DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Walker v. Lykes Brothers-Ripley S. S. Co., 166 So. 624.

23 citing documents.

  • Chancellor v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets, Inc 363 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Company (La.App.Orl.1936), , and quoted with approval the following language from that case: “Furthermore, the application of the exception to the general rule is without pertinence, unless the location of the master’s premises is such that, contiguous thereto, there are hazards which the plaintiff necessarily encounters in going to or departin
  • Fabre v. Travelers Insurance Company 286 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Templet v. Intracoastal Truck Line, Inc. 230 So. 2d 74 La. 1969
    532 (1923); Williams v. Sewerage & Water Bd.
  • Gorings v. Edwards 222 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    See also Nesmith vs. Reich Bros., (1943), Walker vs. Lykes Bros.-Ripley SS Co., (1936).
  • Templet v. Intracoastal Truck Line, Inc. 217 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Co., where recovery was denied for other reasons, the court stated, at 166 So.
  • Carter v. Lanzetta 193 So. 2d 259 La. 1966
    citing Cudahy Packing Co. of Nebraska v. Parramore, 263 U.S. 418 , 44 S.Ct.
  • Jones v. Southern General Insurance 188 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    It is earnestly contended by counsel for defendant that the general rule above stated is subject to an exception in cases in which the furnishing of transportation by the employer is an incident to the employment, citing Walker v. Lykes Bros., La.App., ; Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co., Inc., 219 La.
  • Peterson v. Williams 175 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Walker v. Lykes Brothers-Ripley S. S. Company, La.App., (Orl.
  • Verret v. Travelers Insurance Co. 166 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    In the case of Walker v. Lykes Brothers-Ripley S. S. Co., La.App., , the Court refused to apply the “Threshold” or “Proximity Doctrine” to a longshoreman who was injured in a public street a short distance from the public dock where the plaintiff had been working.
  • Kerner v. Service Contracting, Inc. 108 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1958
    846 , ; Neyland v. Maryland Casualty Co., La.App., ; Walker v. Lykes Brothers-Ripley S. S. Co., La.App., .
  • Hay v. Travelers Insurance Company 106 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
    App., ; Walker v. Lykes Brothers-Ripley S. S. Co., Inc., La.App., ; Thibodeaux v. Yount Lee Oil Co., 13 La.App.
  • Williams v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 90 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    which the way extended was not only immediately adjacent to the plant, but, by means of switches, was connected with it, and in principle it was as-though upon the actual premises of the employer.” We believe that the facts in this- case are more.analogous-to those of Walker v. Lykes Brothers-Ripley S. S. Co., La.App.1936, 627 , where the only ingress and egress to the employer’s place of business was by crossing a dangerous road.
  • Hammer v. Lazarone 87 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    App.], [627], presented a factual situation almost identical to the one set forth by the allegations of the petition in the present case, and the Court in denying recovery held as follows : “ ‘Can it be said that a servant, after successfully surmounting the obstacles surrounding him, may again, of his own volition, bare him
  • Le Blanc v. Travelers Ins. Co. 68 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    Co., Inc., La.App., ; Babineaux v. Giblin, supra; Jinks v. Burton Sutton Oil Co., Inc., La.App., .
  • Doyle v. Penton Lumber Co. 56 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    me of the accident and the case is thereby removed from the proximity rule, and, two, that the only hazard the decedent had to surmount was to cross the railroad at the gravel road and that having done so, the subsequent hazard of walking on the railroad right of way, which was not necessary, was assumed by the decedent, citing the case of Walker v. Lykes Brothers-Ripley S. S. Co., Inc., La.App., .
  • Attaway v. Fidelity Casualty Co. of New York 39 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    App., ; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Parramore, 263 U.S. 418 , 44 S.Ct.
  • Neyland v. Maryland Casualty Co. 28 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
    App., , we said: "* * * it is a general rule, in workmen's compensation cases, that the injury suffered by an employee in going to and returning from his employer's premises, where the work of his employment is carried on, does not arise out of his employment so as to entitle him to compensation.
  • Nesmith v. Reich Bros. 14 So. 2d 767 La. 1943
    813 ; Walker v. Lykes Bros.Ripley S. S. Co., by the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans, .
  • Rhinehart v. T. Smith Son 14 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    Co., La.App., ; Kern v. Southport Mill, 174 La.
  • Cole v. U.S. Fidelity Guaranty Co. 6 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
  • Rogers v. Mengel Co. 187 So. 297 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    We agree with the lower court that the plaintiff in this case exposed himself to the risk which caused his injury at a location separate and distinct from the premises of his employer (as in the case of Walker v. Lykes Bros.-Ripley S. S. Co., La.App., ), and that he did this for reasons personal to himself and after the defendants had lost all supervision and control, actual and constructive, over his movements.
  • Osborne v. McWilliams Dredging Co. 176 So. 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
    t then arrange to go to his home.” Exceptors rely upon the fact that Osborne was not on the premises of the employer and was not being transported in a boat furnished by them and was not making a trip which might have been considered as within the contemplation of the contract of employment, and they point to the well-recognized general rule which, in Walker v. Lykes Bros.-Ripley S. S. Co., Inc., , we stated as follows: * * * “It is a general rule, in workmen’s compensation cases, that the injur
  • Haynes v. Luckenbach Gulf S. S. Co. 170 So. 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
    Dawson v. Jahncke Dry Docks, Inc., supra; White v. J. P. Florio & Co., 12 La.App.