Leckie v. H.D. Foote Lumber Co.
Louisiana Court of Appeal
40 So. 2d 249 (1948)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
H.D. Foote Lumber Company (Foote) (defendant) employed Henry Leckie (plaintiff) as a saw filer and scaler at Foote’s sawmill. One Saturday afternoon, Leckie and Foote’s manager were working at the mill and were burning a pile of slab wood before closing the mill for the weekend. Leckie was responsible for monitoring the mill’s engines, which operated machinery including a blower used in the burning process and a circular saw located approximately 10 feet away from the engines. Leckie was also required to make himself available to scale any logs that were brought to the mill during the afternoon. At one point in the afternoon, Leckie was monitoring the engines but had no other hands-on work to do, so he took a short piece of scrap wood to cut on the circular saw for his own use as stove wood. Foote allowed employees to take scrap wood and allowed on-duty employees to cut the scrap wood into more conveniently sized pieces. However, while Leckie was using the saw, he severely injured his left hand. Foote paid Leckie 70 weeks of workers’-compensation benefits but refused to pay more. Leckie sued Foote in Louisiana state court, seeking an additional 330 weeks of compensation. Foote argued that Leckie was not entitled to additional compensation because Leckie had been performing a task for his own benefit when the injury occurred. The trial court found for Leckie and awarded compensation. Foote appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kennon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.