# Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corporation

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · June 7, 1971 · 258 La. 1067

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9686406

## Case

- **Full name:** Emmanuel J. LANGLOIS v. ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION and the Travelers Insurance Company
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** June 7, 1971
- **Citations:** 258 La. 1067; 249 So. 2d 133; 1971 La. LEXIS 4228
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hamlin
- **Judges:** Barham, McCaleb, Hamlin, Summers
- **Cited by:** 276 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Superseded by statute, as recognized in Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc..
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9686406

## Opinion text

HAMLIN, Justice
(dissenting).
I am compelled to dissent in this matter because I believe that the Court of Appeal has correctly analyzed the facts and applied the law applicable thereto.
I am particularly impressed with the following statement contained in the opinion of the Court of Appeal:
“We find as a fact that plaintiff herein knew upon leaving the firehouse that he was called to assist in a rescue mission made necessary by gas escaping from an unknown source. Upon arriving at the scene, plaintiff immediately became aware that gas was present in the vicinity. It could be seen by all present. Neither plaintiff nor anyone else present knew the type of gas involved. That the gas possessed irritant qualities became immediately known to plaintiff. His eyes began to water, his throat commenced tickling and he started coughing. The record establishes beyond doubt that plaintiff’s training had taught *1091 him his first consideration should be for his own protection not only for self-preservation, but also because only in this way could he be of service to others. It also appears that plaintiff’s training taught that when encountering gas, especially gas of an unknown type, plaintiff should assume the worst and take precautionary measures to guard, against being overcome. It also appears that plaintiff had at his disposal safety equipment designed to protect him against the effect of smoke and harmful gases. In addition, the manuals used in plaintiff’s training expressly warn that irritant gases can damage the respiratory tract and therefore precautions should be taken when such substances are encountered. When plaintiff encountered the unknown irritating gas on Delta’s premises and experienced the reactions noted, it then became incumbent upon him to use an available air pack for his protection.”
I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9686406. Public record. Not legal advice.