Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sampay v. Morton Salt Co., 395 So. 2d 326.

46 citing documents.

Brian Mullen v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
“Liability is imposed upon the employer without regard to [its] own negligence or fault; it is a consequence of the employment relationship.”
Wade Conner v. Klarc Lemelle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
La.Civ.Code art. 2320.2 “Liability is imposed upon the employer without regard to [its] own negligence or fault; it is a consequence of the employment relationship.”
Taylor v. City of Alexandria 274 So. 3d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Thus, , 328 (1981), "The derivative nature of the employer's liability is of no concern to the victim, and he can compel either the employer or the employee to compensate him for the whole of his damages."
Moody ex rel. Moody v. Murray 189 So. 3d 508 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Bailey v. DeLaCruz 143 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Gettys v. Wong 145 So. 3d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Buford v. Williams 88 So. 3d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Nizzo v. Wallace 83 So. 3d 161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
as authority for her position.
Moody v. AIG Insurance Companies 999 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
He analogizes the facts of this matter to a plaintiffs settlement of a case with a tortfeasor with a reservation of his right to | .¡proceed against the tortfeasor’s
Roccaforte v. WING ZONE, INC. 994 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
the plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident and filed suit against the driver and the driver's employer; however, plaintiff was unsure whether Morton Salt Company or Davis Truck Service employed the driver, so plaintiff timely filed suit against both companies and their respective liability insurers
Bergeron v. SMITH & ASSOCIATES D/B/A PRO AUTO RENTALS 986 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Jeffery J. Baudoin v. Carlos Ramirez Montoya La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
for the proposition that he can “release an employee from personal responsibility and maintain an action against an employer.” The “Receipt and Release” document, which was entered into evidence, stated: Appearer further declares that for and in consideration of the receipt of sa
Baudoin v. Montoya 974 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
for the proposition that he can "release an employee from personal responsibility and maintain an action against an employer."
Wimberly v. Brown 973 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
Vicknair v. St. James Parish School Bd. 907 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
Omsi v. Alvin Joe Elliott La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
OMSI v. Elliott 869 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Glass v. Magnolia School, Inc. 815 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
Rollins v. Richardson 803 So. 2d 1028 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Sea-Lar Management, Inc. 787 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
[7] a much later, unrelated case.
Griffin v. Kmart Corp. 776 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Etienne v. National Auto. Ins. Co. 759 So. 2d 51 La. 2000
On the other hand, defendants contend that plaintiff's failure to reserve rights against the Morrow firm upon its release of Ms. Sebastien destroyed any solidary liability between the employee and employer, to support that contention.
Smith v. Dow Chemical Co. 635 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
713 , (1960), overruled on other grounds
Jenkins v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 619 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
The Rowell court states: Implicit in Sampay [v. Morton Salt Co., ] is the conclusion primary and derivative obligors are each liable for virile shares.
Jenkins v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. 619 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
[6] The Rowell court states: Implicit in Sampay [ v. Morton Salt Co., ] is the conclusion primary and derivative obligors are each liable for virile shares.
Samuels v. Southern Baptist Hosp. 594 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
appeal after remand, (La.App.
Verneuil v. Poirier 589 So. 2d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Stuka v. Fleming 561 So. 2d 1371 La. 1990
Great SW Fire Ins. Co. v. CNA Ins. Companies 557 So. 2d 966 La. 1990
Mallet v. Credo Oil & Gas, Inc. 534 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Rowell v. Carter Mobile Homes, Inc. 500 So. 2d 748 La. 1987
and in its conclusion as to the effect of a servant's settlement upon the solidary liability of his master.
Burton v. Foret 498 So. 2d 706 La. 1986
Rowell v. Carter Mobile Homes, Inc. 482 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
if Carter had not been released, LNB would then have been entitled to legal indemnification from Carter, one of the parties actually at *647 fault in causing the plaintiff's injuries.
Sampay v. Morton Salt Co. 482 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Finley v. Bass 478 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
holding that the general rules of solidarity apply to an employee's tort; if the plaintiff settles with the employee, he may successfully *616 assert the remainder of his claim against the employer.
Dean v. Nunez 469 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
1794, as amended, Acts 1984 No. 331)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LeBlanc 460 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Sampay v. Morton Salt Company (La., 1981) .
Perez v. State Farm Ins. Companies 458 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
Joiner, supra ; Hoefly, supra
Roy v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 442 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Narcise v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 427 So. 2d 1192 La. 1983
US Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co. 420 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co. 418 So. 2d 575 La. 1982
Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., (La.
Keller v. Rednour 416 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
We have carefully considered appellee’s argument and authorities cited, but find that the authorities which they rely upon have been specifically or impliedly overruled by Sampay v. Morton Salt Company, et al
Brown v. Soupenne 416 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Kern v. Travelers Ins. Co. 407 So. 2d 2 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
However, Sampay v. Morton Salt Company, et al, again considering the employer-employee relationship, stated that an obligation is solidary if the requisites of C.C.
Carpenter v. Travelers Ins. Co. 402 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
which overruled its prior decision in Williams v. Marionneaux, 240 La.