Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Haddad v. Commercial Motor Truck Co., 84 So. 197.

33 citing documents.

Robbins v. Caraway-Rhodes Veterinary Hospital 315 So. 2d 688 La. 1975
Davis v. Grain Dealers Mutual Ins. 128 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Allen v. Travelers Insurance Co. 124 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Estaves v. Faucheux 111 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Soon after the enactment of Act 20 of 1914 our Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the operator of a motor vehicle should be considered as employed in a , 84 So.
Freeman v. Clark 88 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
688 ; Haddad v. Commercial Motor Truck Company, 1920, , 84 So.
O'CONNOR v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. 87 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Edwards v. Louisiana Forestry Commission 60 So. 2d 449 La. 1952
Griffin v. Catherine Sugar Co. 54 So. 2d 121 La. 1951
Robin v. Brandin 45 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Gallien v. Judge, supra; McAllister v. Peoples Homestead and Savings Ass’n, supra; Richardson v. American Employees Insurance Co., La.App., ; , 84 So.
Reagor v. First Nat. Life Ins. Co. 33 So. 2d 521 La. 1948
Richardson v. American Employers' Ins. Co. 31 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
The operation of motor vehicles was early held, , 898, 84 So.
Collins v. Spielman 8 So. 2d 608 La. 1942
Both of these vehicles are motor driven and, , 84 So.
Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York 7 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Williams v. Westdale Corporation 3 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
To sustain the second ground, , 84 So.
Allen v. Yantis 196 So. 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
In an early case, , 84 So.
Staples v. Henderson Jersey Farms, Inc. 181 So. 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Wood v. Peoples Homestead & Savings Ass'n 177 So. 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Comeaux v. South Coast Corporation 175 So. 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
See Crews v. Levitan Smart Shops, Inc., supra; , 84 So.
Hecker v. Betz 172 So. 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Crews v. Levitan Smart Shops, Inc. 171 So. 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Holland v. Continental Casualty Co. 155 So. 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
883, 884 , that “One driving, selling, and delivering motor vehicles is engaged in the operation of ‘engines’ and ‘other forms of machinery,’ within the terms of the Employers’ Liability Act.” The Supreme Court, , 84 So.
Williams v. O. K. Const. Co. 151 So. 784 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1934
Moritz v. K. C. S. Drug Co., Inc. 149 So. 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Tregre v. Kratzer 148 So. 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
In that case, the Court of Appeal referred to a , 84 So.
Snear v. Eiserloh 144 So. 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
It has several times been held that the driver of a motortruck is within the protection of these statutes, , 84 So.
Hinton v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co. 139 So. 554 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1932
782 ); also that a part of his duties was that of driving, selling, and delivering motor vehicles, which constituted the occupation of operating “engines” and “other forms of machinery” which are termed “hazardous” under the act ( , 84 So.
Lemmler v. Fabacher 139 So. 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
899 , , 9 A. L. R. 1380; Plick v. Toye Bros. Auto & Taxicab Co., Inc., 13 La.
Richardson v. Crescent Forwarding & Transp. Co. 135 So. 688 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
orming services arising out of and incidental to his employment in the course of his employer’s trade, business or occupation in the following hazardous trades, businesses and occupations: * * * “ ‘The installation, repair, erection, removal or operation of boilers, furnaces, engines and other forms of machinery.’ “In considering this section, the Supreme Court, , 84 So.
Labostrie v. Weber 130 So. 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
ing services arising out of and incidental to his employment in the course of his employer’s trade, business or occupation in the following hazardous trades, businesses and occupations: * * * “The installation, repair, erection, removal or operation of boilers, furnaces, en-g’nes and other forms of machinery.” *243 In considering this section, the Supreme Court, in Haddad v. Commercial Truck Co , , 84 So.
Plick v. Toye Bros. Auto & Taxicab Co. 127 So. 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Youngblood v. Colfax Motor Co. 125 So. 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Haddad vs. Commercial Motor Truck Co., , 84 So.
Hicks v. Parish of Union 6 La. App. 543 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1927
Besides, in Haddad vs. Commercial Motor Truck Co., , 84 So.
Powell v. Spencer Bros. 5 La. App. 218 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1926
“One employed in driving a motor truck is engaged in the operation of an engine within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act providing compensation for persons injured in such employment.” Haddad vs. Commercial Motor Truck Co., , 84 South.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by