Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Gallaher v. Ricketts, 191 So. 713.

18 citing documents.

Distinguished Leger v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 251 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
Drude v. Ryals 216 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Co., La.App., ; Wills v. Correge, La.App., ; Romero v. Hogue, La.App., and Gallaher v. Ricketts, La.App., .
Harris v. Hymel Store Co. 200 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
We discussed this at considerable length in Gallaher v. Ricketts, La.App., , and having discussed various cases in which compensation was awarded to an injured employee, we said: `* * * we have no difficulty in seeing the distinction between all of those cases, most of them having arisen as the result of suits for compensation where the employee himself was injured.
Beard v. Seamon 175 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
We believe that the facts of this case are very similar to those in the case of Gallaher v. Ricketts, La.App., .
Little v. Caterpillar Tractor Company 169 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Romero v. Hogue, La.App., ; Gallaher v. Ricketts et al., La.App., , and cases therein cited.
Bruno v. American Employers Insurance 164 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Gallaher v. Ricketts, La.App., (on rehearing).
Wills v. Correge 148 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
App., ; Gallaher v. Ricketts, La.App., ; Marquez v. LeBlanc, La.App., 143 So.
Barnes v. Spikes 148 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
This is evident from the jurisprudence, and a discussion of the liability of a master or employer in such a case as the one before us is found in Gallaher v. Ricketts, La.App., , 715: "It is well settled that, as a general rule, an employee, in going to and from his place of employment, is not considered as acting within the scope of his employment to such an extent as to render his employer liable to third persons for his negligent acts.
O'BRIEN v. Traders and General Insurance Company 136 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
In the case of Gallaher v. Ricketts et al., La.App., , the Court held that the employer was not liable for injuries to a third person caused by a newspaper carrier's negligent operation of his automobile while on his way to attend a "pep" meeting being held at his employer's place of business, although an allowance was made by the employer for expenses in operating the
McCutchen v. Fruge 132 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
351 (decree recalled on other grounds, ); Dixie Machine, Welding & Metal Works v. Boulet Transp.
La Borde v. McBride 112 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
We discussed ‘this at considerable length in Gallaher v. Ricketts, La.App., , and, having discussed various cases in which compensation was awarded to an injured employee, we said: “ * * * we have no difficulty in seeing the distinction between all of those cases, most of them having arisen as the result of suits for compensation, where the employee himself was injured.
Romero v. Hogue 77 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
This is evident from the jurisprudence, and a discussion of the liability of a master or employer in such a case as the one before us is found in Gallaher v. Ricketts, La.App., , 715: "It is well settled that, as a general rule, an employee, in going to and from his place of employment, is not considered as acting within the scope of his employment to such an extent as to render his employer liable to third persons for his negligent acts.
Amyx v. Henry 69 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
351 ; rev. on other grounds, ; Coon v. Monroe Scrap Material Co., La.App., 1939, 191 So.
Boyce v. Greer 15 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
Co., La.App., , and Gallaher v. Ricketts et al., La.App., , relied upon by plaintiff, the general rule in this State is held to be that an employee going to and from his place of employment is not considered as acting within the scope of his employment.
Kruckeberg v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. 13 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
351 and , where this court held, on rehearing, that the Times-Picayune Publishing Company was not responsible for the negligent acts of its newspaper carrier, who ran over the plaintiff in his automobile while on his way to attend a "pep" meeting held at the company's offices.
McAllister v. Jackson Brewing Co. 6 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
The cases of Gallaher v. Ricketts, La.App., , and Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. Standard Coffee Company, La.App., (in which the Marquez case is cited with approval), are likewise inapplicable to the facts presented in the instant case.
Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. Standard Coffee Co. 2 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
this court, through Judge Janvier, said: "It is well settled that, as a general rule, an employee, in going to and from his place of employment, is not considered as acting within the scope of his employment to such an extent as to render his employer liable to third persons for his negligent acts.
Whittington v. Western Union Tel. Co. 1 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
860 ; Gallaher v. Ricketts, La.App., .