Cager v. Williams
Cager v. Williams, 861 So. 2d 239 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003).
Cited by
- Marion Felps v. Landmark Event Staffing Services, Inc., Redwood Fire and Casualty Insurance Company … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
- Jane Doe v. Scott M. Hawkins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
- Doe v. Hawkins 42 So. 3d 1000 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
- Tatum v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 982 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Benoit v. Capitol Mfg. Co. 617 So. 2d 477
Opinion text
I íMURRAY, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Mr. Cager’s injuries arose out of an employment-rooted dispute. This case is similar to Benoit v. Capitol Manufacturing Co., 617 So.2d 477 (La.1993). In Benoit , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a fight between two employees over whether the door to their place of employment should be left open or closed was employment rooted. The Court reasoned that the temperature of the workplace was an employment issue. By analogy, the instant dispute between two Loomis employees over driving conditions can be classified as employment rooted. Given that the Loomis employees were required to ride together in the armored truck to conduct their job duties, this could be an employment issue. It follows then that Mr. Cager may be able to establish at trial that the intentional tort was committed by his co-worker within the course and scope of employment. For this reason, I respectfully dissent.