Cited by

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

101 citing documents.

Explained Nall v. Parish of Iberville 542 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
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 relation
ODECO Oil & Gas Co. v. Nunez 532 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Weems v. Hickman 524 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Nelson v. Ronquillo 517 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Hopping v. Louisiana Horticulture Com'n 509 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
The supreme court quoted *755 , (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.
Rowell v. Carter Mobile Homes, Inc. 500 So. 2d 748 La. 1987
Hastings v. Baton Rouge General Hospital 498 So. 2d 713 La. 1986
Health, etc., , (1968) hold that the factor of control is the key to employee status for purposes of respondeat superior.
Turner v. State 494 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Roberts v. State, Through Louisiana Health and Human Resources Administration
Ozols v. Irving 491 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Roberts, supra; , (1968).
Scott v. Hosp. Service Dist. No. 1 484 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Cupit v. Grant 488 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
-06 (La.1968), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the key to whether one party is an employee for purposes of respondeat superior (an Article 2320 servant) is the right of control of the time and physical activities in the other party.
Rowell v. Carter Mobile Homes, Inc. 482 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
(1968), the court defined a "servant" as one who: "...
Vining v. Bardwell 482 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Explained Verret on Behalf of Gatlin v. Scott 470 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Blakeney v. Tidewater Compression Service, Inc. 463 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
2320; , (1968); Craft v. Caldwell Parish Police Jury, supra.
Craft v. Caldwell Parish Police Jury 455 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
2320; , (1968); Camatsos v. Aetna Cas.
Hebert v. Livingston Parish School Bd. 438 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
The fact that one person is the employee of another does not of necessity make him an agent of his employer, since the two relationships cannot be equated, , (1968).
Whittington v. Sowela Technical Institute 438 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Sowela, BESE, and Travelers disagree with these findings and further urge that even if Jean Teel was an agent for Sowela, , (1968), they are not liable for the tortious acts of their agent.
Cupit v. Grant 425 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
102 , (1972) ; , (1968) .
Suhor v. Medina 421 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
In Roberts our Supreme Court said the single most important factor to consider in deciding whether the employer-employee relationship exists for the purpose of Article 2320 is the right of the employer to control the work of the employee, , (1968) which stated: 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.
Butler v. Atwood 420 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Campbell v. Mouton 412 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
art. 2320; , Comment, 33 La.L.Rev.
Young Oil Co. of La., Inc. v. Durbin 412 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Roberts v. State ex rel. Louisiana Health & Human Resources Administration 404 So. 2d 1221 La. 1981
(1968); Keen v. Pel State Oil Co., Inc., (La.App.
Roberts v. STATE, THROUGH LA. HEALTH, ETC. 404 So. 2d 1221 La. 1981
(1968); Keen v. Pel State Oil Co., Inc., (La.App.
Arledge v. Royal Globe Ins. Co. 401 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Ricker v. Thompson 394 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
(1968), Justice Barham said: “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.
Riley v. Wiseman 395 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
employed.’ Article 2320; , (1968); Comment, 33 La.L.Rev.
Jefferson Business Serv., Inc. v. Olivetti Corp. 393 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
1st Cir. 1977) , (1968), to support the trial court's judgment.
Hryhorchuk v. Smith 379 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
102 , (1972) ; , (1968) .
Applewhite v. City of Baton Rouge 380 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Article 2320; , (1968); Comment, 33 La.L.Rev.
Badeaux v. East Jefferson Gen. Hospital 364 So. 2d 1348 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
(4th Cir. 1972), writs refused 261 La.
Lott v. Haley 363 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Miller v. Keating 349 So. 2d 265 La. 1977
art. 2320; LeBrane v. Lewis, supra ; , (1968).
Savoie v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 347 So. 2d 188 La. 1977
Florence v. Clinique Laboratories, Inc. 347 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Scoggins v. Smith 342 So. 2d 1130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
(1968), the Supreme Court, through Justice Barham, stated that the legal relationships of principal-agent, employer-employee, and master-servant may not be equated with each other.
Keen v. Pel State Oil Co., Inc. 332 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Roberts 331 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
and authorities therein cited.
Loescher v. Parr 324 So. 2d 441 La. 1975
(1968), citing long-established jurisprudence.
Scott v. Butler Bros. Furniture Co. of Baker, Inc. 315 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
(1968); Trahan v. Girard Plumbing & Sprinkler Co., La.App., (4 Cir. 1974), writ refused, 620 (1974); Jones v. Maryland Casualty Company, La.App., (1 Cir. 1971).
Miller v. Universal Underwriters Insurance 308 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Trahan v. Girard Plumbing & Sprinkler Co. 299 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
(1968), the Supreme Court distinguished situations in which the employer may or may not be vicariously liable for the tort of an employee.
LeBrane v. Lewis 292 So. 2d 216 La. 1974
Article 2320; Blanchard v. *218 Ogima, , (1968); Comment, 33 La.L.Rev.
Traders & General Insurance Company v. Robison 289 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Neal v. Davenport, La.App., ; .
Sones v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company 272 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
4th Cir. 1972) , (1968).
Morneau v. American Oil Company 272 So. 2d 313 La. 1973
Neal v. Davenport 270 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
Ocmond v. Eserman 259 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
(1968), are apposite to the issue of Mrs. Eserman's legal relationship with Stanley Home Products and therefore dispositive of the question of vicarious liability urged by the plaintiff.
Jones v. Maryland Casualty Co. 256 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
The Lower Court, therefore, , .