Case Name: LOUVIERE et ux. v. LOUISIANA RY. & NAV. CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1920-02-02
Citations: 146 La. 667
Docket Number: No. 23711
Parties: LOUVIERE et ux. v. LOUISIANA RY. & NAV. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 146
Pages: 667–671

Head Matter:
(83 South. 890)
No. 23711.
LOUVIERE et ux. v. LOUISIANA RY. & NAV. CO.
(Feb. 2, 1920.
Rehearing Denied March 1, 1920.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Appeal and error &wkey;>1078(l, 3) — Exceptions NOT PRESSED IN SUPREME COURT ARE ABANDONED.
Exceptions to the citation and the petition which are not pressed in the Supreme Court are assumed to have been abandoned.
2. Master and servant <&wkey;2S5 (5) — Improper LOADING OP CAR AND INSUFFICIENT TOOLS FOR UNLOADING SHOWN TO BE CAUSE OF ACCIDENT.
In an action for injury to plaintiff’s minor son while he was unloading piling from cars, evidence that they were loaded without binders between the layers, and that only one cant hook and pinch bar were furnished for unloading, held to show improper loading and insufficient tools as the cause of the accident in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
3. Master and servant &wkey;>265(5) — Res ipsa LOQUITUR INAPPLICABLE TO’ ACCIDENT IN UNLOADING PILING FROM CARS.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in an action to recover damages for injuries to a servant caused by the falling of the piles while they were being unloaded from cars.
4. Master and servant <&wkey;205 (1) — Minor DID NOT ASSUME RISK OF INJURY IN UNLOADING PILING FROM CARS.
A minor who went upon a carload of piling which he was helping unload, work with which he was unfamiliar, at the direction of the foreman, had the right to assume superior knowledge by his employer, and that the place and implements for the work were safe, and did not assume the risk of injury from the fall of the piling due to improper loading and insufficient tools for unloading.
Appeal from Twenty-Eighth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson; Fred A. Middleton, Judge.
Action by T. Louviere and wife against the Louisiana Railway & Navigation Company. Judgment for the plaintiffs for a part of the amount claimed, and defendant appeals, to which plaintiffs answered, praying for increase of the judgment.
Júdgment affirmed.
Milling, Godchaux, Saal & Milling, of New Orleans, for appellant.
Alfred D. Danziger, of New Orleans (Percival H. Stem, of New Orleans, of counsel), for appellees.

Opinion:
DAWKINS, J.
Plaintiffs, father and mother, bring this suit in behalf of their minor son, Charles M. Louviere, for personal injuries alleged to have been received while assisting in the unloading of piling from certain flat cars, and which injuries it is charged were caused by the negligence of defendant. They ask judgment in the sum of $3,500.
Defendant filed exceptions to the citation and of no cause of action. These being overruled, it answered, admitting the injury, but denying negligence on its part, and pleading assumed risk and contributory negligence.
The case was tried before the judge below without a jury, and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $2,217. Defendant has appealed, and the plaintiff has answered, praying that the judgment be increased to the sum originally demanded.
Opinion.
The exceptions have not been pressed in this court, and we assume, therefore, that they have been abandoned. In any event, the citation does not appear in the record, and the petition, we think, does disclose a cause of action on at least three distinct charges of negligence, as pointed out in defendant's brief, to wit: (1) The lack of sufficient employés to perform the particular work in a safe manner; (2) insufficient tools; and (3) insufficient stakes or braces to support the timber on the ears.
The judgment overruling these exceptions was therefore correct.