Later courts went against this
Overruled in part by Dickerson v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance, 259 La. 763 (1971)
are of the opinion that writs should be granted and Humphreys v. Marquette, 235 La. 355, 103 So.2d 895 should be overruled insofar as it denies recovery to woman living with and dependent on deceased, but not married to him.
Overruled by Henderson v. Travelers Ins. Co., 354 So. 2d 1031 (1978)
In doing so, we overrule Humphreys v. Marquette Casualty Co., 235 La. 355, 103 So.2d 895 (1958), which held to the contrary.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Fontenot v. Town of Kinder, 377 So. 2d 554 (1980)
Defendants (the Town and Southern Farm), argue that Humphreys, supra, is inapposite because there the Supreme Court held the regular and borrowing employers to be solidarily liable whereas here the plaintiff worked for two separate employers during separate periods of the month, entitling him to receive workmen's compensation from each employer on the wages paid by each as provided by La.R.S. 23:1031, supra.
The opinion
FOURNET, Chief Justice
(dissenting in part and concurring in part).
I fully concur with the view of the majority in so far as the claim of Malacy Humphreys is concerned, and also with respect to the assessment of penalties and attorney fees. But I cannot subscribe to the majority view that the so-called “borrowed servant doctrine,” generally obtaining in .the common law in tort actions, and, to this extent, adopted by us, is controlling in compensation cases. Moreover, it is my considered opinion that an employer and insurer can never, by the application of this doctrine, relieve themselves of their responsibility to the employee as fixed by our compensation laws.
In any event, the facts of this case do not warrant the application of the “borrowed servant doctrine” here, even if it is applicable. Whether the control exercised by Martone was for himself personally, or as manager of the Bon-Air Ranch, is problematical. The record does show that the salaries of these men were always paid by the Bon-Air Ranch, even while they were working for Martone, and there is no direct evidence, and none from which it can be inferred, establishing that these employees ever consented to accept Martone as the new employer, as is required under the doctrine.