DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Benoit v. Hunt Tool Co., 53 So. 2d 137.

80 citing documents.

  • Grimes v. LOUISIANA MEDICAL MUT. INS. CO. 29 So. 3d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    This legal fiction known as the "borrowed employee"
  • Gumpert v. Pittman Const. Co., Inc. 736 So. 2d 1026 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • Morgan v. ABC MANUFACTURER 710 So. 2d 1077 La. 1998
    This legal fiction, known as the "borrowed employee" , (1951).
  • Morgan v. ABC MANUFACTURER 694 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
  • Arnold v. Airborne Freight Corp. 667 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    (1951), quoted from an early opinion of Justice Holmes, as follows: In cases like the present, there is a general consensus of authority that, although a driver may be ordered by those who have dealt with his master to go to this place or that, to take this or that burden, to hurry or to take his t
  • Billeaud v. Poledore 603 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    (1951); see also LeBlanc v. Roy Young, Inc., -48 (La.App.
  • Martin v. Dixie Lee Trucking, Inc. 589 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    Blandino v. Brown Erection Company, Inc., , (1951); B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, 227 La.
  • Stovall v. Shell Oil Co. 577 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    See also Smith v. Cotton's Fleet Service, Inc., , Lafont v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (La.
  • Civello v. Johnson 567 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • Robbins v. Lee 505 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    Malone v. Johnson, supra, Sec.
  • Smith v. Cotton's Fleet Service, Inc. 500 So. 2d 759 La. 1987
  • Marzula v. White 488 So. 2d 1092 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    (1951); Pagitt Well Service, Inc. v. Sam Broussard, Inc., (La.App.
  • Odom v. Dixie Tie and Timber Co. 458 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    Young v. Hearin Tank Lines, Inc., (3rd Cir.1965)
  • Marzula v. White 431 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    (1951); Pagitt Well Service, Inc. v. Sam Broussard, Inc., (La.
  • Bertrand v. Howard Trucking Co. 427 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Benoit v. Hunt Tool Co., [ ], Malone v. Johnson, supra, Sec.
  • Johnson v. Alexander 424 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Malone & Johnson, supra, Sec.
  • Honeycutt v. International Paper Co. 421 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    (1951); Thibodeaux v. Sun Oil Co., 218 La.
  • Johnson v. Alexander 419 So. 2d 451 La. 1982
    Malone v. Johnson, supra, Sec.
  • Johnson v. Alexander 406 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Traylor v. Shell Oil Co. 400 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    453 , (1950); *346 , (1951); and Coal Operators Casualty Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 223 La.
  • Travelers Ins. Co. v. Paramount Drilling Co. 395 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    (1951) and other tort cases cited by appellant, dealing with borrowed servant determinations in various tort contexts, are not apposite to this workmen's compensation case.
  • Rapattoni v. Commercial Union Assur. Co. 378 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Young v. Hearin Tank Lines, Inc., (3rd Cir. 1965)
  • Polozola v. Garlock, Inc. 376 So. 2d 1009 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    In this regard, , (1951).
  • Thompson v. New Orleans Public Belt RR 373 So. 2d 1312 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    Benoit v. Hunt Tool Company, supra ( , ); Ruiz v. Shell Oil Company, 413 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1969) (action arising under the *1317 Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Compensation Act).
  • LeJeune v. Allstate Ins. Co. 365 So. 2d 471 La. 1978
    [10] See also: , (1951) (employee of a welding company engaged to do welding for a drilling company was not a borrowed employee of the drilling company, and employees of the drilling company could maintain an action in tort against the welding company); Lowenburg v. Labor Pool of America, Inc., (La.App.4th
  • Blancher v. Samuels 354 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    (1951) they contend that the general employer is presumed to be and remains the employer until there is a contrary showing sufficient to overcome the presumption, and that the *220 test for such a determination is who had the right of control over the individual at the time of the accident.
  • Vincent v. Ryder Enterprises, Inc. 352 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Jones v. Francis Romero, Inc. 345 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    453 , (1950); , (1951); Coal Operators Casualty Co. v. Fidelity and Casualty Co., 223 La.
  • Dupre v. Sterling Plate Glass & Paint Co., Inc. 344 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (Malone, "Louisiana Workmen's Compensation," § 52, p. 53) , (1951), decisions throughout the country (and, we add, this state) involving questions of borrowed employees cannot be reconciled in many instances.
  • Blandino v. Brown Erection Co., Inc. 341 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    (1951) and B. & G. Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, 227 La.
  • Wofford v. Dow Chemical Co. 335 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Highlands Insurance Co. v. LJ Denny and Son 328 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    3 Cir. 1970); , (1951); B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, 227 La.
  • Berry Brothers General Contractors, Inc. v. Air Marine, Inc. 328 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    (1951) contain exhaustive reviews of the jurisprudence of this state involving factual situations wherein a determination of the status of a paid employee was essential to a resolution of the issue on liability.
  • Guilbeau v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 324 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    280 , (1951) and found under the facts of that case that the negligent welder was not the borrowed servant of the general contractor.
  • Nichols Const. Corp. v. Spell 315 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • LeBlanc v. Roy Young, Inc. 308 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    The leading Supreme Court decision concerning the "borrowed employee" , (1951).
  • Cooley v. Slocum 313 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    (1951), and Kirkland v. Western Electric Company, Inc., (La.App.
  • HB" Buster" Hughes, Inc. v. Bernard 306 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
  • Etienne v. Home Indemnity Company 307 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    3 Cir. 1974); Barrios v. Service Drayage Co., supra; , (1951).
  • Kirkland v. Western Electric Company, Inc. 296 So. 2d 350 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    provides the guidelines for our answer to this question, as follows: "It is a well settled principle of law that the master is liable for the torts of his servant committed in the scope and course of his employment, but it is often difficult where two possible masters are involved to determine which i
  • Hislop Plumbing Company, Inc. v. Pogue-Atkins, Inc. 283 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
    (1951), as applied in Richardson v. Tate (La.App.
  • Lambert v. James A. Teague Rental Equipment, Inc. 278 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Appellant cites and relies upon the following cases: , (1951); Universal Eng.
  • Jurisich v. Louisiana Southern Oil & Gas Co. 284 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
    To determine whether an operator furnished with leased machinery is the employee of the lessee or the lessor at the pertinent time, , (1951) stated: "To determine whether a given case falls within the one class or the other we must inquire whose is the work being performed—a question which is usually answered by ascertaining who has the power to control and direct the servants in the performance of their work.
  • Lebrane v. Lewis 280 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Strawder v. Harrall, supra; , (1951).
  • Watson v. Tippen 277 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Richardson v. Tate 269 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
    (1951) (where it was not applied), and B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, 227 La.
  • Commercial Union Insurance Company v. Bringol 262 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
  • Hooper v. Wilkinson 252 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
    wherein the Supreme Court said: "Since Guillory was in the general employ of Hunt Tool Company, it must appear from the evidence in order for it to be relieved from liability that the relation of master and servant which existed between them had been suspended, and that a new like relation between Gui
  • Barrois v. Service Drayage Company 250 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
  • Universal Eng. & B., Inc. v. Lafayette Steel Erec. Corp. 235 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
    With respect to this issue, the following cases have been cited in the briefs by counsel: , ; B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, 227 La.