stating that the ordinary line of inquiry to determine whether a party can be held vicariously liable begins with determining whether there was an employment relationship
How later courts described this case
- stating that the ordinary line of inquiry to determine whether a party can be held vicariously liable begins with determining whether there was an employment relationship
- “There is a parallel development and history of vicarious liability in [the civilian and common law] jurisdictions with almost simultaneous extensions or limitations of responsibility by statute or jurisprudence.... So actually the common law does not present a departure from our civilian law in this field.”
- discussing various employment relationships under Louisiana law
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Whittington v. Sowela Technical Institute, 438 So. 2d 236 (1983)
"This court, of course, does not disagree with the Supreme Court's enunciation of the principles of law in Blanchard, but it does believe that the facts of that case are readily distinguishable from the facts of this case.
The opinion
On Application for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
Applicant correctly urges that we were-in error in stating: “That court [in Morton v. American Employers Insurance Co., 104 So.2d 189 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1958)] then erroneously held the principal liable-for the physical tort of his agent * * *.”
The Morton case was used for a comparison of language and not for its holding. While finding a non-servant agent free from negligence and his principal therefore absolved from liability, the court, used language indicating that it would' have fixed personal liability upon the principal had the non-servant agent been negligent.
Rehearing refused.
McCALEB, J., recused.