91 So. 549 | La. | 1922
Plaintiffs, who are the widow and children and- dependents of Samuel Salvaggio, allege that the latter was injured while working as blacksmith for defendant on June 16, 1920, as a result of which injury he died on February 25, 1921, and they pray for compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Employers’ Liability Act (Act No. 20 of 1914). The defenses are (1) that at the time Salvaggio was injured, June 16, 1920, the Employers’ Liability Act did not apply to the defendant company, an interstate carrier; (2) that the act of the Legislature of this state adopted July 8, 1920 (page 464), amending section 30 of Act 20 of 1914 is also inapplicable to this case, having been adopted after the occurrence of the accident to which plaintiffs attribute the death of Salvaggio, because to construe tbe act of July 8, 1920, as having a retroactive effect would amount to a deprivation of defendant’s constitutional and vested rights. Defendant in the alternative finally contends (3) that the death of Salvaggio is not shown to have resulted from the injury which is alleged to have been suffered by him on June 16, 1920.
It is not disputed that defendant is a common carrier, engaged in interstate business, and it is expressly conceded that the work in which Salvaggio was engaged in June 16, 1820, was intrastate.
“That this act shall not be construed to apply to any employer acting as a common carrier while engaged in interstate or foreign commerce by railroad, which employer, by reason of being engaged in interstate or foreign commerce by railroad, is not subject exclusively to the legislative power of the state of Louisiana,” etc.
We said in considering that statute in the case of Bergeron v. T. & P. Railway Co., 144 La. 227, 80 South. 263:
“The fact that the employer was engaged in interstate commerce as a common carrier * * * is sufficient, in our opinion, to deprive the appellee of a right of action for compensation under Act No. 201 of 1914.”
We held further in that case that the act did not apply even if the employee was at the time of the injury engaged in work not connected with interstate commerce.
We are not unmindful of the fact that we held in the case of A. Guderian v. Sterling Sugar & Railway Co. (No. 24544) 91 South. 546,
Being of opinion that defendant was not subject to the operation of the Employers’ Liability Act when Salvaggio was injured, we believe that the judgment appealed from should be avoided and reversed, and plaintiffs’ suit dismissed at their costs; and it is so ordered.
Ante, p. 59.