Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite B & G CRANE SERVICE v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, 80 So. 2d 369.

25 citing documents.

Martin v. Dixie Lee Trucking, Inc. 589 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
380 , (1951); B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , (1955).
Ferguson v. Lambert 501 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, Truitt v. B & G Crane Service, Inc., (La.
Bertrand v. Howard Trucking Co. 427 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
See cases cited in B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , (1955); (La.App.
LeJeune v. Allstate Ins. Co. 365 So. 2d 471 La. 1978
In B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , (1965), we held that the general employer could not be held liable to the special employer for damages caused by the borrowed employee in the negligent performance of the special employer's work.
LeJeune v. Allstate Ins. Co. 356 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
B. & G. Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , .
Blandino v. Brown Erection Co., Inc. 341 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
380 , (1951) and B. & G. Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , (1955).
Highlands Insurance Co. v. LJ Denny and Son 328 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
380 , (1951); B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , (1955); (La.App.
Guilbeau v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 324 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
But in the later case of B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , (1955), under a different set of facts found that the negligent crane operator was a borrowed servant.
HB" Buster" Hughes, Inc. v. Bernard 306 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Kirkland v. Western Electric Company, Inc. 296 So. 2d 350 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Working with the same principles, the Court in B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , , concluded that a negligent employee of a crane lessor became the borrowed servant of a contractor on the facts of that case.
Lambert v. James A. Teague Rental Equipment, Inc. 278 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Corp., B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , (1955); Kiff v. Travelers, 5 Cir., 402 F.2d 129 .
Jurisich v. Louisiana Southern Oil & Gas Co. 284 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
(P. 141) Citing the same language in B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , (1955), the Supreme Court concluded: "The test upon which all eventually turn * * * (is) who controls the servant in the named employment."
Richardson v. Tate 269 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
380 , (1951) (where it was not applied), and B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , 80 So.
Universal Eng. & B., Inc. v. Lafayette Steel Erec. Corp. 235 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
380 , ; B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , ; McCutchen *616 v. Fruge, (La.App.
Kezerle v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company 198 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
See cases cited in B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , (1955); (La.
Brown v. B & G Crane Service, Inc. 194 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
But in a later case, B & G Crane Serv., Inc. v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , (1955), in which the facts were more closely parallel to those in the instant case, the Supreme Court, after citing Benoit and most of the authorities relied on there, came to the conclusion that the crane operator was a borrowed servant.
Truitt v. B & G Crane Service, Inc. 165 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
In B & G Crane Service, Inc. v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , , the Supreme Court said: "The legal consequences flowing from the acts of an operator furnished with a leased machine are becoming increasingly important in view of the heavy machinery and equipment necessary for modern-day construction, and the broad principles of law governing the doctrine of borrowe
Hebert v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 140 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , ; (1st Cir. La.App.1958).
McCutchen v. Fruge 132 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
364 , ; B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , ; Eames v. Alexandria Contracting Co., La.App.
Humphreys v. Marquette Casualty Co. 103 So. 2d 895 La. 1958
1136.” See, B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , ; Spanja v. Thibodaux Boiler Works, Inc., La.App., , La.App., ; Duke v. Dixie Bldg.
Thomas W. Hooley & Sons v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance 103 So. 2d 449 La. 1958
B. & G. Crane Service, Inc., v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , .
Miller v. B. Lewis Contractors 103 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
See also B. & G. Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , ; Spanja v. Thibodaux Boiler Works, Inc., La.App., , ; Duke v. Dixie Bldg.
Stafford v. Gilmer 98 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
As noted, with approval by our Supreme Court, in B. & G. Crane Service, Inc., v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, 1955, , , the broad principles of law governing the doctrine were set out.in Standard Oil Company v. Anderson, 212 U.S. 215 , 29 S.Ct.
Holland v. Marquette Casualty Co. 95 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Tort cases such as the B & G Crane Service, Inc., v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , ; Dixie Machine, Welding & Metal Works v. Boulet Transp.
C. W. Greeson Co. v. Harnischfeger Corp. 93 So. 2d 221 La. 1957
See B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W. Hooley & Sons, , and cases there cited.