# Hickman Ex Rel. Iles v. Southern Pacific Transport Co.

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · May 1, 1972 · 262 La. 102

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534887

## Case

- **Full name:** Freda W. HICKMAN, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Son, David Michael Iles v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORT COMPANY and Robert Allen Fowler
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** May 1, 1972
- **Citations:** 262 La. 102; 262 So. 2d 385; 1972 La. LEXIS 5912
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Tate
- **Judges:** Summers, Barham, Tate
- **Cited by:** 276 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534887

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that when determining “whether a relationship is that of independent contractor or that of mere servant,” the “control over the work reserved by the employer” is critical and is judged “not [by] the supervision and control which is actually exercised,” but rather by “wh…
- explaining that the principal test to determine whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor is “the control over the work reserved by the employer.”

## Opinion text

TATE, Justice
(concurring).
The writer fully concurs in the holdings of the majority.
With regard to damages, the majority’s award is limited to the normal residual from the fracture received at the time of the accident. The majority disallows any additional award from the “re”-injury while sleepwalking. I concur with the majority, upon the express understanding that this disallowance of additional recovery is based upon its findings that the “re”-injury and its permanent residual would have occurred, whether or not the boy’s leg was weakened by the tort-caused initial fracture — that is, upon the understanding that the original tort-caused fracture did not contribute at all to (a) the sleepwalking fall, (b) the “re”-injury occasioned thereby, and (c) the permanent residual resulting therefrom.
*123 If, on the other hand, the subsequent accident or subsequent residual would not have occurred without the tort-impaired condition, then the tortfeasors are liable for all such consequences to which the original tort contributed. See: Restatement of Torts, Second, Section 460 (1965); Restatement of Torts, First, Section 917 (1939); Prosser on Torts, Section 44, esp. at pp. 279, 280-281, Section 52, esp. at pp. 315-16 and pp. 320-21 (4th ed., 1971); Eble v. City of New Orleans, 181 So.2d 805 (La.App. 4th Cir., 1966).
I respectfully concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534887. Public record. Not legal advice.