imposing delictual liability under Article 2315 for fault as analogized from the conduct required by Article 669, when gas escaped from a ruptured pipe which, without regard to negligence, caused damages
How later courts described this case
- imposing delictual liability under Article 2315 for fault as analogized from the conduct required by Article 669, when gas escaped from a ruptured pipe which, without regard to negligence, caused damages
- plaintiff fireman may have assumed certain risks, but not the risk created by the defendant's conduct
- “The activities of man for which he may be liable without acting negligently are to be determined after a study of the law and customs, a balancing of claims and interests, a weighing of the risk and the gravity of harm, and a consideration of individual and societal rights and obligations.”
- cs- caping gas used in manufacture of petrochemical products
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc.
In Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corporation, 258 La. 1067, 249 So.2d 133 (La.1971), superseded by statute on other grounds in Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc., 521 So.2d 1123 (La.1988), the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that in State ex rel.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Trahan v. Highlands Ins. Co., 343 So. 2d 1163 (1977)
This being so it necessarily follows that the damages which Tidwell seeks to recover by way of indemnification from Pemco did not arise as a result of the defect and Weber and Langlois are clearly inapplicable.
The opinion
McCALEB, Chief Justice
(concurring).
This case, in my opinion, is cognizable only under Articles 2315, 2316 and 2317 of the Civil Code, and I entertain no doubt that Allied Chemical Corporation was negligent in permitting the escape of noxious gas from its premises. Hence, the only question for determination is whether plaintiff, by reason of his employment as a fireman, assumed the risk of the harm he encountered and, if not, whether he was guilty of contributory negligence in not using the protective devices available to him. I think the plea of assumption of risk is clearly untenable for the reasons shown in the majority opinion. I am also of the opinion that the facts of this case do not warrant a finding that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
For these reasons I concur in the result.