Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dyer v. Rapides Lumber Co., 98 So. 677.

44 citing documents.

Benoit v. Capitol Mfg. Co. 617 So. 2d 477 La. 1993
Glory v. ZUPPARDO'S ECONO. SUPERMARKET, INC. 532 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Canter v. Koehring Company 283 So. 2d 716 La. 1973
Rogers v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 173 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Danielsen v. Security Van Lines, Inc. 158 So. 2d 609 La. 1963
O'CONNOR v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. 87 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Trappey v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. 86 So. 2d 515 La. 1956
Coleman v. Sears, Roebuck & Company 83 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
necessary that the work of the employee be hazardous if the performance of the work requires that the employee be in proximity of dangerous work being done by others or his employment obligates him to be near machinery or substances which characterize the business as hazardous, and, in support thereof, cites these authorities: Dewey v. Lutcher-Moore Lumber Co., supra; , 98 So.
Johnson v. Cabot Carbon Company 81 So. 2d 2 La. 1955
In the case of Dyer v. Rapides Lumber Company [In re Dyer], , 98 So.
Green v. Heard Motor Co. 71 So. 2d 849 La. 1954
Gross v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. 25 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Milton v. T. J. Moss Tie Co. 20 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
In its opinion, the Supreme Court approvingly referred to Dyer et al. v. Rapides Lumber Company, reported in , 98 So.
Harvey v. Caddo De Soto Cotton Oil Co. 6 So. 2d 747 La. 1942
Harvey v. Caddo De Soto Cotton Oil Co. 6 So. 2d 747 La. 1942
Goins v. Shreveport Yellow Cabs, Inc. 200 So. 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Johnson v. Zurich General AcciDent & Liability Ins. 161 So. 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Thomas v. Shippers' Compress & Warehouse Co. 158 So. 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Holland v. Continental Casualty Co. 155 So. 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Smith v. Brown Paper Mill Co., Inc. 152 So. 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Ford v. City of Alexandria 151 So. 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Champagne v. Welsh Motor Car Co. 150 So. 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Thompson v. Bradford Motor Freight Line 148 So. 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Keyhea v. Woodard-Walker Lumber Co. 147 So. 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Selser v. Bragmans Bluff Lumber Co., Inc. 146 So. 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
This is certainly the view that has been taken in street accidents, where relief has been allowed in certain cases and not in others.” , 98 So.
Crysel v. R.W. Briggs Co. 146 So. 489 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1933
1093 , ; Ferguson v. Cady-McFarland Gravel Co., 7 La.
Kern v. Southport Mill, Ltd. 141 So. 19 La. 1932
Catherin v. Commercial Casualty Ins. 138 So. 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Richardson v. Crescent Forwarding & Transp. Co. 135 So. 688 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Labostrie v. Weber 130 So. 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Patrick v. Grayson & Yeary 127 So. 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
App. 272 , the court said: “The statute is intended to provide protection to the employees against all risks to which they may be exposed by the employment ( , 98 So.
Plick v. Toye Bros. Auto & Taxicab Co. 127 So. 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Dyer vs. Rapides Lumber Co., , 98 So.
Dartez v. Sterling Sugars, Inc. 7 La. App. 414 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1928
1094 , , deceased was killed at night in the woods in an isolated spot by unknown p'arties while he was making a fire in an engine of defendant company.
Pickett v. Southern Carbon Co. 7 La. App. 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Dyer vs. Rapides Lumber Co., , 98 So.
Phelps v. United Carbon Co. 8 La. App. 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Dyer vs. Rapides Lumber Co., , 98 So.
Dimes v. Lassiter 7 La. App. 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Joseph v. Board of Commissioners 5 La. App. 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Conaway v. Marine Oil Co. 110 So. 181 La. 1926
Schexneider v. General American Tank Car Corp. 5 La. App. 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
Dyer vs. Rapides Lumber Co., , 98 South.
Flowers v. Williams-Rieves Lumber Co. 5 La. App. 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
In the case of Dyer vs. Rapides Lumber Co., , 98 South.
Gilyard v. O'Reilly 4 La. App. 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
Dyer vs. Rapides Lumber Co., , 98 South.
Conaway & Clark v. Marine Oil Co. 5 La. App. 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
determine whether injuries to a workman arise out of his employment is not whether the cause of the injury, that is, the agency producing it, was something peculiar to the line of employment, but whether the nature of the employment was such that the risk from which the inr jury resulted was greater for the workman than for a person not engaged in the employment.” In Dyer vs. Rapides Lumber Co., , 98 South.
Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc. 103 So. 303 La. 1924
Clark v. Alexandria Cooperage & Lumber Co. 102 So. 96 La. 1924
Ferguson v. Cady-McFarland Gravel Co. 101 So. 248 La. 1924
onger reasons the employer should be held liable when the injury results from the tort of a fellow employee, as the employer and his employees have contracted among themselves to come under the terms of the Employers’ Liability Act, a statute essentially intended to provide insurance for the employee against “all the risks to which he may be exposed by his employment.” , 98 South.