DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Messina v. Societe Francaise De Bienfaissance Et D'Assistance Mutuelle De La Nouvelle Orl…, 170 So. 801.

20 citing documents.

  • Liberty Mut. Ins. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. 579 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • Freyoux v. Estate of Bousegard 484 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Garlington v. Kingsley 289 So. 2d 88 La. 1974
    797 (La.App.Orl.1934) (dictum); Messina v. Societe Francaise De Bienfaissance, etc., (dictum); (which, after finding the doctrine firmly established, theorizes that "* * * to the extent that such institutions administer to the indigent sick, they are discharging governmental functions * * *"); D'Antoni v. Sara Mayo Hospital, 144
  • Station v. Travelers Insurance Co. 236 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    (Orl.La.App., 1936) an externe, who administered medication under orders of the patient’s personal physician, was held to be an “employee” of the physician and not of the hospital.
  • Grant v. Touro Infirmary 223 So. 2d 148 La. 1969
    466 ; Jordan v. Touro Infirmary, supra; Messina v. Societe Francaise de Bienfaissance, La.App., ; Jurjevich v. *213 Hotel Dieu, La.App., ; D’Antoni v. Sara Mayo Hospital, La.App., ; Humphreys v. McComiskey, La.
  • Meynier v. De Paul Hospital 218 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    Counsel for defendants seems to rest his defense on the illustrations of professional and nonprofessional error recited in Messina v. Societe Francaise De Bienfaissance, etc., La.App., , and argues that in order to be able to hold the hospital liable the act or nonaction of the employee which results in the damage complained of must be a nonprofessional error.
  • Tyler v. Touro Infirmary 207 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    In Messina v. Societe Francaise De Bienfaissance etc., La.App., , the author, in a concurring opinion, said: “ * * * If, in the selection of these employees, the hospital authorities have exercised due care, I feel that it would be improper to hold the hospital itself liable for errors of judgment which may be committed by such employees in carrying out the special orders of
  • Danks v. Maher 177 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    As pointed out in the concurring opinion in Messina v. Societe Francaise de Bienfaissance, etc., La.App., , 806: "If the act required to be done does not require the exercise of that special skill, or that special discretion, which has supposedly been developed by the training, and is an act which may just as well be done by an unskilled or untrained employee, or if the error or mistake results not from improper exercise
  • Smith v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 164 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    222 ; Messina v. Societe Francaise De Bienfaissance, etc., La.App.Orl., ; and Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App.
  • Musmeci v. American Automobile Insurance Company 146 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    666 ; Messina v. Societe Francaise De Bienfaissance, Etc., La.App., ; Brooks v. Bass, La.App., 184 So.
  • D'Antoni v. Sara Mayo Hospital 144 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    132 ; Messina v. Societe Francaise de Bienfaissance etc., La.App., ; Lusk v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., 199 So.
  • West v. Carbone 126 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    85 ; Messina v. Societe Francaise De Bienfaissance, La.App.Orleans, 1936, ; Arceneaux v. Louisiana Highway Commission, La.App.Orleans, 1941, ; and Simoneaux v. Gonzales, La.App.
  • St. Julian v. STATE, DEPT. OF INSTITUTIONS 82 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    We do not feel persuasive cases called to our attention by the State holding charitable hospitals exempt from liability for the torts of their agents, such as Jurjevich v. Hotel Dieu, La.App., ; Messina v. Societe Francaise, etc., La.App., , for reasons of public *88 policy similar to those by which States have in the past been accorded such immunity.
  • Turner v. Maryland Casualty Co. 44 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1950
    85 ; Messina v. Societe Francaise De Bienfaissance, La.App., Orleans, ; Arceneaux v. Louisiana Highway Commission, La.App., Orleans, and Simoneaux v. Gonzales, La.App., First Circuit, .” *377 Therefore, plaintiff should have been granted the relief prayed for in his original and supplemental motion for rehearing.
  • Reagor v. First Nat. Life Ins. Co. 33 So. 2d 521 La. 1948
    App., Orleans, ; Arceneaux v. Louisiana Highway Commission, La.App., Orleans, and Simoneaux v. Gonzales, La.App., First Circuit, .
  • Harvey v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 6 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    132 ; Messina v. Societe Francaise de Bienfaissance, etc., La.App., ; Brooks v. Bass et al., La.App., 184 So.
  • Cornell v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. 8 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    726 ; Messina v. Societe Francaise, etc., La.App., .
  • Lusk v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 199 So. 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    See Messina v. Societe Francaise De Bienfassance, etc., La.App., , and Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co., La.App., 169 So.
  • Dandridge v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 192 So. 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    132 ; Messina v. Societe Francaise, etc., La.App., ; Revised Civil Code, Article 3060.
  • Dumaine v. Gay, Sullivan & Co. 171 So. 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
    decided November 30, 1936 (not yet reported ’[in State Reports]).