Cited by

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

80 citing documents.

Hooper v. Wilkinson 225 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
(1951), the two general tests of the borrowed servant doctrine are: (1) Whose business was the employee engaged in, and (2) Who had authoritative control of the employee.
Grant v. Touro Infirmary 223 So. 2d 148 La. 1969
Rather, , (1951), it is proper to say that there was a division of control and, in such instances, there is always the presumption that the general employer is liable, and the burden is upon him to show that, with respect to the particular services furnished, “the servant has been lent and is performing only the
Kezerle v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company 198 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
Brown v. B & G Crane Service, Inc. 194 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
(1951), our Supreme Court made an exhaustive examination of the authorities on the subject of borrowed servant and came to the conclusion under the facts of that case that the negligent welder was not the borrowed servant of the general contractor.
DeLaune v. Lousteau 193 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Romero v. Hogue, La.App., ; Travelers Fire Insurance Company v. Savoy, La.App., .
American Employers' Insurance Co. v. Emile M. Babst Co. 181 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Young v. Hearin Tank Lines, Inc. 176 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
James v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co. 175 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Both plaintiff and defendant have cited and rely upon the following cases: , (1951); Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co., 218 La.
Sanderson v. Binnings Construction Company 172 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
23:1032, , ; Roy v. Mutual Rice Co. of Louisiana, 177 La.
Brown v. B & G Crane Service, Inc. 172 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
Truitt v. B & G Crane Service, Inc. 165 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
364 , ; , ; Beck v. Dubach Lumber Co., Limited, 171 La.
Hebert v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 140 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
tor at the express direction of the Louisiana State Police while under their control, engaged in the performance of their business, or duty, to clear the highways and establish communications in a great emergency.” , 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 is liable for the tort, and to determin
Brooks v. Griggs Casing Crews, Inc. 136 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
453 , ; , ; Stansbury v. Magnolia Petroleum Company, La.App.
McCutchen v. Fruge 132 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
196 ; , ; Amyx v. Henry & Hall, 227 La.
Blunt v. Lunsford 126 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Benoit v. Hunt Tool Company, 1951, , .
Bordelon v. Great American Indemnity Company 124 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
Vidrine v. Soileau, La.App.
Thompson v. National Surety Corporation 124 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
934 , ; , , and the authorities therein cited; Alexander v. J. E. Hixson & Sons Funeral Home, La.App.1950, ; Malone's "Louisiana Workmen's Compensation," page 61, § 57.
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Gulf Refining Co. 110 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Humphreys v. Marquette Casualty Co. 103 So. 2d 895 La. 1958
The loaned servant doctrine is established in Louisiana, , , we stated: “It is a well settled principle of law that the master is liable for the torts of *373 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 is liable for the tort, and to determine such
Miller v. B. Lewis Contractors 103 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
480 , in support of his contention that the dragline operator was not a borrowed servant of Littlefield at the time of the accident.
Fontenot v. National Transfer Company 99 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
While there are many cases in the jurisprudence dealing with the first defense raised by defendants herein, , , in which the Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the jurisprudence in which the court was called upon to decide whether one was a "borrowed employee" or servant "pro hac vice".
Richard v. National Surety Corporation 99 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
A , , in which the Supreme Court of Louisiana stated: "Under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Jurisprudence of this state, the exclusive remedy of the employees of the contractor against the principal, as those two terms are used in the act, is for workmen's compensation, and there is no remedy i
Stafford v. Gilmer 98 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
* * * ” Benoit v. Hunt Tool Company, 1951, , , reversing La.
Lynch v. Culpepper 96 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
The statement of law as; set forth in the Standard Oil Company v. Anderson decision has been fully approved in this state in Benoit v. Hunt Tool Company, 1951, , .
Holland v. Marquette Casualty Co. 95 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
53 * ; Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co., 218 La.
Sisk v. L. W. Eaton Co. 89 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
B & G CRANE SERVICE v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons 80 So. 2d 369 La. 1955
See, , , and Dixie Machine, Welding & Metal Works, Inc. v. Boulet Transportation Co., La.App., , the latter case being almost on all fours with the instant case.
Coal Operators Cas. Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 66 So. 2d 852 La. 1953
n. The statute abolished the defenses: (a) Assumption of risk, (b) Contributory negligence; and (c) Negligence of a fellow-servant; and, in respect to the abolishing of defenses, the right granted under the Workmen’s Compensation Act becomes a gospel of humanity, a splendid psalm of life for the injured employee and his dependents.” A , 53 So.
Book v. Police Jury of Concordia Parish 59 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
It is the element of control of the work that distinguishes the relationship of master and servant from the independent contractor relationship, for the most important test in determining, whether one employed to do a certain work is an independent contractor or a mere servant is the control over the work which is reserved to the employer.” In Benoit v. Hunt Tool Company, 1951, , , Justice Hawthorne thoroughly explored the so-called “whose business” and the “control” tests, finding that these tw
Benoit v. Hunt Tool Co. 56 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952