respondeat superior doctrine in Louisiana

1980Williams v. Marionneaux, 240 La. 713 , 124 So.2d 919 (1960), holds that a settlement with the agent or employee releases not only the agent-employee, but releases the employer who is only vicariously or secondarily liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, even though the plaintiff reserves his rights against the employer and his insurer in the compromise agreement.

1980Williams v. Marionneaux, 240 La. 713 , 124 So.2d 919 (1960), holds that a settlement with the agent or employee releases not only the agent-employee, but releases the employer who is only vicariously or secondarily liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, even though the plaintiff reserves his rights against the employer and his insurer in the compromise agreement.

2011In re Triss, 2001-1921, p. 13 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/5/02), 820 So.2d 1204, 1212 . “[T]he liability imputed upon the hospital must be viewed in light of the nurses’ actions.” Id., citing Odom v. State, Dep’t of Health & Hospitals, 98-1590, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/24/99), 733 So.2d 91, 96 .

2003This Court has articulated the responsibility a hospital has for the actions of its nurses by stating that "[a] hospital is responsible for the negligence of its nurses under the respondeat superior doctrine." In re Arthemise Triss, XXXX-XXXX, p. 13 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/5/02), 820 So.2d 1204, 1212 .

1938Co., 144 La. 1041 , 81 So. 706 , the leading cases on the subject were reviewed, and this court said (page 707) : “It is not enough, however, to support the doctrine of respondeat superior, that the quarrel that resulted in the tort committed by the servant arose from and out of the business which he had authority to transact, and that he was acting within the scope of his employment, at the moment when he stepped aside from the business of his master to commit the wrongful act on his own behalf and without regard for the business of the master.

1938Co., 144 La. 1041 , 81 So. 706 , the leading cases on the subject were reviewed, and this court said (page 707) : “It is not enough, however, to support the doctrine of respondeat superior, that the quarrel that resulted in the tort committed by the servant arose from and out of the business which he had authority to transact, and that he was acting within the scope of his employment, at the moment when he stepped aside from the business of his master to commit the wrongful act on his own behalf and without regard for the business of the master.

2011In re Triss, 2001-1921, p. 13 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/5/02), 820 So.2d 1204, 1212 . “[T]he liability imputed upon the hospital must be viewed in light of the nurses’ actions.” Id., citing Odom v. State, Dep’t of Health & Hospitals, 98-1590, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/24/99), 733 So.2d 91, 96 .

2002Gibson v. Bossier City General Hosp., 594 So.2d 1332, 1343 (La.App. 2d Cir.1991). "[T]he liability imputed upon the hospital must be viewed in light of the nurses' actions." Odom v. State, Dep't of Health & Hospitals, 98-1590, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/24/99), 733 So.2d 91, 96 .

2010Id.

2007Id.

2003Estate of Wilburn v. Leggio, 36,534, p. 5 (La.App. 2nd Cir.3/19/03), 842 So.2d 1175, 1178 .

2003The Estate of Wilburn v. Leggio, 36,534 (La.App.2d Cir.03/19/03), 842 So.2d 1175 , writ denied, 03-1096 (La.06/06/03), 845 So.2d 1095 ; Gibson v. Bossier City General Hospital, 594 So.2d 1332 (La.App. 2d Cir.1991); In re Triss, 01-1921 (La.App. 4th Cir.06/05/02), 820 So.2d 1204 .

2002Lopez v. State, 98-577 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/28/98) , 721 So.2d 518 .

1999Lopez. v. State, 98-577 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/28/98) , 721 So.2d 518 .

1962Release § 50, p. 689. “ ‘In a situation where * * * one person commits the tort and is primarily liable while the liability of the other person is derivative or secondary as where it arises under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the releasor’s acceptance of satisfaction from one, discharges the other as well, as in the case of master and servant or principal and agent; and it has been held that this is true despite an attempted reservation of rights against the person secondarily liable, since if the rule were otherwise, such person would be liable without having recourse against the perso

1962Release § 50, p. 689. “ ‘In a situation where * * * one person commits the tort and is primarily liable while the liability of the other person is derivative or secondary as where it arises under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the releasor’s acceptance of satisfaction from one, discharges the other as well, as in the case of master and servant or principal and agent; and it has been held that this is true despite an attempted reservation of rights against the person secondarily liable, since if the rule were otherwise, such person would be liable without having recourse against the perso

1962Release § 50, p. 689. “ ‘In a situation where * * * one person commits the tort and is primarily liable while the liability of the other person is derivative or secondary as where it arises under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the releasor’s acceptance of satisfaction from one, discharges the other as well, as in the case of master and servant or principal and agent; and it has been held that this is true despite an attempted reservation of rights against the person secondarily liable, since if the rule were otherwise, such person would be liable without having recourse against the perso

1962Release § 50, p. 689. “ ‘In a situation where * * * one person commits the tort and is primarily liable while the liability of the other person is derivative or secondary as where it arises under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the releasor’s acceptance of satisfaction from one, discharges the other as well, as in the case of master and servant or principal and agent; and it has been held that this is true despite an attempted reservation of rights against the person secondarily liable, since if the rule were otherwise, such person would be liable without having recourse against the perso

1959But such liability is vicarious only and does not constitute Boyce-Harvey a joint-tort-feasor or render it solidarily liable with its negligent employee, Cox v. Shreveport Packing Co., 213 La. 53 , 34 So.2d 373 .

1959But such liability is vicarious only and does not constitute Boyce-Harvey a joint-tort-feasor or render it solidarily liable with its negligent employee, Cox v. Shreveport Packing Co., 213 La. 53 , 34 So.2d 373 .

1934The master is the person in whose business he is engaged at the time and who has the right to control and direct hiss. *313 conduct.’ Berry on Automobiles (6th Ed.) Vol. 2, § 1315; Atkins v. Points, 148 La. 958 , 88 So. 231, 232 ; Tinker v. Hirst, 162 La. 209 , 110 So. 324 .

1934The master is the person in whose business he is engaged at the time and who has the right to control and direct hiss. *313 conduct.’ Berry on Automobiles (6th Ed.) Vol. 2, § 1315; Atkins v. Points, 148 La. 958 , 88 So. 231, 232 ; Tinker v. Hirst, 162 La. 209 , 110 So. 324 .

1934The master is the person in whose business he is engaged at the time and who has the right to control and direct hiss. *313 conduct.’ Berry on Automobiles (6th Ed.) Vol. 2, § 1315; Atkins v. Points, 148 La. 958 , 88 So. 231, 232 ; Tinker v. Hirst, 162 La. 209 , 110 So. 324 .

1933Tpe master is the person in whose business he is engaged at the time and who has the right to control and direct his conduct.” Berry on Automobiles (6th Ed.) Vol. 2, § 1315; Atkins v. Points, 148 La. 958 , 88 So. 231, 232 ; Tinker v. Hirst, 162 La. 209 , 110 So. 324 .

1934The master is the person in whose business he is engaged at the time and who has the right to control and direct hiss. *313 conduct.’ Berry on Automobiles (6th Ed.) Vol. 2, § 1315; Atkins v. Points, 148 La. 958 , 88 So. 231, 232 ; Tinker v. Hirst, 162 La. 209 , 110 So. 324 .

1933Tpe master is the person in whose business he is engaged at the time and who has the right to control and direct his conduct.” Berry on Automobiles (6th Ed.) Vol. 2, § 1315; Atkins v. Points, 148 La. 958 , 88 So. 231, 232 ; Tinker v. Hirst, 162 La. 209 , 110 So. 324 .

2015See Hendricks v. United Cab, Inc., 96-117 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/15/97), 687 So.2d 610 (taxicab company did not exercise sufficient control and direction over taxicab driver’s work to create employment relationship, and, thus, it could not be held liable for driver's actions under doctrine of respondeat superior; although drivers were required to be affiliated with taxicab line and could take advantage of group insurance rates, they owned and maintained their own vehicles, were responsible for obtaining city taxicab license, paid their own insurance, determined their own schedules, hours and which

2012It is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that "it will not be presumed that the Legislature inserted idle, meaningless or superfluous language in the statute or that it intended for any part or provision of the statute to be meaningless, redundant or useless." ABL Mgmt., Inc., v. Board of Supevisors of Southern Univ., 00-0798 (La.11/28/00), 773 So.2d 131, 135 .

2012It is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that “it will not be presumed that the Legislature inserted idle, meaningless or superfluous language in the statute or that it intended for any part or provision of the statute to be meaningless, redundant or useless.” ABL Mgmt., Inc., v. Board of Supevisors of Southern Univ., 00-0798 (La.11/28/00), 773 So.2d 131, 135 .

2009Little v. Pou, 42,872, p. 13 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1/30/08), 975 So.2d 666, 674 , writ denied, 08-0806 (La.6/6/08), 983 So.2d 920 .

2009Little v. Pou, 42,872, p. 13 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1/30/08), 975 So.2d 666, 674 , writ denied, 08-0806 (La.6/6/08), 983 So.2d 920 .

2008The parties do not dispute that, at the time of the accident, Mr. Ducre was acting in the course and scope of his employment. [12] La.R.S. 32:81 A; Daigle v. Mumphrey, 96-1891 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/12/97) , 691 So.2d 260 ; E.

2008Wright v. HCA Health Services of Louisiana, 38,427 (La.App.2d Cir.6/23/04), 877 So.2d 211 ; Williams v. Memorial Medical Center, 03-1806 (La.App. 4th Cir.3/17/04), 870 So.2d 1044 , writ denied, 04-0963 (La.6/4/04), 876 So.2d 93 .