Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Baumeister v. Plunkett, 673 So. 2d 994.

133 citing documents.

State v. Brown 26 So. 3d 845 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, p. 3 (La.5/21/96), , Orgeron on Behalf of Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353, p. 4 (La.7/5/94)
Truell Holloway v. City of Oberlin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
However, as noted by the supreme court in Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, pp. 3-4 (La.5/21/96), -97: “An employer is not vicariously liable merely because his employee commits an intentional tort on the business premises during working hours.” Scott v. Commercial Union Ins.
Holloway v. City of Oberlin 21 So. 3d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
However, as noted by the supreme court in Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, pp. 3-4 (La.5/21/96), , 996-97: “An employer is not vicariously liable merely because his employee commits an intentional tort on the business premises during working hours.” Scott v. Commercial Union Ins.
WEISHAR v. Kim 15 So. 3d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Tonia Sellers, Etc. v. Rapides Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
T.S. v. Rapides Parish School Board 11 So. 3d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), .
Davis v. Green 5 So. 3d 291 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), .
Bryan Bordelon v. Anthony Stafford La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
5/21/96), : [I]n order for any employer to be vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employee the “tortious conduct of the [employee must be] so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded as a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s
Bordelon v. Stafford 1 So. 3d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
VICARIOUS LIABILITY Louisiana Civil Code Article 2320 states in part that “[m]asters and employers are answerable for the damage occasioned by their servants and overseers, in the exercise of the functions in which they are employed.” The law surrounding | .^vicarious liability is well settled as summarized in Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, pp. 3-4 (La.5/21/96), , 996: [I]n order for any employer to be vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employee the “tortious conduct of the [emplo
Smith v. Babin 966 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Ellender v. Neff Rental, Inc. 965 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, p. 4 (La.5/21/96), .
Latiolais v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INS. CO. 949 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Louisiana law pertaining to the course and scope of employment is well settled and was summarized by the supreme court in Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, pp. 3-4 (La.5/21/96), , 996-97: The law in this area is clear that an employer is liable for a tort committed by his employee if, at the time, the employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment.
Hilda Latiolais v. State Farm Mutual Auto ins.co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
5/21/96), -97: The law in this area is clear that an employer is liable for a tort committed by his employee if, at the time, the employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment.
Christopher Armand v. Jeffrey F. Lachney La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
5/21/96), -97: “An employer is not vicariously liable merely because his employee commits an intentional tort on the business premises during working hours.” Scott v. Commercial Union Ins.
Armand v. Lachney 921 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
However, as noted by the supreme court in Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, pp. 3-4 (La.5/21/96), , 996-97: "An employer is not vicariously liable merely because his employee commits an intentional tort on the business premises during working hours."
Garcia v. Furnace and Tube Service, Inc. 921 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
art. 2320; Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.05/21/96), ; Orgeron on Behalf of Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.07/05/94), ; Eichelberger v. Sidney and National Hair Care Center, Inc., 34,040 (La.App.2d Cir.11/03/00), , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.02/09/01), .
Bourgeois v. Curry 921 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
In Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held (in a sexual harassment suit with a similar fact pattern 7 ) that: “An employer is not vicariously liable merely because his employee commits an intentional tort on the business premises during working hours.” (quoting Scott v. Commercial Union Ins.
Torrence v. Lewis 905 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Baumeister v. Plunkett, et al., 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), , said that: The law in this area is clear that an employer is liable for a tort committed by his employee if, at the time, the employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment.
Payne v. Tonti Realty Corp. 888 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), , the Supreme Court relied on La.
Patrick v. Poisso 882 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
art. 2320; Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), ; Orgeron on Behalf of Orgeron v. McDonald, 93-1353 (La.7/5/94), .
Bates v. Caruso 881 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96); , citing Benoit v. Capitol Mfg.
Dolese v. Transit Management of Southeast Louisiana, Inc. 881 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
See, e.g., Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), ; Faust v. Greater Lakeside Corp., 98-2853, p. 7 (La.App.
Stacy v. Minit Oil Change, Inc. 874 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), .
Smith v. Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Dept. 874 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96); , citing Benoit v. Capitol Mfg.
Susan Smith v. Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Dept. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
5/21/96); citing Benoit v. Capitol Mfg.
Sanborn v. Methodist Behavioral Resources Partnership 866 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court expressly stated that “we note that the district court’s determination that a particular act is within the course and scope of employment for purposes of vicarious liability is a factual finding governed by the manifest error rule.” 95-2270, p. 7, 673 So.2d at 998 .
Ventola v. Hall 861 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Baumeister v. Plunkett, et al., 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), .
Loria v. Petunia's Restaurant 852 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), .
Menson v. Taylor 849 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, p. 4 (La.5/21/96), .
Duplantis v. Dillard's Dept. Store 849 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), .
Black v. Stolt-Nielsen, Inc. 844 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), .
Richard v. Hall 843 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, p. 7 (La.5/21/96), .
Swartz v. McNabb 830 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
1 Louisiana law pertaining to an employer’s vicarious liability is well settled and was summarized by the supreme court in Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, pp. 3-4 (La.5/21/96), , 996-97: The law in this area is clear that an employer is liable for a tort committed by his employee if, at the time, the employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment.
Strain v. Williams 835 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, p. 7 (La.5/21/96), .
Roberson v. August 820 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
See also Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), .
Lewis v. Houma Industries 818 So. 2d 956 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
1 Cir. 6/29/98) , ; Cf. Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), (wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court held that, for purposes of vicarious liability, a district court's determination that a particular act is within the course and scope of employment is a factual finding governed by the manifest error rule).
Young v. Mooney 815 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), .
Guy v. Mitchell 810 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
art. 2320; Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.05/21/96), ; Barto, supra .
Serigne v. Ivker 808 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Giammanchere, 742 So.2d at 575 (citing Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), ).
Culver v. Brown 803 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
art. 2320; Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), .
Wearrien v. Viverette 803 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), .
Felix v. Briggs of Oakwood, Inc. 803 So. 2d 989 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Un reversing the trial court, this court simply pointed out that plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence to put at issue whether the employer could be found liable under the rule of Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), .
Clark v. Burchard 802 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, p. 4 (La.5/21/96), -997 .
Craft v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 799 So. 2d 1211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, pp. 3-4 (La.5/21/96); -997 .
Faust v. Greater Lakeside Corp. 797 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
5 Cir. 1/30/01), ; Brasseaux v. Town of Mamou, 99-1584, p. 8 (La.1/19/00), ; Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, p. 3 (La.5/21/96), .
Faust v. Greater Lakeside Corp. 797 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
5 Cir. 1/30/01), ; Brasseaux v. Town of Mamou, 99-1584, p. 8 (La.1/19/00), ; Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, p. 3 (La.5/21/96), .
Young v. First National Bank of Shreveport 794 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), .
Lamonte v. Premier Sales, Inc. 776 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
In the more recent case of Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96), , a sexual attack occurred during the course of employment.
Dickerson v. Piccadilly Restaurants, Inc. 785 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
The Supreme Court had occasion to revisit LeBrane in the celebrated case of Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/12/96), .
Eichelberger v. Sidney 771 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
art. 2320; Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270 (La.5/21/96)