borrowed servant doctrine in Louisiana

1973Borrowed Servant The borrowed servant doctrine has been expounded by the Louisiana supreme court in Benoit v. Hunt Tool Co., 219 La. 380 , 53 So.2d 137 (1951) (where it was not applied), and B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W.

1973Borrowed Servant The borrowed servant doctrine has been expounded by the Louisiana supreme court in Benoit v. Hunt Tool Co., 219 La. 380 , 53 So.2d 137 (1951) (where it was not applied), and B & G Crane Service v. Thomas W.

2014These criteria were set forth in Ruiz v. Shell Oil Co., 413 F.2d 310 (5 Cir.1969).

1997In Ruiz v. Shell Oil Co., the Fifth Circuit spelled out the criteria for the borrowed servant analysis. 413 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1969).

1999There is no determinative test to conduct, but this court has looked to the following factors in determining whether the borrowed servant doctrine applies: "1) the right of control; 2) selection of employees; 3) payment of wages; 4) power of dismissal; 5) relinquishment of control by the general employer; 6) which employer's work was being done at the time of the accident; 7) agreement, explicit or implicit, between the borrowing and lending employee; 8) furnishing of necessary instruments and the place for performance of the work in question; 9) length of time in employment; 10) acquiescence

1997App. 4 Cir. 10/27/94), 644 So.2d 1143, 1146 , writs denied, 94-2858 and 94-2870 (La.2/9/95), 649 So.2d 420 , noted the several factors to be considered when determining the existence of the borrowed servant doctrine: There is no fixed test, nor is the existence of a contract or any other single factor determinative, but the following factors should be considered in determining the existence of a borrowed servant relationship: "(1) first and foremost, right of control; (2) selection of employees; (3) payment of wages; (4) power of dismissal; (5) relinquishment of control by the general employer

1999There is no determinative test to conduct, but this court has looked to the following factors in determining whether the borrowed servant doctrine applies: "1) the right of control; 2) selection of employees; 3) payment of wages; 4) power of dismissal; 5) relinquishment of control by the general employer; 6) which employer's work was being done at the time of the accident; 7) agreement, explicit or implicit, between the borrowing and lending employee; 8) furnishing of necessary instruments and the place for performance of the work in question; 9) length of time in employment; 10) acquiescence

1997App. 4 Cir. 10/27/94), 644 So.2d 1143, 1146 , writs denied, 94-2858 and 94-2870 (La.2/9/95), 649 So.2d 420 , noted the several factors to be considered when determining the existence of the borrowed servant doctrine: There is no fixed test, nor is the existence of a contract or any other single factor determinative, but the following factors should be considered in determining the existence of a borrowed servant relationship: "(1) first and foremost, right of control; (2) selection of employees; (3) payment of wages; (4) power of dismissal; (5) relinquishment of control by the general employer

1984Young v. Hearin Tank Lines, Inc., 176 So.2d 790 (3rd Cir.1965); Benoit v. Hunt Tool Company, 53 So.2d 137 (La.1951).

1979Young v. Hearin Tank Lines, Inc., 176 So.2d 790 (3rd Cir. 1965); Benoit v. Hunt Tool Company, 53 So.2d 137 (La.1951).

2014Musa , 10-627 at 12, 63 So.3d at 249 ; McGlothurn , 13-759 at 23, 142 So.3d at 226 .

2014Musa , 10-627 at 12, 63 So.3d at 249 ; McGlothurn , 13-759 at 23, 142 So.3d at 226 .

2011Capps, supra, at 618 .

2010Sanchez , 07-234 at 10, 968 So.2d at 789 .

1999Id.

1999App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 596 So.2d 211 (La.1992).

1998Co., 559 So.2d 467 (La.1990), this Court recently stated: The master's vicarious liability for the acts of its servant rests not so much on policy grounds consistent with the governing principles of tort law as in a deeply rooted sentiment that a business enterprise cannot justly disclaim responsibility for accidents which may fairly be said to be characteristic of its activities.

1998The approved instruction provided: "[i]f after consideration of the ten factors listed above, you find that Worktec Temporaries was a lending employer, then Worktec is relieved of liability." LeJeune and Blair, supra, specifically repudiated the "one master" rule in favor of solidary liability among the general and the special employers.

1998In Kastner v. Toombs, 611 P.2d 62 (Alaska 1980) the Alaska Supreme Court stated: In our opinion the borrowed servant rule as an exception to the doctrine of respondeat superior has imparted unnecessary complexity to the law of agency.

1998In Kastner v. Toombs, 611 P.2d 62 (Alaska 1980) the Alaska Supreme Court stated: In our opinion the borrowed servant rule as an exception to the doctrine of respondeat superior has imparted unnecessary complexity to the law of agency.

1997App. 4 Cir. 10/27/94), 644 So.2d 1143, 1146 , writs denied, 94-2858 and 94-2870 (La.2/9/95), 649 So.2d 420 , noted the several factors to be considered when determining the existence of the borrowed servant doctrine: There is no fixed test, nor is the existence of a contract or any other single factor determinative, but the following factors should be considered in determining the existence of a borrowed servant relationship: "(1) first and foremost, right of control; (2) selection of employees; (3) payment of wages; (4) power of dismissal; (5) relinquishment of control by the general employer

1996In Walters v. Metropolitan Erection Co., 94-0162 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/27/94) , 644 So.2d 1143, 1146 , the court analyzed the borrowed servant doctrine as follows: There is no fixed test, nor is the existence of a contract or any other single factor determinative, but the following factors should be considered in determining the existence of a borrowed servant relationship: "(1) first and foremost, right of control; (2) selection of employees; (3) payment of wages; (4) power of dismissal; (5) relinquishment of control by the general employer; (6) which employer's work was being performed at the t

1992Brumbaugh v. Marathon Oil Co., 507 So.2d 872, 874-75 (La.App. 5th Cir.), writ denied, 508 So.2d 824 (La.1987).

1984In determining whether a borrowed employee relationship exists this Court in Rapattoni v. Commercial Union Assurance Company, 378 So.2d 953 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1979) stated: "There are two general tests for the borrowed servant doctrine: (1) whose work was being performed and (2) who had control of the employee (plaintiff).