Bradley v. Swift & Co.
119 So. 37
La.
1928
Check Treatment

*1 250 249 37) (119 So. 29290, 29337.

Nos. & BALTHAZER CO. v. SWIFT BRADLEY еt al. re BALTHAZAR SAME. See, (La. App.) 119 906. So. ‍‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‍26, 1928. Rehearing 29, 1928. Nov. Refused Oct. Schwartz, Normann, of New Breekwoldt & Orleans, applicant for Balthazar. Peeot, Paul A. of Franklin L. O. applicant ‍‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‍Orleans, Sompayrac, of New Bradley. ap- Orleans, Miller, John D. of New

plicants in cases. both Balthazar, OVERTON, J. William ‍‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‍while employment working cоurse suits, Swift & the defendant in these was accidentally April 1, A killed on 1925. few killed, his months deceased was after Balthazar, Bradley and his Elizabeth leaving (the deceased mother), brought present suits no child Employ- Liability Act, 1914, Act 20 of ers’ amended. The defense to living was with that she killed, injured and deceased when upon actually dependent him for nor was she dispute time. There is no at applicable concerning the to this defense. law follows: is as It payable “No shall living unless her sеction deceased husband at the she be time actually dependent upon then him or be support.” par. (L) Section subsec. Act of 1924. points ‍‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‍dispute in the widow’s case purely questions involve living with the deceased whether she was death, and, if at the time of his not, she was support. trial court found him dependent оn the de- n occurred, and fatal accident allowed not then connection with the rest of found that she was subject connection all same laws and, moreover, had not lived with object Legisla- Moreover, matter. preceding years immediately him for some 20 ascertained, ture and the had view interpretation adopted record Our accident. examination best harmonizes object.” with the context Thibaut and with fails to disclose v. Board of Commissioners Basin of Lafourche *2 finding. erred in so Therefore ‍‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‍the Dist., Levee 153 La. 96 So. 47. court, case, of be that in the will widow’s provisions Employers’ The of Lia the affirmed. bility Act, amended, pertinent to as which are by In of suit the father the the question presented, paragraphs the are urged, deceased, to a denial of in аddition it (h) and of section S of Act 216 subsection of legitimate relationship his to the deceased reads, naming of the father 1924. The first in dependency upon lаtter, and of his that the beneficiary compensa fixing as a his recover, de- the father cannot because the tion, as follows: widow, a fact it is cоntend- left recover, ed, right child, widow, the to excludes father’s there be “If neither widower nor then to the father or mother the deceased the decеased of compensa- whether the be entitled to employee, if on urged plea or tion not. mentioned is last employee any support to extent at the time only exception answer, thirty-two in in the an of the half one and and ” centum, * * * per wages. of of no cause of trial it action. In the exception, and was over- was tried on the reads, naming The second in brothers the ruled, but on the trial of these consolidated family and of sisters and other members the merits, having court, cases on found the the follows, beneficiaries, of the deceased as recover, dis- to widow was entitled to wit: finding missed the in fathеr’s the widow, widower, “If there neither nor necessarily of excluded the favor child, compen- nor right appeal, Court to recover. On the father’s sation, then to the sisters and brothers and family that, other members of the of the em- deceased left deceased found the ployee provided specifically not herein above widow, excluded, a the .father was for, if such brother or or sister other member dependent he was or not and the deceаsed family specifically provided of the not otherwise although dependent actually to not entitled re- for ployee the centum the widow was thе deceased em- bn any to extent at the time of cover, ground the and affirmed dis- death, thirty-two per and one half of the missal father’s suit. wages or for one brother or sister dependent family question presented wholly other member of the not oth- is not ” * * * specifically provided erwise for. difficulty. considering should frеe of it granting rights in be borne mind that statutes unquestionably The statute names the fa of action for the death of another should be ques possible beneficiary, ther a but the in beneficiaries named restricted to the is, beneficiary? tion when does he a become enlarged not be construction so paragraph part (gj, quoted above, If in stood Vaughan others, not named. as to include alone, we should be inclined to defend Limited, Lumber Dalton-Land 119 La. view, that, ant’s if and hold the deceased in It should also be borne 43 So. 926. widow7,although appear left a it should considering presented, question mind, the in compensation, is not еntitled she the that: notwithstanding might could not he dependent on the deceased have been at the interpreting part or “In a section of an acсident, part interpreted time the there no dispute, words or section should be the dependent making fa The effect would a paragraph exclude brother sister. in tlie aof for members the father leaves be to exclude deceased ther a be, for such This cannot and more remote class. widоw, not entitled obviously legislative alone, intention. not the paragraph, seems when read interpreted father, Paragraphs (g) (h) should be to exclude is suffiсient mean that it interpret- So each widow, connection with other. be entitled whether she there be if paragraph (g) con- we ed think compensаtion or not. “If be neither strued to However, to so construe strange result, the widower nor in view of would lead to quoted part father or mother of deceased paragraph (h), wording quali- employee,” fact that Therefore etc. words contains That above. “widow,” others, is not among a widow who fying, deсeased left the word compensation his father. exclude does not reads: it Appeal, Court Hence nor there he neither ease, will have to be set aside. father’s parent nor mem- other legitimacy and sisters and then to the brothers bers of the remains decided There to be deceased,” fаmily of the alleged relationship father to of the and, son, dependency of the compensa- Here the favorably questions decided these tiоn,” intended to which then the amount parent,” “dependent for no other If alone. by the Court The view held entitled. reason, words make those to so hold would unnecessary pass it made it *3 redundancy, be no mere questions, it did those and therefore mere that there fact widower or questions present issues of Thosе do so. .parent entitles case should be the father’s think that We being required, nothing else Appeal to the Court remanded dependent par- statute, make the issues, ren- and for of those determination beneficiary. com- ent a judgment dition of consistent the views given pensation,” some effect must be exрressed. here construction, statutory ordinary rules assigned, reasons For the give possible them effect. if it be of Elizabeth in the ease qualify evidently intended to af- Bradley, Balthazar is of William “child,” “widow,” “widower,” and do cost, and that firmed at as to make so case substantially, there be neither aside, case and thаt said and set vacated en- to the be remanded it, it, well titled to consistently disposed the views herein to the brothers parent, pay expressed, the сosts of defendant Hence, sisters,” were we remaining therein, costs therein to writ contended the construction of the case. final determination abidе the strange lead it would defendant opinion O’NIELL, I am of the C. J. excluding result remanded to the case existence, not if there court. district civil fact would when that