DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Speed v. Page, 62 So. 2d 824.

43 citing documents.

  • Zack v. Gurvich 701 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Slocum v. Lamartiniere 369 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    (1952); Doss v. American Ventures, Inc., 261 La.
  • Thomas v. Holland 345 So. 2d 1000 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    (1952) that where an employer engaged in a hazardous business undertakes to repair the building housing that business or the equipment therein, his employees are protected by the workmen's compensation laws.
  • Brumfield v. Louisiana Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control 265 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
  • Doss v. American Ventures, Inc. 261 So. 2d 615 La. 1972
    (1952) 4 Nor can it be said that, as a matter of law, whenever a person constructs or reconstructs his own building to be rented or used commercially he is, or is not, in the construction business.
  • Doss v. American Ventures, Inc. 248 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1952) to show that he is entitled to Workmen’s Compensation.
  • Fontenot v. Travelers Insurance Co. 236 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    102; , , (1952); Landry v. Fuselier, 230 La.
  • Moak v. Link-Belt Company 229 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
    943 , , 286 (1965), , (1952), our Supreme Court has held that an employer in a hazardous business is liable in compensation to his own employees involved in reconstruction (which is obviously not ordinarily his business), where the employer himself undertakes reconstruction "rather than have it done under contract."
  • Doss v. AMERICAN VENTURES INC. 224 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    943 , , , , insofar as those cases indicate non-liability where repairs are done by contract in the following language: "* * * [If] the operator of an admittedly hazardous business, in the conduct of that business undertakes repair, whether it be of the building housing the same or the equipment therein, rat
  • Stephney v. Robertson 219 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
  • Barlotta v. Jefferson Parish Council 212 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
    527 , ; Fajoni v. Town of Amite City, La.App., .
  • State v. Wyche 191 So. 2d 496 La. 1966
  • Pflieger v. Haws 180 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    "Similarly, in Speed v. Page [ ], supra, the holding of this court, as well as of the Supreme Court [ , ], was based upon the principle that Speed was performing work which was a part of his employer's business.
  • Richard v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 175 So. 2d 277 La. 1965
  • Richard v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 175 So. 2d 277 La. 1965
  • Segura v. Leleux 158 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Edwards v. Stafford 153 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    This rule, however, , , discussed, infra.
  • Finn v. EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION 141 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
    271 , ; , ; Thibodaux v. Sun Oil Co., 218 La.
  • Allen v. Louisiana Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control 141 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
  • Effler v. Edwards 142 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    the Supreme Court held that when the maintenance of a building, including its repairs, is an operating or production cost of the owner’s business, which costs will eventually be borne by the public, then the maintenance and repairs of such building is in the course of the owner’s business.
  • Costanzo v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 124 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
    Thus, in Speed v. Page, La.App.1952, , affirmed , , it was held that the provisions of the Act were intended to protect an employee when he is engaged in employment with reference to, in connection with, incident to, or in promotion of, his employer's trade, business or occupation, and it was not intended that the employee's right of recovery be restri
  • Spinato v. Lowe 119 So. 2d 480 La. 1960
    527, 528 , , we said: “Under the provisions of LSA-R.S.
  • Blades v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 110 So. 2d 116 La. 1959
    559 , and May Finance Co. v. Nagy, 223 La.
  • O'Brien v. Columbian Carbon Co. 109 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
  • McMorris v. Home Indemnity Insurance Company 107 So. 2d 645 La. 1958
  • Guillory v. Coal Operators Casualty Company 95 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    579 , which the Supreme Court characterized as based upon a finding "as a fact that the defendant's business was not hazardous within the meaning and contemplation of the act `since he was engaged in farming and dairying and not in the repairing or construction business'", , , at page 825.
  • Holland v. Marquette Casualty Co. 95 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    2 Cir., , affirmed without discussion of this point , , 825; McEachern v. Pine Wood Lbr.
  • McMorris v. Home Indemnity Co. 94 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    For example, , , and Landry v. Fuselier, La.
  • Fontenot v. Myers 93 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    Further, there is some question as to the validity of the holdings of these cited cases, in view of the later jurisprudence: , , which awarded compensation to an employee of an admittedly hazardous business, although employed to perform and engaged in activities merely incidental thereto at the time of the accident; Rigsby v. John W. Clark Lumber Company, La.App.
  • Tullos v. Long 90 So. 2d 880 La. 1956
    527 , ; Freret Civil Association v. Orleans Parish School Board, 223 La.
  • Landry v. Fuselier 88 So. 2d 218 La. 1956
    If such was the case, , 62 So.
  • Succession Washington 87 So. 2d 9 La. 1956
    527 , ; Jefferson 7th Ward Social Club v. Grevemberg, 225 La.
  • Trappey v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. 86 So. 2d 515 La. 1956
    592 , —but would ignore the purpose and object of the act, these being to provide funds to sustain the injured employee while he cannot provide for himself.
  • Wynn v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York 85 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
    Recently the Supreme Court in Speed v. Page, 1952, , , had occasion to review a ruling of this court which presented for our consideration the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the case of Shipp v. Bordelon, 1922, 152 La.
  • Roy v. Guillot 84 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
    2d 138 , affirmed , , it was held that the provisions of the Act were intended to protect an employee when he is engaged in employment with reference to, in connection with, incident to, or in promotion of, his employer's trade, business or occupation, and it was not intended that the employee's right of recovery be restri
  • Lachney v. Chance 84 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    527 , ; Hirt v. City of New Orleans, 225 La.
  • Brown v. Remington Rand, Inc. 81 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    816 ; Gonsoulin v. Southern Amusement Company, La.App., ; Speed v. Page, La.App., ; Id., , ; Crow v. Hosier, La.App., .
  • Dixon v. Herrin Transportation Co. 81 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    486 , and Speed v. Page, La.App., , and , , should govern and control the decision in this case.
  • Landry v. Fuselier 78 So. 2d 442 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    Hecker v. Betz, La.App., 172 So.
  • Norris v. Hargis 77 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    Thus, in Speed v. Page, La.App.1952, , affirmed , , it was held that the provisions of the Act were intended to protect an employee when he is engaged in employment with reference to, in connection with, incident to, or in promotion of, his employer’s trade, business or occupation, and it was not intended that the employee’s right of recovery be restri
  • State ex rel. Jackson v. Madden 74 So. 2d 29 La. 1954
    527 , ; Hirt v. City of New Orleans, 225 La.
  • Jefferson 7th Ward Social Club v. Grevemberg 73 So. 2d 777 La. 1954
    527 , and cases cited therein.
  • May Finance Co. v. Nagy 66 So. 2d 860 La. 1953
    and authorities cited therein.