# Humphreys v. Marquette Casualty Co.

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · June 27, 1958 · 235 La. 355

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9688725

## Case

- **Full name:** Malacy HUMPHREYS Et Al. v. MARQUETTE CASUALTY CO. Et Al.; Malacy HUMPHREYS Et Al. v. MARQUETTE CASUALTY CO. and American Casualty Co.; Mrs. Dula Marie HOLLAND Et Al. v. MARQUETTE CASUALTY CO. Et Al.; Mrs. Dula Marie HOLLAND Et Al. v. MARQUETTE CASUALTY CO. Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** June 27, 1958
- **Citations:** 235 La. 355; 103 So. 2d 895; 1958 La. LEXIS 1209
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Fournet
- **Judges:** Moise, Fournet, McCaleb, Simon, Hamiter, Tate
- **Cited by:** 66 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled in part by Dickerson v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance, 259 La. 763 (1971).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9688725

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9688725. Public record. Not legal advice.