Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cox v. Shreveport Packing Co., 34 So. 2d 373.

27 citing documents.

Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co. 418 So. 2d 575 La. 1982
*580 1973) , (1948), which have received scholarly criticism, Wooten v. Wimberly, supra (Tate, J., concurring and Barham, J., dissenting); The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts, 1972-1973 Obligations, 34 La.L.Rev.
Otzenberger v. Atlas Construction Co. 408 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
(1948), for its conclusion that the tort action did not create a solidary obligation between father and child, as the Kern opinion suggests.
Kern v. Travelers Ins. Co. 407 So. 2d 2 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
(1948) which said that a vicariously liable master and servant were not solidarily obligated for the latter's employment-related tort.
Followed Langlinais v. Guillotte 398 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Sampay v. Morton Salt Co. 395 So. 2d 326 La. 1981
As support for its conclusion, , (1948), in which it was held that the employee and the employer are not solidary obligors.
Foster v. Hampton 381 So. 2d 789 La. 1980
However, , (1948) was distinguished.
Thomas v. W & W CLARKLIFT, INC. 375 So. 2d 375 La. 1979
(1948) and Caldwell v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., (La.App.
Hill v. Provozano 377 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Foster v. Hampton 372 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Thomas v. W & W CLARKLIFT, INC. 365 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
*917 53, (1948), the court held that the employer is not liable in solido with the employee for a tort committed by the employee.
Rough v. Landry 328 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Wooten v. Wimberly 272 So. 2d 303 La. 1973
(1948) this Court denied the application of this article to the parent-child responsibility under Article 2318 by saying: We do not understand the law to be that an admission of fault and liability by the perpetrators of a wrong is conclusive as to him who is only secondarily liable such as a master ans
Legendre v. Hill 263 So. 2d 25 La. 1972
(1948), the rationale of which was approved in Williams v. Marionneaux, 240 La.
Legendre v. Hill 250 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
McCrossen v. Stoyka 218 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1969
The Supreme Court held, , , that an admission by a minor respecting the commission of an offense was hearsay and clearly inadmissible in a suit against the father to recover damages therefor, citing Toca v. Rojas, 152 La.
Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc. 205 So. 2d 422 La. 1967
953 , (1957); , (1948) ; Quatray v. Wicker, 178 La.
Penn v. Inferno Manufacturing Corporation 199 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
34 So.2d., 373, 375, (1948).
Little v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 177 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
wherein the Court said: "* * * there is no provision of our law * * * which declares that the liability of a master (who is without fault) is in solido with that of his servant."
Bergeron v. Gifford-Hill & Co. 137 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Costa v. Yochim, 104 La.
Garvey v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 125 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
Williams v. Marionneaux 124 So. 2d 919 La. 1960
Hidalgo v. Dupuy 122 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
and in Martin v. Mud Supply Co., La.App.Orl., , were enunciated without discussion and by way of dicta in proceedings where the question was not at issue.
Williams v. Marionneaux 116 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
and McKnight v. State, La.
Spurlock v. Boyce-Harvey MacHinery 90 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
But such liability is vicarious only and does not constitute Boyce-Harvey a joint-tort-feasor or render it solidarily liable with its negligent employee, , .
Lewis v. Travelers Indemnity Company 81 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
515 , ; Cox v. Shreveport Packing Company, 1948, , 34 So.
Florida Molasses Co. v. Berger 55 So. 2d 771 La. 1951
Florida Molasses Co. v. Berger 55 So. 2d 771 La. 1951