Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Brownfield v. Southern Amusement Co., 198 So. 656.

32 citing documents.

Physicians & Surgeons Hospital v. Leone 399 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
73 , (1940); Atchison v. May, 201 La.
Dupre v. Sterling Plate Glass & Paint Co., Inc. 344 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
3rd Cir. 1968); , 198 So.
Turner v. Southern Wheel & Rim Service, Inc. 332 So. 2d 770 La. 1976
73 , (1940), wherein we held that a married woman injured in the scope of her employment was the proper party to enforce a compensation claim, since the right, we stated, was "personal" to her and is not enforced by the community through her husband.
Turner v. Southern Wheel & Rim Service, Inc. 322 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
73 , (1940) the Supreme Court determined that, generally, the right of the employee to sue for benefits under the workmen’s compensation act is “personal” to him.
Holmes v. Holmes 270 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
73 , (1940) ; Atchison v. May, 201 La.
Fontenot v. J. Weingarten, Inc. 232 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Distinguished Pinchera v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 206 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
73 , 74, (1940); Richardson v. American Employers’ Insurance Co.
Brown v. Travelers Insurance Company 169 So. 2d 540 La. 1964
73, 74 , ; Danielsen v. Security Van Lines, Inc., 245 La.
Brown v. Travelers Insurance 169 So. 2d 540 La. 1964
73, 74 , ; Danielsen v. Security Van Lines, Inc., 245 La.
Kramer v. Etie 155 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
303 ] where the hazardous work is only a small part of the employment was first indicated in Brownfield v. Southern Amusement Co. [ , 198 So.
Mercer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 155 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
73 , 74, , and by subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal of this State.
Boggs v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company 125 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
73 , 74, , 660, plaintiff was the manager and cashier of a small theater.
Le Balnc v. Antional Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 118 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
73, 74 , ; Conlon v. Employer's Liability Assurance Corp., La.App.Orl., ; Coleman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., La.App.
Pixley v. Employers' Mutual Liability Insurance 102 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
73 , 74, , which held that the use or maintenance of an automobile does not make an occupation a hazardous occupation, so as to extend the protection of the workmen’s compensation law to a driver thereof who would not otherwise be within the act, where the automobile is so remotely connected with the employer’s business as to
Talbot v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company 99 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
73, 74 , , in referring to the Byas case said: "`There the major portion of the employee's duties brought him into contact with the machinery used in his employer's business.
Fontenot v. Fontenot 95 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
73 , , and quoted with approval by us in the case of Goodman v. National Casualty Co., La.App., , , 733: “Where an employee is injured in a business or occupation not specifically mentione
Viator v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc. 92 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
73 , , recognized that the rule introduced by the Byas case, supra, resulted from an extremely liberal construction of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and refused to extend the doctrine to the case of a theater manager who was injured by falling from a chair in the theater office.
Fontenot v. Myers 93 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
73 , , simply holds that occasional performance of hazardous duties by one employed in a non-hazardous business does not render compensable an accident sustained in the performance of non-hazardous duties.
Distinguished Succession of Scott 91 So. 2d 574 La. 1956
73 , , and State ex rel.
Hammer v. Lazarone 87 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Meyers v. Southwest Region Conference Ass'n of Seventh Day Adventists 79 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Rosenquist v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company 78 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
73 , , it was held that in applying the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Statute to cases where employees are injured in a business not specifically mentioned as being hazardous, the inquiry must be whether the duties of the injured employee required him to perform services of a hazardous nature incidental to his e
Harrington v. Franklin's Stores Corp. of New Iberia 55 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
73 , , the Supreme Court denied recovery, reversing both the District Court and the Court of Appeal, to a plaintiff who was injured when she fell off a stool in a cashier's window and was injured, although she used her own automobile a few hours each week, devoting this time to the inspection of signs and bill-boards
Blackwell v. Wimberly 53 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
73 , ; Puchner v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, 198 La.
Funderburk v. Funderburk 38 So. 2d 502 La. 1949
Rigsby v. John W. Clark Lumber Co. 28 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
73 , , and also on the case of Brown v. Toler, La.
McLain v. National Mut. Casualty Co. 28 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
73 , 74, and McHenry v. American Employers' Insurance Co., 206 La.
Gallien v. Judge 28 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
73 , , the injured emloyee was a lady who was engaged as manager of a moving picture theatre and her duties were principally of a clerical nature.
Brown v. Toler 19 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
73 , 74, , a tendency to modify somewhat the holding in the case of Byas v. Hotel Bentley, Inc., 157 La.
Goodman v. National Casualty Co. 15 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
73 , 74, , in applying the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law, Act No. 20 of 1914, to cases where an employee is injured in a business or occupation not specifically mentioned in the law as hazardous, the inquiry is whether or not the duties of the employee required him to perform services of a hazardous nature incid
Franz v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York 7 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
73 , , 661, had that opinion become final, for there the Supreme Court said: "We think the doctrine that was first applied by the Court to employments in which automobiles were either used, maintained, sold, or operated should be limited to proper cases and should not be held to apply where the use or maintenance of the au
Scott v. Dalton Co. 1 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
73 , 74, , 659, "in applying the provisions of the statute to cases where employees are injured in the business not specifically mentioned therein, the inquiry is always whether or not the duties of the injured employee required him to perform services of a hazardous nature incidental to his employment and directly associated