DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Miller v. Keating, 349 So. 2d 265.

83 citing documents.

  • Dismuke v. Quaynor 637 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Wilson v. Advance Paper Co., Inc. 612 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • Roberts v. Benoit 605 So. 2d 1032 La. 1992
    In stark contrast, this case involves a typical master-servant relationship; Sheriff *1041 Foti employed Benoit as a kitchen steward, a as a relatively subordinate employee.
  • Samuels v. Southern Baptist Hosp. 594 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc. 588 So. 2d 1353 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Aaron v. New Orleans Riverwalk Ass'n 580 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in LeBrane v. Lewis, further set out several factors to be considered in determining whether an employee was acting in the course and scope of his employment when he committed an intentional act: (1) whether the tortious act was primarily employment rooted; (2) whether the violence was reasonably incidental to the performance o
  • Williams v. Butler 577 So. 2d 1113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    -269 (La.1977), the court added that each case must be looked at on its own merits and that all four factors set forth in LeBrane need not be met before liability may be found.
  • Cazenave v. Pierce 568 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    as: "(1) whether the tortious act was primarily employment rooted: (2) whether the violence was reasonably incidental to the performance of the employee's duties; (3) whether the act occurred on the employer's premises; and (4) whether it occurred during the hours of employment."
  • Ermert v. Hartford Ins. Co. 559 So. 2d 467 La. 1990
    Restatement (2d) of Agency § 236; cf. 1 W. Malone & A. Johnson, supra, § 161, at 309.
  • National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Spillars 552 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    3d Cir. 1976), amended on other grounds the court stated: The words "assists" and "encourages," as used in Article 2324 of the Civil Code, contemplate acts performed pursuant to a conspiracy which cause injury or damage.
  • Hebert v. Witherington 520 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    : "The mission and authority which a legal entity such as a corporation must be presumed to have given its chief executive officer and top human functionary is certainly much broader than that which an employer generally is likely to give or have given lower echelon employees".
  • Turner v. State 494 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Blue v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 493 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    3d Cir.1976), modified in other respects
  • 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
  • Nelson v. Evans 470 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
  • Brown v. Vince 464 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Austen v. Sherwood 446 So. 2d 274 La. 1984
    this court noted that in order to cast the employer the employee's "conduct must be shown to be employment rooted, but not necessarily exclusively so."
  • Brown v. Delegal Construction Corp. 445 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Camatsos v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 428 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • 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
  • Jones v. Thomas 413 So. 2d 180 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.
  • Scheer v. Pat O'Brien's Bar, Inc. 404 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    3rd Cir. 1976), amended and affirmed supports it legally.
  • Cappo v. Vinson Guard Service, Inc. 400 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Fox v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 396 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    3 Cir. 1976), writ issued amended and affirmed, both concerned situations involving the employer-employee relationship and the vicarious liability of the employer for torts committed by the employee while acting within the course and scope of his employment.
  • Bazley v. Tortorich 397 So. 2d 475 La. 1981
    See also, Malone & Johnson, Workers' Compensation, § 365 (2d ed. 1980).
  • Mangum v. Weigel 393 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    [2] See also Miller v. Keating, La.App., , modified in other respects, La., , where plaintiff contended a battery committed by defendant constituted "use" of a vehicle; Ramsey v. Continental Insurance Company, La.App., (plaintiff injured by gun discharged in vehicle).
  • Weysham v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 385 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    3rd Cir. 1976), amended on other grounds and affirmed, (La.App.
  • Jones v. Sights & Sounds, Inc. 365 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    2nd Cir. 1978), in which a
  • Walters v. Sentry Insurance 354 So. 2d 1087 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978