Case Name: LE BLANC v. UNITED IRRIGATION & RICE MILLING CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1911-06-15
Citations: 129 La. 196
Docket Number: No. 18,467
Parties: LE BLANC v. UNITED IRRIGATION & RICE MILLING CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 195–203

Head Matter:
(55 South. 761.)
No. 18,467.
LE BLANC v. UNITED IRRIGATION & RICE MILLING CO.
June 15, 1911.
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1911.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On the Exceptions.
1. Appeal and Error (§ 1170*) — Review-Technical Error — Pleadings.
The tendency of modern practice is to yield as little as possible to technicalities; and, where the allegations are sufficient upon which to predicate a judgment, the exception of no cause of action will not be sustained on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other eases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 4542; Dec. Dig. § 1170.*]
2. Death (§§ 31, 42*) — Parties.
Both the father and mother have each a cause of action for the death of their son, and it was not necessary for the father to make the mother a party to the suit in order to prosecute his action.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Death, Cent. Dig. §§ 43, 58; Dec. Dig. §§ 31, 42.*]
On the Merits.
3. Master and Srevant (§ 153*) — Injuries to Servant — Dangers of Employment — Instructions.
It is not sufficient for the master merely to instruct a new workman, with no experience around machinery, of the working of the machinery, but he must point out to him the danger connected with his employment, not in a perfunctory manner, but in a manner that is both instructive and impressive.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 314r-317; Dec. Dig. § 153.*]
4. Master and Servant (J 121*) — Injuries to Servant — Guarding Machinery.
Where the master can minimize the danger arising from the operation of machinery by screening it at a reasonable cost and without interfering with its operation, the law require? him to do so.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, .Cent. Dig. §§ 228-231; Dec. Dig. §■ 121.*]
5. Master and Servant (§§ 101, 102*) — Injuries to Servant — Dangerous Appliances.
The law imposes upon the master, not only the duty of furnishing reasonably safe appliances originally, but it also requires of him that he shall minimize the danger by the installation of the new devices that later come into use to reduce the danger from the particular kind of machinery which he is operating.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 181; Dec. Dig. §§ 101,
Appeal from Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Acadia; William Campbell, Judge.
Action by Dupre Le Blanc, Jr., against the United Irrigation & Rice Milling Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Story & Pugh and Smith & Carmouche, for appellant. Taylor & Gremillion, for appellee.

Opinion:
BREAUX, C. J.
The plaintiff brought this suit to recover from the defendant $10,000 for personal injuries suffered in the death of his son, occasioned, he avers, by defendant's negligence while his son was at work at defendant's rice mill at Crowley, La.
Of the sum before mentioned, $2,500 are claimed for the physical suffering, pain, and mental anguish suffered by the son, and $7,-500 for his (plaintiff's) own suffering, mental anguish, distress, and loss of the companionship of his son.
The deceased was 18 years of age, of average intelligence, and had never before worked in a rice mill (but on the farm of his father) before he was employed on Saturday of one week, and met his death on the Thursday following.
Plaintiff avers that his son was employed by the defendant without his permission and assigned to work on one of the floors of the mill in the midst of dangerous machinery, without warning and instruction as to the danger of the work, or how he might avoid injury.
He also avers that Ms son was ignorant, inexperienced, without knowledge of dangerous machinery.
His duties were to oil the machinery, sweep the floor, attend to the hopper, and other work on the third floor, which is said to be the most dangerous floor of the rice mill.
Exceptions.
No right of action, insufficiency of allegation, and vagueness of the petition are the grounds of the first exception; while, in the second exception, the defendant pleads nonjoinder.
As to the first exception above mentioned, the grounds are general and technical.
Regarding such exceptions, considered on appeal, see Davis v. Southern R. R. Co., 117 La. 320, 41 South. 587.
The verdict of a jury will not be annulled; it not being evident that the court's ruling was prejudicial to the defense.
Even in case of immediate variance between the pleading and the testimony a verdict will not be set aside. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Phillips, 112 Ind. 59, 13 N. E. 132, 2 Am. St. Rep. 155.
Were this exception considered in limine in the district court, the rule of practice would require a different ruling, but not at this time.
As to the second exception, that relating to the right of the divorced wife:
She, not being a party, and plaintiff having no right to represent her, the proceedings are, as to her, res inter alios acta.
The case will be decided only in so far as plaintiff is before us.
He, to the extent of his interest in the questions, may be heard, and the suit decided, and the interest of the wife remain as it may be.