Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Blanchard v. Ogima, 215 So. 2d 902.

101 citing documents.

Deshun K. Carter v. Blue Hill Specialty Insurance Company, Forward Loads, LLC, Jamar Hooker, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
Johnny Carval Havard v. Ricky Jeanlouis, Et Al. La. 2022
“The master- servant relationship cannot be equated with the principal -agent relationship.” Blanchard v. Ogima , 215 So.
Brandy Boudreaux v. Mary P. Coco and Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
Gabriel Lagrange v. Harley E. Boone La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
102, (1972), So.2d 902 (1968)).
Terrance Bolden, Heidi Bolden, And Taylor Bolden Vs. La. 2022
102, (1972) , So.2d 902 (1968)).
Walter W. Price and Mysterie Price, Individually and on Behalf of the Minor Child F.P. v. Darryl North, … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
Jason And Johnna Kunath, Individually And As Natural Tutor And Tutrix Of Grayson Kunath, Minor v. Samantha Faye … La. 2021
might have prevented the act which caused that damages” - 44, (1968) (cited by the Legislature in La.
Wade Conner v. Klarc Lemelle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
3 Cir. 3/4/09), –50, this court stated: The Louisiana Supreme Court, So.2d 902 (1968), notes that the master-servant doctrine requires that a court inquire into the totality of the master-servant relationship rather than focusing on either “course” or “scope,” but notes that article 2320 focuses attention primarily on the “scope” element.
Explained Sarah Barber v. Louisiana Municipal Risk Management Agency Group Self-Insured Fund La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
isions contained in this Chapter, the legislature finds and states that: (1) The intent of the Civil Code Article 2320 and other laws imposing liability on a master for the offenses and quasi offenses of his servant can be found implied in the traditional interpretation and application thereof, So.2d 902 (1968), the same with respect to the relationships between governmental bodies politic and their respective officers and employees as it is with respect to relationships among private individual
Explained Barber v. La. Mun. Risk Mgmt. Agency 240 So. 3d 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
ll as the master-servant tort liability provisions contained in this Chapter, the legislature finds and states that: (1) The intent of the Civil Code Article 2320 and other laws imposing liability on a master for the offenses and quasi offenses of his servant can be found implied in the traditional interpretation and application thereof, , (1968), the same with respect to the relationships between governmental bodies politic and their respective officers and employees as it is with respect to re
Henry v. Gabriel's House of Events 196 So. 3d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Jackie R. Gonzales v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Gonzales v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. 76 So. 3d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Irwin v. Rubens 75 So. 3d 952 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Scott Hargrave, Et Ux. v. Cecil J. Delaughter La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
The Louisiana Supreme Court, So.2d 902 (1968), notes that the master-servant doctrine requires that a court inquire into the totality of the master-servant relationship rather than focusing on either “course” or “scope,” but notes that article 2320 focuses attention primarily on the “scope” element.
Hargrave v. Delaughter 10 So. 3d 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
The Louisiana Supreme Court, , (1968), notes that the master-servant doctrine requires that a court inquire into the totality of the master-servant relationship rather than focusing on either “course” or “scope,” but notes that article 2320 focuses attention primarily on the “scope” element.
Mize v. VAN METER, MD & ASSOCIATES 973 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
art. 2320 is the right of the employer to control the work of the employee, , (1968), which explained: "[i]t is the Right [sic] of control of the time and physical activities in the other party and the existence of a close relationship between the parties which determine that one is a servant."
Richardson v. Lawson 913 So. 2d 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
See, , (1968); Davenport v. Amax Nickel, Inc., -29 (La.App.
Cox v. Gaylord Container Corp. 897 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Pender v. Elmore 855 So. 2d 930 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
3 Cir.1981), ( , (1968)).
Bujol v. Entergy Services, Inc. 833 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Rowell v. Carter Mobile Homes , Blanchard v. Ogima , , (1968).
Hughes v. Goodreau 836 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Hoag v. State Ex Rel. Kennedy 836 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Cf. Rowell v. Carter Mobile Homes, Inc., , 215 So.2d *215 902, 903-908 (1968).
Loftin v. Champion Imports, L.L.C. 810 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Stokes v. Stewart 774 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Blanchard [v. Ogima, , (1968).]
Harris v. Stimac 768 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
-07 (1968): A master or employer is liable for the tortious conduct of a servant or employee which is within the scope of authority or employment, but a principal, is not liable for the physical torts of a non-servant agent ....
Joseph v. Dickerson 754 So. 2d 912 La. 2000
Scott v. Brewer 722 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
-07 (1968): A master or employer is liable for the tortious conduct of a servant or employee which is within the scope of authority or employment, but a principal is not liable *1191 for the physical torts of a non-servant agent_ ^Although a servant may possess the qualities of an agent, all agents
Roger v. Dufrene 718 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
the Louisiana Supreme Court explained: Louisiana jurisprudence has not interpreted this restriction [of Article 2320] literally, and the demands of modern commerce and the needs of society would not permit such a stringent and severe limitation of the liability of a master for his servant.
Aupied v. Joudeh 694 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
Stephens v. Bail Enforcement of Louisiana 690 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Rowell v. Carter Mobile Homes, Inc., [7] , (1968).
Walker v. Kroop 678 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Arnold v. Airborne Freight Corp. 667 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Benoit v. Roche 657 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
(1968) (citing Planiol, Pothier, Roscoe Pound, and O.W.
Independent Fire Ins. v. Able Moving & Storage Co. 650 So. 2d 750 La. 1995
Dismuke v. Quaynor 637 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Berry v. STATE THROUGH DHHR 625 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Avery v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 621 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Whetstone v. Dixon 616 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Orgeron v. McDonald 618 So. 2d 1041 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Doe v. Roman Catholic Church 615 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
See Rowell, 500 So.2d at 751 ; -18 (La.1974)
Price v. Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development 608 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Price v. LOUISIANA DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. 608 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Philippe v. Lloyd's Aero Boliviano 589 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
The relationship between principal and independent contractor and nonindependent contractor agents under Louisiana law is set forth in Rowell v. Carter Mobile Homes, Inc., , (1968); writ denied
Anderson v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 583 So. 2d 829 La. 1991
However, : "A master or employer is liable for the tortious conduct of a servant or employee which is within the scope of authority or employment, but a principal is not liable for the physical torts of a nonservant agent."
Urbeso v. Bryan 583 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Urbeso v. Bryan 583 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Ermert v. Hartford Ins. Co. 559 So. 2d 467 La. 1990
-44 , (1968); Holmes, Agency (pt.
Daniels v. Dauphine 557 So. 2d 1062 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Davis v. State Farm Ins. Co. 558 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
(1968), at page 1225 as follows: It is the right of control of the time and physical activities in the other party and the existence of a close relationship between the parties which determine that one is a servant.