Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co., 54 So. 2d 121.

25 citing documents.

Phillips v. EPCO Carbon Dioxide Products, Inc. 810 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Michaleski v. Western Preferred Cas. Co. 472 So. 2d 18 La. 1985
Griffin v. Catherine Sugar *21 Co., , (1951); (La.App.
Johnson v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 387 So. 2d 1340 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
The courts have held employees entitled to workmen's compensation in those cases in which the employer had concerned himself with the transportation of his employees-he has furnished transportation ( , (1951); (La.App.
Castille v. Sibille 342 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
The courts have held employees entitled to workmen's compensation in those cases in which the employer had concerned himself with the transportation of his employeeshe has furnished transportation ( , (1951); (La.App.
Manuel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 236 So. 2d 807 La. 1970
We are further of the opinion that if the plaintiff, under the circumstances actually existing, were suing his employer or its insurer to recover workmen’s compensation benefits that he would be held to have been in the course of his employment and entitled to recover such benefits, gee Griffin v. Catherine gugar Company, Inc., , 54 go.2d 121.
Gardner v. Industrial Indemnity Company 212 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co., Inc., , .
Harris v. Hymel Store Co. 200 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
The case which the trial court found to be controlling of this question was Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Company (1951) , .
Jones v. Southern General Insurance 188 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
624 ; Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co., Inc., , ; Gibbs v. Pizzolato, La.App., ; Neyland v. Maryland Casualty Co., La.App., ; Callihan v. Firemen’s Fund Indemnity Co., La.App., ; Estaves v. Faucheux, La.App., .
Washington v. Harvey 164 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
238 , ]; Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Company, Inc., , ; Norris v. Hargis, La.App., , and Roy v. Guillot, La.App., ).
Soileau v. Tyl 148 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
Jagneaux v. Marquette Casualty Co., La.App.
Distinguished Hazel v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Insurance 137 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
(Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co., Inc. (1951) , ).
Effler v. Edwards 142 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
* * * ” In the case of Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co., Inc., , , the Supreme Court held that although farming is not a hazardous business, it has hazardous features if motor vehicles are used in connection with its operations.
Davis v. Grain Dealers Mutual Ins. 128 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
586 , ; , ; Troquille v. Lacaze’s Estate, La.App.
Costanzo v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 124 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
586 , ; Griffin vs. Catherine Sugar Company, Inc., 1951, , ; Troquille vs. Lacaze's Estate, La.App.1952, .
Allen v. Travelers Insurance Co. 124 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
177 and Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York, La.App., (involving the right of an employee to compensation for injury received while being transported to or from work on a vehicle furnished by his employer) , .
Miller v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America 121 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Transportation may be incidental to the employment, however, even though it is only a collateral or subsidiary part of the contract of employment, or ‘something added to the principal part of that contract as a minor, but none the less a real, feature or detail of the contract’ * * *” The Supreme Court first considered the question in Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Company, Inc., 1951, , , which case involved the right to workmen’s compensation of a worker who was being transported to his home in de
Gant v. Jackson Brewing Company 112 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
We, therefore, shall follow what was done by the Supreme Court in Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co., Inc., , , and first make a determination whether the facts are such as will justify the application of the provisions of the compensation law before delving into an investigation of the question whether defendant was or was not at fault for plaintiff's accident.
Estaves v. Faucheux 111 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
We, therefore, , , and determine first whether the facts justify the application of the compensation *807 statute before investigating the question of whether or not there was fault.
Callihan v. Fireman's Fund Indemnity Company 110 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
The principle of law which is the basis of the exception is enunciated in Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co., Inc., , ; Gibbs v. Pizzolato, La.
Kerner v. Service Contracting, Inc. 108 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1958
and in Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co., Inc., [ ] , and Neyland v. Maryland Casualty Co., [La.App.]
Viator v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc. 102 So. 2d 461 La. 1958
789 , ; , ; and Meyers v. Southwest Region Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists, 230 La.
Fontenot v. Fontenot 100 So. 2d 477 La. 1958
The cases cited and relied on by plaintiff’s counsel do not militate against this conclusion (Collins v. Spielman and Robinson v. Atkinson, both supra; Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Company, Inc., , ; Norris v. Hargis, La.
Roy v. Guillot 84 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
586 , ; Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co., Inc., 1951, , ; Troquille v. Lacaze's Estate, La.App.
Norris v. Hargis 77 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
586 , ; Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Company, Inc., 1951, , ; Troquille v. Lacaze’s Estate, La.App.1952, .
Laviollette v. Seaman 65 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
It is plaintiff’s contention that under these facts the plaintiff should recover and cites Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Company, Inc., , 54 SoSd 121.