Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Jones v. Thomas, 426 So. 2d 609.

28 citing documents.

Garcia v. Lewis 197 So. 3d 738 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Cote v. City of Shreveport 73 So. 3d 435 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC v. Western Builders of Amarillo, Inc. 56 So. 3d 307 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
In support of the novel argument that a principal may be vicariously liable for the intentional acts of its agent
Johnson v. Littleton 37 So. 3d 542 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
Garcia v. Furnace and Tube Service, Inc. 921 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Evans v. Bossier Parish School Bd. 903 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
23:1032(B); Charkhian v. Nat'l Environmental Testing, Inc., 907 F.Supp.
Quebedeaux v. Dow Chemical Co. 820 So. 2d 542 La. 2002
("We further conclude that application of general tort law may make the employer vicariously liable for the intentional acts of the injured employee's coemployee.").
Quebedeaux v. Dow Chemical Co. 809 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Jackson , 96-0547 at p. 10, 685 So.2d at 627
Eichelberger v. Sidney 771 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Allen v. Payne & Keller Co., Inc. 710 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Jackson v. Frisard 685 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Benoit v. Capitol Mfg. Co. 617 So. 2d 477 La. 1993
Henry v. Taco Tio, Inc. 606 So. 2d 1376 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Price v. Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development 608 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Price v. LOUISIANA DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. 608 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Wainwright v. Moreno's, Inc. 602 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
appeal after remand, (La.App.
Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc. 588 So. 2d 1353 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
where it held in a 4-3 decision that the intentional act exception "should be interpreted to exclude all intentional acts from the general immunity."
Cousineau v. Johnson 577 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
White v. Monsanto Co. 570 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
appeal after remand (La.App.
Lowe & Sons v. Great American Surplus 572 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Cazenave v. Pierce 568 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Delone v. Odom 561 So. 2d 1015 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
which answered in the affirmative the issue posed here.
Ermert v. Hartford Ins. Co. 559 So. 2d 467 La. 1990
LeBrane v. Lewis, supra ; Restatement (2d) of Agency § 230.
Reeder v. Laks Corp. 555 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Davis v. OILFIELD SCRAP & EQUIP. CO., INC. 503 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Tampke v. Findley Adhesives, Inc. 489 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Santiago v. Equipment Leasing of California 437 So. 2d 971 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
liability of the manager co-employee for a non-intentional actalthough exclusivity of workers' compensation would exclude the insurer's liability as insurer of the co-employee by making the co-employee not liable in tortand (b) because, as plaintiffs well point out, that provision would not exclude coverage of the liability of the employer for an employee's intentional act ( (La.
Mott v. River Parish Maintenance, Inc. 432 So. 2d 827 La. 1983
[2] In Jones v. Thomas, et al., we held that an employer is not afforded tort immunity under La.R.S.