’s Compensation Act entitled to payments received, and the only question was whether his disability was total or not, plaintiff’s acceptance of payments for 19 or 20 weeks did not, where he was assured that it was no waiver of his rights, amount to a compromise and settlement, precluding him from having recourse to the common-law 'remedy -to which he was entitled, because at the time of his injury he was engaged in work of a maritime nature.
8. Damages <&wkey;96 — Measure of damages RESTS LARGELY IN SOUND DISCRETION OF TRIAL COURT.
It is the general rule in admiralty that the award of damages rests largely in the sound discretion of the court under all the circumstances of the case.
9. Damages <&wkey;96 — Award to servant engaged in work of maritime nature not OPEN TO ATTACK.
An award of damages in favor of an em-ployé. engaged in work of a maritime nature, who was under the federal law entitled to a common-law remedy if competent, held not open to attack on the theory that the measure of damages was controlled by the admiralty law, for such measure of damages rests largely in the discretion of the court, and the particular rules as to measuring of damages for seamen were not applicable.
10. Master1 and servant <&wkey;190(20) — Foreman’s OMISSION OF WARNING HELD ACTIONABLE.
Where plaintiff, working on a temporary scaffold at the bow of a boat in dry dock, was precipitated when the scaffold collapsed, due to the moving of a bilge block moved under the direction of defendant’s foreman without warning, the negligence of its foreman was imputable to defendant.
11. Damages @^132(3) — $15,000- for permanent PARALYSTS RENDERING PLAINTIFF IMPOTENT AND UNABLE TO WORK NOT EXCESSIVE.
An award of $15,000 in favor of plaintiff, who was 46 years old, married, and the father of seven children, is not excessive, where the injuries caused total paralysis-of the left side, rendering plaintiff impotent and unable to labor.
Provosty, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Fred D. King, Judge.
Action by John A. S. Gray against the New Orleans Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Edward Rightor, of New Orleans, for appellant.
McCloskey & Benedict and H. B. Curtis, all of New Orleans, for appellee.

Opinion:
PROVOSTY, J.
Plaintiff sues in damages for injuries received while in the employ of the defendant corhpany, and in the alternative sues under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Defendant recognized its liability to plaintiff under said act, and had been paying plaintiff $10 a week for 25 weeks when this suit was filed.
Defendant pleads that plaintiff, having thus agreed to receive payment under said act, and actually received many payments, is estopped from contending that defendant's liability is not under said act, but for damages as for ordinary tort.
In Summers v. Woodward, Wight & Co., 142 La. 241, 76 South. 674, this court said:
"Where an employer pays the wages of an injured employé in full for a number of weeks, and subsequently in part, and, holding a policy of 'insurance, taken out with express reference to the Burke-Roberts Employers' Liability Act (Act No. 20 of 1914), obtains receipts showing such payments as for wages to which the employé was entitled under the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Act, upon which it obtains reimbursement from the insurance company, the question whether the injury of the employé entitles him to compensation under the act will be regarded as eliminated."
We think the estoppel well pleaded. Counsel for plaintiff seek to avoid it by contending that plaintiff was assured by defendant that he would be waiving none of his rights by receiving these payments. If any such assurance was given, it was after plaintiff had already been receiving the payments, and the meaning of it was simply that by receiving the payments the plaintiff would not be waiving his right to claim compensation as for total liability. There was no question between the parties at that time of plaintiff having, or pretending to, any other rights.
Defendant does not contest that plaintiff is entitled to compensation as for total disability; that is, to $10 a week for 400 weeks.
The judgnient appealed from, which was for $15,000 damages, is therefore set aside, the plea of estoppel is sustained, and it is now ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiff, John A. S. Gray, have judgment condemning the defendant, New Orleans Dry Dock & Ship Building Company, to pay him $10 each week for 400 consecutive weeks, less the payments already made, and that the defendant pay the costs of the lower court and the plaintiff those of the appeal.
MONROE, C. J., takes no part, not having heard the argument.
O'NIELL, J., dissents.