Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Johnson v. Dufrene, 433 So. 2d 1109.

31 citing documents.

  • Migliore v. Gill 81 So. 3d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    4th Cir.1993), where an “on call” police officer carrying a beeper and using an unmarked police car was found not to be in the course and scope of his employment when he was involved in an accident while picking up his wife and proceeding to a Saints game; and, (La.App.
  • Lockman v. Town of Maringouin 4 So. 3d 828 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • Cooper v. Reed 845 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    In Hanson , the fourth circuit referred to its earlier decision in Johnson v. *416 Dufrene, (La.App.
  • Faust v. Greater Lakeside Corp. 797 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    5 Cir. 1/26/99), ; , (La.App.
  • Faust v. Greater Lakeside Corp. 797 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    5 Cir. 1/26/99), ; , (La.App.
  • Wright v. Skate Country, Inc. 734 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    2 Cir.), writ denied, (La.App.
  • Hanson v. Benelli 719 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    The City also distinguishes the facts of Johnson v. *634 Dufrene, (La.App.
  • Maze v. Grogan 694 So. 2d 1168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    In support of their claim that the conduct of Grogan fell within the course and scope of his employment as a police officer, (La.App.
  • Michelet v. Scheuring SEC. Services Inc. 680 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • Patterson v. Al Copeland Enterprises, Inc. 667 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • Fallon v. Sullivan 650 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • Weatherford v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 637 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Stapleton v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp. 639 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Smith v. Rice 613 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    To prevail, and its progeny.
  • Ellis v. Dover Elevator Co. 597 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    4th Cir.1983) ($125,000.00); (La.App.
  • Aaron v. New Orleans Riverwalk Ass'n 580 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • Barnes v. Thames 578 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • Williams v. Markel Lumber Co. 566 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    Austin v. Pascarelli, supra at p. 1208 ; (La.App.
  • Castille v. All American Ins. Co. 550 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    3rd Cir.1984), stated: `"The criteria for determining when an employee, who while driving a motor vehicle, (La.App.
  • Lawless v. New Orleans Police Dept. 550 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • Austin v. Pascarelli 522 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    at 1112 (La.App., 4th Cir., 1983) this Court discussed the factors to be considered in determining whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment during a given incident: *1208 Article 2320 of the Louisiana Civil Code is the governing authority in this matter.
  • Hebert v. Witherington 520 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    3rd Cir.1984), stated: "The criteria for determining when an employee, who while driving a motor vehicle, (La.App.
  • Gardner v. Miller's Group Insurance Co. 517 So. 2d 1048 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Art. 2320 which reads in pertinent part: “Masters 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 language “in the exercise of the functions in which they are employed” is the codal equivalent of the more common phrase “in the course and scope of employment.” (La.App.
  • Mattingly v. State, Dept. of Health 509 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Toomer v. Cash 506 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Torres v. US Fidelity and Guar. Co. 499 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • Sherlock v. Berry 487 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • Diaz v. Allstate Insurance Co. 480 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Champagne v. Lee 470 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    Here, analyzing the cases cited by the plaintiff, we find the awards for general damages for similar injuries to that sustained by the plaintiff range from the $167,000.00 award in Rollings v. Winn Dixie of Louisiana, Inc., (4th Cir.1983), to the $350,000.00 award in Thibodaux v. Acme Truck Lines, Inc., (5th Cir.1983), (4th Cir.1983).
  • Morris v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. 461 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Watson v. Ben 459 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    The criteria for determining when an employee, who while driving a motor vehicle, (La.App.