Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Carter v. Lanzetta, 193 So. 2d 259.

30 citing documents.

Ladessa Carol Leblanc v. Louisiana Department of Education La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Livings, supra; Matthews, supra; So.2d 259, 261-262 (1966).
Sislo v. New Orleans Center for Creative Arts 198 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence, this Court has stated: Whether this accident in the employer’s parking lot before the commencement of a workshift falls within the . , (1966): *1208 < * * *'(I)t has long been well settled, not only here but in practically all states which have enacted Workmen’s Compensation statutes, that such statutes envision extension of coverage to employees from the time they reach the employer’s premises until they depart therefrom and
Ardoin v. Cleco Power, L.L.C. 38 So. 3d 264 La. 2010
Livings, supra; Matthews, supra; , -262 (1966).
Jerome C. Ardoin, Jr. v. Cleco Power, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 1988); So.2d 8 259 (1966).
Ardoin v. Cleco Power, LLC 33 So. 3d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Smith v. Babin 966 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Mitchell v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 653 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
App. 2d Cir.1989), writ denied, , (1966).
Francisco v. Harris Management Co. 643 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
4th Cir. 1973), where the claimant was awarded compensation for an injury which occurred as he tripped over a bottle in the employer's parking lot 45 minutes before his morning shift began; , (1966), where the employee fell on a step at the employer's front door after remaining for 20 or 30 minutes after the end of his shift; and Carter v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc., (La.
Dismuke v. Quaynor 637 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Ballard v. Lambert 624 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Duncan ex rel. Hahn v. South Central Bell Telephone Co. 608 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
as finished his day’s work and is preparing to leave or is in the act of leaving, he is entitled to a reasonable period while still on the premises which is regarded as within the course of the employment and the working day embraces these intervals just as it includes reasonable periods of rest, relaxation, or the attendance of personal needs.” Duncan, 554 So.2d at 220 , (1966).
Tuminello v. Willis Knighton Medical Center 597 So. 2d 1089 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
1982), where an employee was injured while using his employer's welding equipment after working hours on the employer's premises; where an employee was injured after working hours while repairing his flat tire in the employer's garage; where an employee remained on the premises twenty minutes after her shift to talk with her employer and subsequently tripped and fell as she was leaving the premises.
Lachney v. Riddle 577 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
(1966), the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that even if an employee has finished his work day and is preparing to leave or is in the act of leaving, he is entitled to a reasonable period while still on the premises, which period is regarded as within the course of the employment.
Duncan v. South Cent. Bell Telephone 554 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
(1966); LeFleur v. Swallow's Rice Mills, supra , and Edwards v. Superior Coach Sales, Inc., (La.App.
Livings v. Reliance Ins. Co. 525 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
(1966), the plaintiff was hired to work for one day at the defendant's grocery store.
Carter v. WINN DIXIE LOUISIANA INC. 517 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
(1967) (employee remained on premises twenty to thirty minutes to eat and engage in discussion with employer); (La.App.
Edwards v. Superior Coach Sales, Inc. 417 So. 2d 1289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
(1966), the Louisiana Supreme Court observed that even if an employee has finished his day's work and is preparing to leave or is in the act of leaving, he is entitled to a reasonable period while still on the premises which is regarded as within the course of the employment and that the working day em
Johnson v. Alexander 406 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Augustine v. Washington Parish Police Jury 383 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
(S.C.1973); Carter v. Lanzetta [ ], , (La.App.
Franklin v. Haughton Timber Co. 377 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Crane v. Patterson & Yeary Steel Co. 357 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
(1966), the Louisiana Supreme Court allowed coverage where an employee was injured on leaving the place of employment approximately 20 or 30 minutes after working hours when she lost her footing on the cement step adjoining the front door of the work premises.
Lewis v. St. Charles Parish Hosp. Serv. Dist. 337 So. 2d 1137 La. 1976
See also, to the same effect, , (1966).
Huett v. Insurance Company of North America 329 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
(1966), a case factually similar to the instant one, workmen's compensation coverage was afforded to a grocery and sandwich shop employee who was injured at the end of the work day after purchasing pastries in the employer's shop.
Serean v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation 277 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
Whether this accident in the employer's parking lot before the commencement *735 of a , (1966): "* * * [I]t has long been well settled, not only here but in practically all states which have enacted Workmen's Compensation statutes, that such statutes envision extension of coverage to employees from the time they reach the employer's premises until they depart therefrom and that hours
Jackson v. Lawler 273 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
The Supreme Court, through Justice McCaleb, , (1966), pointed out the well-settled rule that the workmen’s compensation statute extends coverage to employees from the time they reach their employers’ premises until they depart, and includes the hours of work plus a reason *859 able time for employees to come and go.
Singleton v. Younger Brothers, Inc. 247 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
Matthews v. Milwhite Mud Sales Co. 225 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
(1966), the plaintiff completed her day's work at 2:30 p. m. She remained on the premises for approximately 20 or 30 minutes thereafter, during which time she ate a piece of pie and visited with her employer.
Blade v. Mervis 226 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
19 ), and as an employee may be engaged in his employer's work before or after actual working hours because the employee, while still on the premises, is entitled to a reasonable period to prepare for leaving or for other similar purposes, which period may be within the course of his employment ( , 193 So.
Gorings v. Edwards 222 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
Carter vs. Lanzetta [ ], (1966), Southern Stevedoring Co. vs. Henderson, 175 F.2d 863 (1949), Baker vs. Texas Pipe Line Co., 5 La.App.
Powell v. Gold Crown Stamp Company 204 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
denied); Rogers v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, La.App., (3rd Cir. 1965); Simmons v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, La.App., (3rd Cir. 1966); , (1966); Bates v. Gulf States Utilities Company, 249 La.