Case Name: TOCA v. ROJAS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1921-01-31
Citations: 152 La. 317
Docket Number: No. 24365
Parties: TOCA v. ROJAS.
Judges: By the WHOLE COURT as then constituted.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 152
Pages: 317–331

Head Matter:
(93 South. 108)
No. 24365.
TOCA v. ROJAS.
(On Motion to Dismiss Appeal, Jan. 31, 1921.
On Exception of No Cause of Action, March 27, 1922.
On Rehearing by Whole Court, June 30, 1922.)
/Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On Motión to Dismiss Appeal.
I.Appeal and error t&wkey;430(l) — Not dismissed for clerk’s delay in serving citation of appeal.
Under Act No. 45, of 1870, Ex. Sess. § 11 (Rev. St. § 1907), it is not a sufficient ground for dismissal of an appeal that the clerk of the court failed to issue the citation of appeal and have it served until after the transcript had been filed in the Supreme Court.
On Exception of No Cause of Action.
2. Parent and child &wkey;>l3(l) — Father only liable for acts of minor residing with him.
Under Civ. Code, arts. 2317, 2318, a father is only liable for the acts of a minor child when such child is residing with him or with some person in whose care he had placed him.
On Rehearing.
3.’ Parent and child <&wkey;l3(2) — Petition for act of child not insufficient for failure to allege that child resided with father.
In an action against a father for the act of his minor child under Civ. Code, arts. 237, 2317, 2318, the petition is not insufficient for failure to allege that the son was residing with the father, since under articles 38, 39, 218, 220, a minor can have no other residence than that of his father, which residence continues, until changed in some manner provided by law.
4. Parent and child &wkey;>l3(l) — Birth creates paternal authority, and paternal responsibility springs therefrom.
Birth gives rise to paternal control and authority over a child, and paternal responsibility ' for torts is the consequence and offspring of the paternal authority.
5. Parent and child <&wkey;!3(l) — Father cannot permanently divest himself of paternal authority so as to absolve self from liability for torts.
WThile under Civ. Code, art. 220, a father may delegate part of his authority over his minor children to teachers, schoolmasters, and others, he cannot permanently divest himself of any portion of the paternal authority by contract or otherwise, so as to absolve himself from liability for the child’s torts.
6. Parent and child <&wkey;>3(I) — Father cannot send minor children away or refuse to support them.
A father cannot send his minor children away from the paternal home, unless he places . them in the care of others, nor can he refuse to support and maintain them.
7. Parent and child &wkey;>13(2) — That child pot residing with parent or that paternal authority suspended or destroyed held matters of defense.
In an action against a father for the acts of his minor son, if there has been any change in the legal requirements or legal status as to residence of the minor with his father, or if for any reason the father’s paternal authority and control has been suspended, interrupted, or destroyed, these are matters to be urged in defense of the action.
On the Merits.
8. Parent and child t&wkey;13 (I) — Father not lia- ■ ble unless child guilty of some fault.
Under Oiv. Code, arts. 237, 2315, a father cannot be held liable for the act of his minor child, unless some actual or legal fault constituting an offense or quasi offense was committed by the child.
9. Parent and child <&wkey;l3(2) — Evidence held not to show negligence of one whose fishhook struck boy in the eye.
In an action for an injury sustained by plaintiff’s son when a, fishhook caught in his eye while he was on a levee not constituting a public thoroughfare, near which boys were fishing, evidence held insufficient to show that defendant’s son was careless or negligent in the handling of his pole and line, assuming that it was his fishhook' that caught in plaintiff’s son’s eye.
10. Parent and child <s&wkey;13 (2) —Negligence not presumed because companion negligent in handling fishpole and line.
That defendant’s son, whose fishhook caught in plaintiff’s eye, was negligent or careless cannot be presumed because his companion was careless or negligent in the handling of his pole and line.
11. Parent and child &wkey;>l3(2) — Incumbent on plaintiff to show, not only that act of defendant’s son caused injury, but that act was negligent.
In an action for injuries to plaintiff’s son, claimed to have been caused by the negligence' of defendant’s son, it was incumbent on plaintiff to show, not only that it was the act of defendant’s son which caused the injury, but that such act was the result of negligence or the went of due care and caution.
12. Evidence <&wkey;77(I) — Presumed that testimony of witnesses would be against party having opportunity to call them, but not doing so.
Where plaintiff had the opportunity of producing witnesses who were near by when his son was injured, but failed to do so, the presumption is that their. evidence would have been against plaintiff.
13.Evidence <&wkey;317(12) — Son’s admission inadmissible against father sued for son’s negligence.
In an action against a father for the negligence of his son, an alleged admission of the son was hearsay and inadmissible.
Provosty, O. J., and Overton and Leche, JJ., dissenting in part, but concurring in the result. Dawkins and St. Paul, JJ., dissenting in part.
Appeal from Twenty-Eighth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson; John E, Eleury, Judge.
Action by James Toca against Leon Rojas. Etom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Judgment set aside, and plaintiff’s demand rejected.
E. Howard McCaleb and E. Howard McCaleb, Jr., both of New Orleans, for appellant.
Prentice E. Edrington, Jr., and E. Rivers Richardson, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
By the WHOLE COURT as then constituted.
SOMMERYILLE, J.
Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal -in this case on the ground that he was not cited and served until after the transcript had been filed in this court.
It appears that appellant filed a written petition in the district court, asking for a suspensive appeal to this court, and that citation of appeal and service of notice be made upon the appellee, and the judge so ordered; but, the clerk of court failed in his duty to issue the citation and have it served until after the transcript had been filed in this court, but before the return day, as extended.
This is not sufficient ground for dismissal of the appeal. The citation of appeal was served in time, under the law which provides that:
"No appeal of the Supreme Court shall be dismissed on account of any defect, error- or irregularity of the petition, citation or order of appeal or in the citation of appeal or service thereof wherever it shall not appear that such defect, error or irregularity may be imputed to the appellant or his attorney; but in all cases the court shall grant a reasonable time to correct such defects, errors or Regularities, in ease they are not waived by the appellee, and may impose upon the appellant such terms and conditions as in its discretion it may deem necessary for the attainment of justice." Act 45, E. S. 1870, § 11, p. 100 (Revised Statutes, § 1907); Hiller v. Barrow, 144 La. 282, 80 South. 538; Taylor v. Allen, No. 24209, 151 La. 82, 91 South. 635, decided November 3, 1920.
It is ordered, that the motion to dismiss the appeal be overruled.
On Exception of No Cause of Action.
By Division A, composed of Chief Justice PROVOSTY and Justices OVERTON and LECHE.
PROVOSTY, C. J.
Plaintiff sues in damages for the use of his minor son who, he alleges, was injured in the eye by the hook of a fishline negligently handled by defendant's son. No allegation is made that the defendant's son resides with the defendant, and because of the absence of such an allegation an exception of no cause of action was filed. It was overruled, but should have been sustained. No liability rests on the parent for the acts of the child, except by virtue of article 2317 of the Civil Code, reading:
"We are responsible, not only for the damage occasioned by our own act, but for that which is caused by the act of persons .for whom we are answerable, or of the things which we have in our custody. This, however, is to be understood with the following modifications."
The "modification" in the case of the parent is provided for by article 2318, which reads :-
"The father, or after his decease, the mother, are responsible for the damage occasioned by their minor or unemancipated children, residing with them, or placed by them under the care of other persons, reserving to them recourse against those persons."
In the case of Mullins v. Blaise, 37 An. 93, the Court emphasized the fact of residing with the parent being one of the conditions requisite for responsibility.
Bandry-Lacantinerie (3d Ed., vol. 15) Des Delits et Quasi-Delits, pp. 595, 597, 599, Com. on Art. 1384, C. N., at No. 2902, p. 597, says:
"The law subordinates to two conditions the responsibility in question. It is required: (1) That the author of the wrong be a minor; (2) that he reside with his parents."
Indeed the language of the Code is so plain that no commentary can be necessary; and all this court can do is to apply it.
The judgment appealed from is therefore set aside; the exception of no cause of action is sustained; and the suit is dismissed at the cost of plaintiff in both courts.