DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cado v. Many, 180 So. 185.

16 citing documents.

  • Laird v. Travelers Indemnity Company 236 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
    *565 Going to and from lunch is ordinarily not a function in which an employee is employed, and the employer is ordinarily not liable for the employee's torts while going to and from lunch; Whittington v. Western Union Tel.
  • Averette v. Travelers Insurance Company 174 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    See: Cado v. Many (1938) La.App., ; Whittington v. Western Union Tel.
  • Sweet v. Trahan 159 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    rse of the performance of the task he deviates momentarily to go on some mission of his own or to do something that is not connected with his work, and it is during the course of such deviation that through his fault damage is caused to someone, he will be held to have been outside of and beyond the course and scope of his employment and his employer is not answerable.'" In Cado v. Many, La.App., a delivery boy was riding a bicycle belonging to his employer, while on his way home to lunch.
  • Wills v. Correge 148 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
    Co., La.App., ; Gallaher v. Ricketts, supra; Cado v. Many, La.App., .
  • Barnes v. Spikes 148 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    and reached the conclusion that it is only where the trip to or from work is required by the master to be made in an automobile, or other vehicle furnished, or where the use of the vehicle may be regarded as for the owner's purposes, as where it makes it possible for the employee to arrive more quickly at the place
  • O'BRIEN v. Traders and General Insurance Company 136 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    and reached the conclusion that it is only where the trip to or from work is required by the master to be made in an automobile, or other vehicle furnished, or where the use of the vehicle may be regarded as for the owner's purposes, as where it makes it possible for the employee to arrive more quickly at the place
  • Harding v. Christiana 103 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    App.1938, ; Futch v. W. Horace Williams Co., La.App.1946, ; Romero v. Hogue, La.App.1954, .
  • Emmco Insurance v. California Co. 101 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1958
    Cado v. Many, La.App., ; Whittington v. Western Union Tel.
  • Romero v. Hogue 77 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    and reached the conclusion that it is only where the trip to or from work is required by the master to be made in an automobile, or other vehicle furnished, or where the use of the vehicle may be regarded as for the owner's purposes, as where it makes it possible for the employee to arrive more quickly at the place
  • Boyce v. Greer 15 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    In Cado v. Many, La.App., , it is held that "it is only where there is some distinguishing fact — such as the performance at the same time of service for the master, or when the master furnishes the vehicle in order that the servant may more quickly return to work — that there is liability in the master".
  • Kruckeberg v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. 13 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    Many authorities were cited by us in support of our opinion, including Cado et al. v. Many, La.App., ; Marquez v. Le Blanc, La.App., 143 So.
  • Pearce v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. 8 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    670 ; Cado v. Many, La.App., ; Duffy v. Hickey, 151 La.
  • Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. Standard Coffee Co. 2 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    and reached the conclusion that it is only where the trip to or from work is required by the master to be made in an automobile, or other vehicle furnished, or where the use of the vehicle may be regarded as for the owner's purposes, as where it makes it possible for the employee to arrive more quickly at the place
  • Whittington v. Western Union Tel. Co. 1 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    Cado v. Many, La.App., ; Kennedy v. Louisiana Stores Company, La.App., 186 So.
  • Greeves v. S. H. Kress Co. 198 So. 171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    We do not see that the testimony on behalf of defendant is negative merely because its witnesses deny that something happened.” In Cado et al. v. Many, La.App., , after quoting the criticism of Mr. Wigmore on the negative testimony rule, we said with reference to the evidence under consideration: “But we do not view the testimony tendered by defendant as negative.
  • Kennedy v. Louisiana Stores Co. 186 So. 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    835 ; Cado v. Many, La.App., ; and Berry’s Law of Automobiles, 7th Ed., Vol.