Fontenot v. Insurance Company of North America

3 Citing cases

  1. Strickland v. Transamerica Insurance Company

    481 F.2d 138 (5th Cir. 1973)   Cited 11 times

    See also, Dulaney v. Fruge, 257 So.2d 827 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1972), writs refused, 261 La. 482, 259 So.2d 921. Similarly in Fontenot v. Insurance Company of North America, 271 So.2d 323 ( La.App. 3rd Cir. 1972), writs granted La., 273 So.2d 295, plaintiff had alleged that the duty of providing supervision, safety rules, and instructions concerning the work involved had been delegated to the defendant executive officers, that they knew or should have known what plaintiff's job entailed, and that they failed to instruct plaintiff as to the safe practices and procedures for undertaking his work. The court, in denying the existence of a cause of action, noted:

  2. Fontenot v. Insurance Company of North America

    283 So. 2d 733 (La. 1973)   Cited 3 times

    The motions were denied, but the exception of no cause of action was sustained by the trial judge in favor of all the defendants save Hazell, the bagging machine operator, on the basis of Maxey v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 255 So.2d 120 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1971). The Third Circuit Court of Appeal, one judge dissenting, affirmed the dismissal as to these defendants relying on Maxey, supra, and Dulaney v. Fruge, 257 So.2d 827 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1972), 271 So.2d 323 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1972). We granted cert. 273 So.2d 295 (1973).

  3. Trahan v. Travelers Insurance Company

    278 So. 2d 886 (La. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 1 times

    Next, we approach the trial court's ruling regarding the exception of no cause of action as against the claim of the appellant against the supervisory or executive co-employees named defendants. We are cognizant of the fact that the Louisiana Supreme Court has granted writs of certiorari in two recent cases posing similar questions, Canter v. Koehring Company, 267 So.2d 270, (La.App. 3rd Cir., 1972) and Fontenot v. Insurance Co. of North American, 271 So.2d 323 (La.App. 3rd Cir., 1972). However, until the Supreme Court rules on the matter before us, this court's decisions will control the law to be applied in this circuit with reference to claims such as those made in the case at bar.