Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Godchaux v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 81 So. 706.
- Scott Hargrave, Et Ux. v. Cecil J. Delaughter La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
- Hargrave v. Delaughter 10 So. 3d 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
- LeBrane v. Lewis 292 So. 2d 216 La. 1974
-
Bourque v. Lohr
248 So. 2d 901
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
See also Godchaux v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company, , 81 So.
- Blanchard v. Ogima 215 So. 2d 902 La. 1968
- Lewis v. State 176 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
-
Golmon v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York
146 So. 2d 461
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
With that rule of law we agree, but we note that in the cases cited by plaintiff, the erring employee was either clearly within the scope of employment or recovery was denied for the reason that the court concluded that the act of the employee was not in the scope of his employment, as in Godchaux v. Texas & Pacific Railroad Company, , 81 So.
- Ramsey v. Kallio 62 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1952
- Starnes v. Monsour's No. 4 30 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
-
Healey v. Playland Amusements, Inc.
199 So. 682
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
225 ; Godchaux v. Texas & P. Railroad, , 81 So.
-
Wisemore v. First Nat. Life Ins. Co.
183 So. 247
La. 1938
“The rule, as laid down in all these cases, is that, for the master to be liable, the injury, must have been caused by some act expressly or by reasonable implication within the scope of the agent’s employment.” In the case of Godchaux v. Texas & P. R. Co., , 81 So.
- Wilson v. Yazoo M. v. R. Co. 181 So. 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
- Comfort v. Monteleone 163 So. 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
- Bearman v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. 134 So. 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
- May v. Yellow Cab Co. 6 La. App. 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
- Valley v. Clay 92 So. 308 La. 1922