Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Harvey v. Caddo De Soto Cotton Oil Co., 6 So. 2d 747.

20 citing documents.

Duncan v. South Cent. Bell Telephone 554 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
(1942), that the test enunciated in Kern was the adoption of a more liberal, broader view with respect to the test to be applied in determining whether an accident arose out of the employment.
Jackson v. Long 289 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Lisonbee v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. 259 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1942); Kern v. Southport Mill, supra.
Smith v. Orleans Management Corporation 242 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
(1942); Kern v. Southport Mill, 174 La.
Gorings v. Edwards 222 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
the rule announced by the Kern case was quoted and followed by the Supreme Court as being a broader and more liberal rule.
Powell v. Gold Crown Stamp Company 204 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
denied); McCain v. Travelers Insurance Company, La.App., (3rd Cir. 1963); Harvey v. Caddo DeSoto Cotton Oil Company, Inc., , (1942); Edwards v. Louisiana Forestry Commission, 221 La.
Rogers v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company 173 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
The rule announced and applied in the Kern case was quoted and followed by our Supreme Court in the later case of Harvey v. Caddo De Soto Cotton Oil Company, Inc., , .
Raney v. McDaniel 165 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Nesmith v. Reich Bros., 203 La.
Danielsen v. Security Van Lines, Inc. 158 So. 2d 609 La. 1963
and Dyer v. Rapides Lumber Co., 154 La.
Mabry v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York 155 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1963
Nesmith v. Reich Bros., 203 La.
Williams v. United States Casualty Company 145 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
It is apparent that the trial judge applied the principles of the Kern case as follows by the Supreme Court in the case of Harvey v. Caddo, 1942, , , which the trial court states is the latest ruling of the Supreme Court on this question.
Hay v. Travelers Insurance Company 106 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
Brooks v. Cal-Metal Pipe Corp. of Louisiana 81 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
rising out of and in the course of the employment depends on all the facts and circumstances indicating to what degree the injured employee was subjected to the hazard causing the < injury by his *464 status as employee and to what degree the injured employee’s activities at that time were at the direction of or in the interest of his employer; Harvey v. Caddo De Soto Cotton Oil Company, Inc., , , Kern v. Southport Mill, 174 La.
Caddo Contracting Co. v. Johnson 54 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
37 ; Harvey v. Caddo De Soto Cotton Oil Company, Inc., , ; Dugas v. Gulf States Utilities Company, La.App., 145 So.
Warren v. Globe Indemnity Co. 46 So. 2d 66 La. 1950
This doctrine, , ; Nesmith v. Reich Bros., 203 La.
St. Alexandre v. Texas Co. 28 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
719 , 720, , 750, we find the following language: "* * * We believe that it is in keeping with the spirit of such statutes to resolve that any accident which befalls an employee, in consequence of a force to which he is subjected because he is required to be at a particular place at the time the force exerts itself, is one arisi
Powell v. Paramount-Richards Theatres 22 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Laine v. Junca 21 So. 2d 150 La. 1945
nsider only this: (1) Was the employee then engaged about his employer’s business and not merely pursuing his own business or pleasure; and (2) did the necessities of that employer’s business reasonably require that the employee be at the place of the accident at the time the accident occurred?” This rule was cited and approved m the later cases of Harvey v. Caddo DeSoto Cotton Oil Company, Inc., , , and Nesmith v. Reich Bros. et al., 203 La.
Nesmith v. Reich Bros. 14 So. 2d 767 La. 1943
Nesmith v. Reich Bros. 14 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
However, the test involved in the latter exception, , -749, has not been uniformly followed.