Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Crews v. Levitan Smart Shops, Inc., 171 So. 608.

18 citing documents.

Allen v. Travelers Insurance Co. 124 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
70 , and those expounded by our brothers of the Fourth Circuit (formerly Orleans) in Crews v. Levitan Smart Shops, La.App., , Comeaux v. South Coast Corporation, La.App., 175 So.
Viator v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc. 102 So. 2d 461 La. 1958
265 , Crews v. Levitan Smart Shops, Inc., (rode in an automobile as passenger to perform duties of sales woman), La.App., , Washington v. Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans (served as water boy), La.
Freeman v. Clark 88 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
63 ; Crews v. Levitan Smart Shops, Inc., La.App.1937, ; Pierre v. Farm Development Corporation, La.App.
O'CONNOR v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. 87 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Co., La.App., ; Crews v. Levitan Smart Shops, Inc., La.App., .
Rosenquist v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company 78 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
48 ; Crews v. Levitan Smart Shops, Inc., La.App., .
Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co. 54 So. 2d 121 La. 1951
*123 There appears to be a conflict between the courts of appeal with respect to the first of these questions, the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans holding that the transportation of workers in motor vehicles does make a business hazardous within the contemplation of the compensation statute, ; Comeaux v. South Coast Corporation, 175 So.
Bruns v. Bemis Bros. Bag Co. 8 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
v. Levitan Smart Shops, La.App., ; Stieffel v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., 188 La.
Stephens v. Catalano 7 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Also, see Crews v. Levitan Smart Shops, La.App., .
Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York 7 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
we went further and held that a saleswoman who was required to ride from house to house in a motor vehicle should be considered as within the protection of the act since she was brought into contact with an automobile used as a necessary instrumentality in the business of her employer.
Allen v. Yantis 196 So. 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
v. Levitan Smart Shops, Inc., et al., .
Lewis v. A. Moresi Co. 196 So. 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
and Comeaux v. South Coast Corporation, 175 So.
Robichaux v. Realty Operators, Inc. 191 So. 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
v. Levitan Smart Shops, Inc., et al., La.App., ; Labostrie v. Weber, 15 La.App.
Gray v. Tremont Lumber Co. 185 So. 314 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
ses of the work are hazardous and are within the contemplation of the compensation statutes, all employees engaged therein, or necessarily brought into direct contact therewith, are afforded the protection which the compensation statutes were designed to furnish.” This comment of the court was approved and quoted in a later case decided by the same court, viz., Crews v. Levitan Smart Shops, Inc., .
Staples v. Henderson Jersey Farms, Inc. 181 So. 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
See Stockstill v. Sears-Roebuck & Co., supra; Crews v. Levitan Smart Shops, Inc., La.App., ; McAllister v. Peoples Homestead & Savings Ass’n, La.App., 171 So.
Comeaux v. South Coast Corporation 178 So. 513 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
142 , , where, in a situation identical with that in the present case, we remanded the matter to allow the amendment of the pleadings and proof appropriate to an action in compensation.
Comeaux v. Southcoast Corporation 176 So. 142 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1937
in a situation which we believe identical with that now under consideration and in which we said: “We have concluded to remand the case to •permit amendment of the pleadings and proof appropriate to an action in compensation.” For the reasons assigned, our original decree is amended to the extent that this matt
Comeaux v. South Coast Corporation 175 So. 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Hecker v. Betz 172 So. 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by