DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite LeBrane v. Lewis, 292 So. 2d 216.

261 citing documents.

  • Mattingly v. State, Dept. of Health 509 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Toomer v. Cash 506 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    n that must be determined is whether the employee’s conduct “was so closely connected in time, place and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s business, as compared with conduct motivated by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer’s interests.” Johnson v. Dufrene, supra.
  • Torres v. US Fidelity and Guar. Co. 499 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    Johnson v. Dufrene, supra .
  • Lamkin v. Brooks 498 So. 2d 1068 La. 1986
  • Turner v. State 494 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    the Louisiana Supreme Court considered the following factors in determining whether an employer should be held liable for the acts of his employee: (1) whether the tortious act was primarily employment rooted; (2) whether the act was reasonably incidental to the performance of the employee's duties; (3) whe
  • Tampke v. Findley Adhesives, Inc. 489 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • Bergeron v. FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO., INC. 482 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    An employer is not liable for the acts or omissions of his employee under the doctrine of respondent superior unless the tort was committed in the course and scope of the employment
  • Lee v. Cook 482 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
  • Wattik v. Lewis Grocer Co. 476 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Michaleski v. Western Preferred Cas. Co. 472 So. 2d 18 La. 1985
  • Bessie v. K-Mart Apparel Fashions Corp. 472 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    *255 La.Civ.Code art. 2320
  • Brown v. Vince 464 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Blakeney v. Tidewater Compression Service, Inc. 463 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    34 , (1968); Craft v. Caldwell Parish Police Jury, supra.
  • Michaleski v. Western Preferred Casualty Co. 464 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Watson v. Ben 459 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    our Supreme Court stated that where the tortious conduct is "so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment-duties as to be regarded a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer's business," liability for that conduct will be imposed upon the employer.
  • McClain v. Holmes 460 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Johnson v. Dixon 457 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    Weysham v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., (La.App.
  • Craft v. Caldwell Parish Police Jury 455 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    34 , (1968); Camatsos v. Aetna Cas.
  • Puccio v. Finch 454 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    Art. 2320; Weysham v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., (La.App.
  • Austen v. Sherwood 446 So. 2d 274 La. 1984
  • Brown v. Delegal Construction Corp. 445 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Camatsos v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, supra; Weysham v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., (La.App.
  • Fogg v. Lott 444 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Poynor v. Cure 443 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
  • Santiago v. Equipment Leasing of California 437 So. 2d 971 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • Johnson v. Dufrene 433 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • Camatsos v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 428 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Weysham v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., (La.App.
  • McGee v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 428 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Similarly, pointed out the difference between "scope" and "course" of employment in this fashion: "However, technically, `course of' may refer more to the time and place of employment, while `scope of' refers more to while being engaged in the functions for which employed."
  • Jones v. Thomas 426 So. 2d 609 La. 1983
    plaintiff contends that an employer is vicariously liable for the intentional (as well as the negligent) acts of an employee when the conduct causing the injury is so closely connected in time, place and causation to the employment duties that the conduct must be regarded as a risk of harm fairly attributab
  • Sullivan v. Ekco Products, Inc. 434 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Schaeffer v. Duvall 421 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Citizen v. Theodore Daigle and Bro., Inc. 418 So. 2d 598 La. 1982
  • Faust v. Mendoza 415 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Heard v. Blakney 415 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Rodrigue v. Matherne 416 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Scott v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 415 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Campbell v. Mouton 412 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    art. 2320; Blanchard v. Ogima, 253 La.
  • Freeman v. Lee & Leon Oil Co., Inc. 409 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Kirkpatrick v. City of New Orleans 405 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    are examples of employers being held liable for employees’ intentional torts but the circumstances in these cases were highly unusual and in no way similar to the instant case.
  • Arledge v. Royal Globe Ins. Co. 401 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    a third party who was injured when stabbed sued the employer of the tortfeasor/stabber.
  • Cappo v. Vinson Guard Service, Inc. 400 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Bazley v. Tortorich 397 So. 2d 475 La. 1981
    See also, Malone & Johnson, Workers' Compensation, § 365 (2d ed. 1980).
  • Rennier v. Johnson 410 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Riley v. Wiseman 395 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    * * * * * * “In the above cases, responsibility only attaches, when the masters or employers, * * * might have prevented the act which caused the damage, and have not done it.” and the jurisprudence as follows: “In Louisiana, as elsewhere, an employer (master) is liable for a tort committed by his employee (servant) if, at the time, the servant is acting within the scope of his employment — acting, as our Civil Code Article 2320 phrases it, ‘in the exercise of *387 the functions in
  • Weysham v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 385 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
  • Daniels v. Conn 382 So. 2d 945 La. 1980
  • Applewhite v. City of Baton Rouge 380 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    (1974): "In Louisiana, as elsewhere, an employer (master) is liable for a tort committed by his employee (servant) if, at the time, the servant is acting within the scope of his employment—acting, as our Civil Code Article 2320 phrases it, `in the exercise of the functions in which ...
  • Cain v. Doe 378 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
  • Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 375 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    LeBrane v. Lewis, La., ; Johns v. Hunt Lumber Company, La.App., ; Laird v. Travelers Indemnity Company, La.App., ; Wilis v. Correge, La.App., .
  • Posey v. Fabre 369 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    Unlike the dispute in LeBrane v. Lewis, La.1974, , this dispute was not "primarily employment rooted", or reasonably incidental to the employee's work duties, although it did occur during the hours of employment and near to although not on the employment premises.
  • Cheatham v. City of New Orleans 368 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979