Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Boyer v. Johnson, 360 So. 2d 1164.

59 citing documents.

Officer John Doe, Police Officer v. Deray Mckesson; Black Lives Matter; Black Lives Matter Network, Incorporated La. 2022
Ogea v. Merritt 130 So. 3d 888 La. 2013
see also Laird, 267 So.2d at 717 .
Bourgeois v. BOOMTOWN, LLC OF DELAWARE 62 So. 3d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
plaintiffs argued that where a criminal statute imposed a duty to protect a particular category of persons (intoxicated persons) from a particular type of harm, breach of this duty may be considered when determining negligence under the duty-risk analysis.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LeRouge 995 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Bellsouth Telecom. v. Eustis Engineering 974 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
and Development, 94-2747 (La.5/22/95), ; Weber v. Phoenix Assur.
Toston v. Pardon 847 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
and Development, 94-2747 (La.5/22/95), ; (La.
Hoerner v. ANCO Insulations, Inc. 812 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
1166 n. 1 (La.1978), and find our reasoning in Boyer, supra, controlling: Prior to Act 147 of 1976, an officer or agent of the employer corporation could be held liable in tort for his own personal fault, notwithstanding the employer's immunity.
Lawrence v. City of Kenner 761 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Bannerman v. Bishop 688 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Justice Tate stated that excursions into other issues may divert the appellate court from the fundamental cause-in-fact inquiry and that "[T]hese observations (that the minor had a driver's license and was himself negligent in this one vehicle accident) cannot erase the fact that defendant's substandard con
Galloway v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEVE. 654 So. 2d 1345 La. 1995
Faucheaux v. Terrebonne Consol.
Panzico v. Price 647 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
2 Cir.1989), writ denied, Wright v. O’Neal
Blunck v. Lloyds Underwriters at London 640 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
on remand, , writ denied
Vascocu v. Acme Cement Products, Inc. 610 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Gugliuzza v. KCMC, INC. 606 So. 2d 790 La. 1992
see also Laird, 267 So.2d at 717 .
Cole v. Celotex Corp. 599 So. 2d 1058 La. 1992
1166 n. 1 (La.1978), and find our reasoning in Boyer, supra, controlling: Prior to Act 147 of 1976, an officer or agent of the employer corporation could be held liable in tort for his own personal fault, notwithstanding the employer's immunity.
Faulk v. Champagne 590 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
See Wright v. O’Neal, (La.App.
Phillips v. K-Mart Corp. 588 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
Sj v. Pm 586 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
1st Cir.1974), writ refused overruled on other grounds
Loveday v. Travelers Ins. Co. 585 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
Clair v. Paris Road Drugs, Inc. 573 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Clomon v. Monroe City School Bd. 572 So. 2d 571 La. 1991
Ewert v. Georgia Cas. & Sur. Co. 548 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Wuest v. Fosco Enterprises, Inc. 544 So. 2d 1328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
In sustaining the exception, which held that in order for a violation of a safety statute to constitute actionable negligence, the violation must be encompassed within the scope of the risks that the statute was designed to protect against, and the violation must also be a cause in fact of the harm.
Byrd v. Bossier Parish School Bd. 543 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Armour v. Armour 541 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Gresham v. Davenport 537 So. 2d 1144 La. 1989
Enlow v. Blaney 527 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Dixie Drive it Yourself System New Orleans, Inc. v. American Beverage Co., 242 La.
Kounter v. Carleton 510 So. 2d 1370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
where a fifteen-year-old boy was hired by defendant to drive a truck, in violation of a statute prohibiting employment of minors under eighteen to drive a motor vehicle for commercial purposes.
Snyder v. Bergeron 501 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Eldridge v. Downtowner Hotel 492 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Chandler v. Bunge Corp. 489 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Mott v. River Parish Maintenance 481 So. 2d 1021 La. 1986
Argus v. Scheppegrell 472 So. 2d 573 La. 1985
Cadierre v. Duet 461 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Plaintiffs base their argument on three cases: (La.App.
Ketcher v. Illinois Central Gulf R. Co. 440 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Larson v. Huskey 440 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
The court stated: "The fundamental duty-risk analysis of Baumgartner , like that of Boyer v. Johnson, La.1978, , and of Rue v. State Dept. Hwys., La.1979, , is applicable here.
Mott v. River Parish Maintenance, Inc. 432 So. 2d 827 La. 1983
a case in which a minor recovered in tort against a supervisory co-employee, to support his argument that he is in this case not covered by the worker's compensation act.
Garcia on Behalf of Garcia v. Jennings 427 So. 2d 1329 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
The First Circuit agreed that the young girl was contributorily negligent *1333 but held, that "where the purpose of a statute is to protect the minor against the risk of his own negligence ...
Vidrine v. Stewart and Landry, Inc. 424 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Romano v. Lomasney 423 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
it was stated: [Wjhere the purpose of a statute is to protect the minor against the risk of his own negligence (as here, where the statute absolutely prohibits the employment of a minor below a certain age in work connected with power-driven machinery or in driving a commercial vehicle), the general rule is
FRAIN AS TUTRIX OF BEASON v. State Farm Ins. Co. 421 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Jenkins v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 422 So. 2d 1109 La. 1982
Co., [La.1978] [La.1978]) represented an effort, during the time that contributory negligence prevailed as an absolute bar to recovery, to reach a just result when a comparison of the respective duties of two negligent parties (and of the risks created by breaches of those duties) revealed an extreme imbalance favoring the plaintiff
Vidrine v. Stewart & Landry, Inc. 420 So. 2d 449 La. 1982
See Boyer v. Johnson, La., .
Vidrine v. Stewart & Landry, Inc. 420 So. 2d 450 La. 1982
See Boyer v. Johnson, La., .
Vidrine v. Stewart & Landry, Inc. 420 So. 2d 450 La. 1982
See Boyer v. Johnson, La., .
Bradley v. Tripkovich 415 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Mott v. River Parish Maintenance, Inc. 417 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Moreover, cited by the plaintiff, is inapplicable to the present case on this issue because that case was an executive officer suit brought against the president of the employer company personally in tort under the provisions of LSA-R.S.
Oliver v. Capitano 405 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
1978, , and of Rue v. State Dept. Hwys., La.
Terrebonne Parish Police Jury v. Matherne 405 So. 2d 314 La. 1981
Pierre v. Allstate Insurance Co., 257 La.
Knockum v. Amoco Oil Company 402 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
199 , (1972); and LeJeune v. Allstate Ins.