Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Viator v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc., 102 So. 2d 461.

17 citing documents.

Robbins v. Caraway-Rhodes Veterinary Hospital 315 So. 2d 688 La. 1975
217 , (1971); Luce v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc., , (1958); Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., 157 La.
Bolton v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 245 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
(1958); Mercer v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
Stephney v. Robertson 219 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
Pinchera v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 206 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
See also: Luce v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc., , (1958): Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., supra; Talbot v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company, supra; Fontenot v. Myers, supra.
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
can best be rationalized by comparing it with those cases involving businesses which are not hazardous per se, but which do have some hazardous features ; as for instance a grocery store which contains dangerous electrical machines, (LeBlanc v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., La.App., ) or a hotel which contains dangerous mechanized equipment, ( , ).
Kramer v. Etie 155 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
The court made clear that the right to recovery depended upon the fact that plaintiff was regularly and as daily matter required to actually use and operate the grinding machinery.” Also pertinent to this question is the Supreme Court decision of Luce v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc., , , wherein the court stated at page 463: “It is now well settled that an employee is covered where he is regularly exposed to or is frequently brought in contact zvith the hazardous feature of the business, even thou
Mercer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 155 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
(1958), the Supreme Court said: “ * * * It is now well settled that an employee is covered where he is regularly exposed to or is frequently brought in contact with the hazardous feature of the business, even though he is primarily engaged in the nonhazardous part.
Honeycutt v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 146 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Additionally, no testimony was given as to the frequency of the up-stairs trips with regard to lay-away purchases.” In support of his position, counsel for plaintiff relies principally on the cases of Luce v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc., , ; LeBlanc v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., supra; and Richmond v. Weiss & Golding, Inc. (La.App., 3 Cir., 1960), .
Leleau v. Jacomine 144 So. 2d 921 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
In addition to cases involving small electrical apparatus, , (1958), and Byas v. *924 Hotel Bentley, 157 La.
Boggs v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company 125 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
In the recent case of Luce v. New Hotel Monteleone, 1958, , , our Supreme Court again acknowledged this rule of law where the plaintiff as an inspectress was required frequently every day to travel from floor to floor in the hotel by means of an electrically powered freight elevator and she was actually injured while alighting therefrom.
Fruge v. White 125 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Although the employee was injured while performing non-hazardous work in a nonhazardous business, counsel for the plaintiff urges that nevertheless this claimant’s disability is compensable, relying upon the jurisprudence summarized in Luce v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc., , , 463: “It is now well settled that an employee is covered where he is regularly exposed to or is frequently brought in contact with the hazardous feature of the business, even though he is primarily engaged in the non-hazardo
Richmond v. Weiss & Goldring, Inc. 124 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
[1] "It is now well settled that an employee is covered where he is regularly exposed to or is frequently brought in contact with the hazardous feature of the business, even though he is primarily engaged in the nonhazardous part (citations omitted)", Viator v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc., , .
Allen v. Travelers Insurance Co. 124 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
480 , ; Luce v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc., , ; Talbot v. Trinity Universal Ins.
Le Balnc v. Antional Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 118 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
"It is now well settled that an employee is covered where he is regularly exposed to or is frequently brought in contact with the hazardous feature of the business, even though he is primarily engaged in the nonhazardous part", , .
Viator v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc. 106 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
The Supreme Court remanded the case to us for a determination of the other issues raised by the pleadings ( , ).