Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bougon v. Volunteers of America, 151 So. 797.

17 citing documents.

Garlington v. Kingsley 289 So. 2d 88 La. 1974
466 (2nd Cir. 1929) (amazingly applying the rule of stare decisis); (dictum); Messina v. Societe Francaise De Bienfaissance, etc., 170 So.
Grant v. Touro Infirmary 223 So. 2d 148 La. 1969
It has been held to apply only to beneficiaries of the charity (which includes paying patients), but not to a third-party stranger ( , La.App.Orl.1934) ; it does not apply when corporate negligence can be proven, that is, if it is shown that the institution was negligent in the selection of its employees (see authorities above cited and also 15 Am.Jur.
Hidalgo v. Dupuy 122 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
189 , ; Bougon v. Volunteers of America, La.App.Orl., .
West v. Monroe Bakery, Inc. 46 So. 2d 122 La. 1950
App.1934, , involved an action brought against the employer of the tortfeasor and its liability insurance carrier.
Jackson v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. 23 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Jurjevich v. Hotel Dieu 11 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
In Bougon v. Volunteers of America, et al., La.App., , after recognizing that our courts have upheld the doctrine of immunity of charitable institutions from the effects of the delicts or wrongs of their employees, held that this doctrine did not apply to third persons, saying: "But there is no case in Louisiana which has extended the doctrine of the Jordan case so
Mock v. Maryland Casualty Co. 6 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
In Bougon v. Volunteers of America, La.App., , we said: "In our opinion, this particular section of the act intends to limit the action of the third person against the insurer to such cases as would involve a liability of the insured and within the coverage of the policy."
Lusk v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 199 So. 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
See Bougon v. Volunteers of America, La.App., .
Burglass v. Burglass 193 So. 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Nor is there anything, in our opinion, in Bougon v. Volunteers of America, La.App., , where we said that Act No. 55 of 1930, which amended Act No. 253 of 1918, “greatly increased the privilege of the injured person by conferring a right of direct action against the insurer without the necessity of establishing the bankruptcy of the insured and in advance of the securing of a judgment against it
Jones v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. 185 So. 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
In the case of Bougon v. Volunteers of America, La.App.1934, , we discussed the effect of Act No. 55 of 1930 upon Act No. 253 of 1918, with particular reference to the two sections relied upon by counsel in this case.
Massony v. Truett Nash Motor Co. 177 So. 829 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1938
Bougon v. Volunteers of America, La.App., ; Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Company, La.App., 169 So.
Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America 169 So. 132 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1936
wherein it is said: “Under the articles of our Civil ’ Code and under the common law as well, an individual is bound to make compensation for his negligent acts causing damage to others, whether his motives be charitable or otherwise.
Martin v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 162 So. 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
in which we said: “ * * * The evidence in the record is overwhelmingly to the effect that the truck turned the corner at an excessive rate of speed, which is estimated to have been about thirty miles per hour, in violation of the city ordinance, article 6, section 5, paragraph A, which provides that: ‘A vehicle
Blitz v. Munson 159 So. 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
This question has been decided advei* .
Jones v. Shehee Ford Wagon & Harness Co. 157 So. 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
This exception is not urged here and is not tenable, , and by this court in Rambin v. Southern Sales Co., 145 So.
Unser v. Baptist Rescue Mission 157 So. 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
we considered a contention identical with that which now confronts us. There we held that there is a distinction between a tort committed by a servant of a charitable organization resulting in damage to a recipient or beneficiary of the charity and a similar tort resulting in damage to a third party, and we conclude
Criticized U-Drive-It Car Co. v. Freidman 153 So. 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
As to the others we can only repeat what we said when, , counsel for the defendant insurer criticized our views as set forth in Edwards v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, supra, as being contrary to the weight of authority: “Just a word about the Edwards Case, which, we are informed, has met with considerable criticism, as distinguished an authority as t