Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Normand v. City of New Orleans, 363 So. 2d 1220.
- Hanson v. Benelli 719 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
-
Mayeur v. Campbell
666 So. 2d 366
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
It used the LeBrane language quoted above, distinguishing an employee's work-related acts and those entirely extraneous ( (La.App.
-
Jackson v. Ferrand
658 So. 2d 691
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
4th Cir.1982), writ denied, (employer not vicariously liable for gunshot wound inflicted by security guard employee in a bar far removed from the employer's premises more than two hours after the security guard's employment duties ceased); (La.App.
-
Williams v. Markel Lumber Co.
566 So. 2d 446
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
3rd Cir. 1960); (La.App.
-
Kogos v. Payton
522 So. 2d 1198
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
App. 4th Cir.1979); (La.App.
- Bennett v. Corroon and Black Corp. 517 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
- Toomer v. Cash 506 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
- Puccio v. Finch 454 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
- 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
- Freeman v. Lee & Leon Oil Co., Inc. 409 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
-
Martinez v. Modenbach
396 So. 2d 471
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Holland v. Buckley, supra; (La.App.
- Weysham v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 385 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
- Thompson v. Sicard 385 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
- Poydras v. Parker 392 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
- Cain v. Doe 378 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
- Normand v. City of New Orleans 366 So. 2d 573 La. 1979
-
Cheatham v. City of New Orleans
368 So. 2d 146
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Thus, departmental regulations which encourage off-duty personnel to carry their credentials and their weapon cannot, standing alone, change off-duty status when, as noted in Normand v. City of New Orleans (No. 8410 on our docket, decided September 26, 1978, rehearing denied November 20, 1978), La.App., , the servant “engages in a frolic which is in no manner related to service of the master.” As further noted in that opinion, “The ultimate determination depends upon the particular facts and cir