Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

332 So. 2d 512

Viau v. Batiste

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided May 18, 1976

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1976-05-18

Relies on Levy v. State, Char. Hosp. of La. at N. Orleans Bd. of Ad. · Walker v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co. · Hunt v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1976-05-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 2011

3 state decisions

1019761980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SCHOTT, Judge.

¶1This appeal is from a judgment sustaining exceptions of no right or cause of action and dismissing the wrongful death action brought by two grandchildren of the decedent.

¶2Appellants’ argument that the word “children” in LSA-C.C. Art. 2315 includes grandchildren by virtue of definition No. 8 in C.C. Art. 3556 was specifically rejected in Hunt v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co., 140 La. 524, 73 So. 667 (1916) and Walker v. Vicksburg S. & Pry. Co., 110 La. 718, 34 So. 749 (1903). However, appellants argue that these cases are not controlling because when they were decided Art. 2315 contained special provisions for the “minor child or children” as opposed to “major children,” whereas the present article as amended by Act 30 of 1960 speaks only of “child or children.” That no significance should be attached to the deletion of the words “minor” and “major” from the article, as most recently amended, is supported by dicta in Levy v. State, Char. Hos. P. of La. at N. Orleans Bd. of Ad., 253 La. 73, 216 So.2d 818, 820. Furthermore, the issue was just recently decided by this Court in Smith v. Manchester Insurance & Indemnity Co., 299 So.2d 517 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1974), writ refused 302 So.2d 617 (1974), where it was said:

“Monteil is not entitled to damages for the loss of her grandfather since she is not a member of the class of statutory beneficiaries recognized by Article 2315 of the Civil Code. Moreover, she is not entitled to recover damages for mental anguish which she might have sustained as the result of seeing her grandfather gravely injured.”

¶3Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

¶4AFFIRMED.

¶5LEMMON, J., concurs specially and assigns reasons.

¶6MORIAL, J., concurs for the reasons specially assigned by LEMMON, J.

/332/so2d/512 · .json · Public domain