12 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
McLin v. Industrial Specialty Contractorsgreen2 sentences2025“The going and coming rule applies nicely when the employee has a fixed place of work, so that his traveling back and forth between his home and his fixed place of work is almost never in the course of employment.” Id. 7 Subsequently, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in McLin, v. Industrial Specialty Contractors, Inc., 02-1539 (La. 7/2/03), 851 So.2d 1135 , a workers’ compensation case, set forth seven exceptions to the going-and-coming rule:4 (1) If the accident happened on the employer’s premises; (2) If the employee was deemed to be on a specific mission for the employer, such as making a trip 2025“The going and coming rule applies nicely when the employee has a fixed place of work, so that his traveling back and forth between his home and his fixed place of work is almost never in the course of employment.” Id. 7 Subsequently, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in McLin, v. Industrial Specialty Contractors, Inc., 02-1539 (La. 7/2/03), 851 So.2d 1135 , a workers’ compensation case, set forth seven exceptions to the going-and-coming rule:4 (1) If the accident happened on the employer’s premises; (2) If the employee was deemed to be on a specific mission for the employer, such as making a trip | 1 | 5 |
Johnson v. Transit Mgmt. of Se. La., Inc.green2 sentences2025App. 4 Cir. 2/28/18), 239 So.3d 973, 980 (holding “[i]n both the tort and workers’ compensation contexts, the jurisprudence has recognized the applicability of the going-and-coming rule and multiple exceptions to the rule, including the special errand [special mission] exception.”). 8 going and coming rule, the journey may be brought within the course and scope of employment by the fact that the trouble and time of making the journey, or special inconvenience, hazard, or urgency of making it in the particular circumstances, is itself sufficiently substantial to be viewed as an integral part of 2022The worker’s compensation hearing officer determined that the employee was on a special mission for his 1 In Johnson, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal discussed the application of precedent from worker’s compensation cases that have evaluated the going-and-coming rule to vicarious liability tort cases, noting that the application of the rule “might take on different meanings under each regime.” The Court found that the worker’s compensation jurisprudence was instructive rather than dispositive when applied to vicarious liability cases, but ultimately determined that under the circumstances i | 1 | 2 |
Scott v. Smithgreen2 sentences2024Dean v. Southmark Const., 03-1051 (La. 7/6/04) 879 So.2d 112 , 117, citing Scott v. Smith, 714 So.2d 7, 11 (La. 2004Scott v. Smith, (La.App. 2 Cir., 1998), 714 So.2d 7, 11 . | 1 | 2 |
Estate of Soupene Ex Rel. Soupene v. Lignitzgreen2 sentences2018See Estate of Soupene v. Lignitz , 265 Kan. 217 , 222-25, 960 P.2d 205 (1998) (finding that volunteer firefighter had assumed duties related to employment when Hewlett-Packard Company began responding to emergency call and was thus entitled to workers compensation benefits). 39 Kan.App.2d 935 , 942-43, 186 P.3d 206 , 212 (Leben, J., concurring). 2018See Estate of Soupene v. Lignitz , 265 Kan. 217 , 222-25, 960 P.2d 205 (1998) (finding that volunteer firefighter had assumed duties related to employment when Hewlett-Packard Company began responding to emergency call and was thus entitled to workers compensation benefits). 39 Kan.App.2d 935 , 942-43, 186 P.3d 206 , 212 (Leben, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Gallowaygreen2 sentences2018Strickland v. Galloway , 348 S.C. 644 , 648, 560 S.E.2d 448 , 450 (Ct. App. 2002) (collecting cases including Matlock , supra ; and Estate of Soupene , supra ). 2018Strickland v. Galloway , 348 S.C. 644 , 648, 560 S.E.2d 448 , 450 (Ct. App. 2002) (collecting cases including Matlock , supra ; and Estate of Soupene , supra ). | 1 | 1 |
Halford v. Nowak Construction Co.green2 sentences2018See Estate of Soupene v. Lignitz , 265 Kan. 217 , 222-25, 960 P.2d 205 (1998) (finding that volunteer firefighter had assumed duties related to employment when Hewlett-Packard Company began responding to emergency call and was thus entitled to workers compensation benefits). 39 Kan.App.2d 935 , 942-43, 186 P.3d 206 , 212 (Leben, J., concurring). 2018See Estate of Soupene v. Lignitz , 265 Kan. 217 , 222-25, 960 P.2d 205 (1998) (finding that volunteer firefighter had assumed duties related to employment when Hewlett-Packard Company began responding to emergency call and was thus entitled to workers compensation benefits). 39 Kan.App.2d 935 , 942-43, 186 P.3d 206 , 212 (Leben, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Orgeron on Behalf of Orgeron v. McDonald
green
2 sentences2025“The going and coming rule applies nicely when the employee has a fixed place of work, so that his traveling back and forth between his home and his fixed place of work is almost never in the course of employment.” Id. 7 Subsequently, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in McLin, v. Industrial Specialty Contractors, Inc., 02-1539 (La. 7/2/03), 851 So.2d 1135 , a workers’ compensation case, set forth seven exceptions to the going-and-coming rule:4 (1) If the accident happened on the employer’s premises; (2) If the employee was deemed to be on a specific mission for the employer, such as making a trip 2022“The dispatching of employees to different work locations gives rise to many ‘shades of gray’ in the otherwise “black and white” applications of the going and coming rule.” Id., 93- 1353, p. 5, 639 So. 2d at 227 . | 5 | 2001–2025 |
Johnson v. Templeton
green
2 sentences2014He likened his situation to that presented in Johnson v. Templeton, 99-1274 (La.App 3 Cir. 3/29/00), 768 So.2d 65 , writ denied sub nom., Schaefer v. Templeton, 00-1235 (La.8/31/00), 766 So.2d 1276 , and writs denied, 00-1912, 00-1930 (La.8/31/00), 766 So.2d 1285 ,1286. 2013Johnson, 768 So.2d at 70 . | 2 | 2013–2014 |
Dean v. Southmark Const.
green
1 sentence2024Dean v. Southmark Const., 03-1051 (La. 7/6/04) 879 So.2d 112 , 117, citing Scott v. Smith, 714 So.2d 7, 11 (La. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Michaleski v. Western Preferred Cas. Co.
green
1 sentence2024We further find that Dr. Shamsnia was acting within the course and scope of his employment while traveling to Lakeview Hospital on the night the accident because Tulane had a policy for providing travel reimbursement to physicians commuting to Lakeview Hospital, and his trip to the hospital was employment related.9 See, Michaleski, supra. Accordingly, after de novo review, and considering the unique facts of this case, we find that Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of vicarious liability of Tulane for the actions of Dr. Shamsnia, in the event he is found to be negligent | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Timmons v. Silman
green
1 sentence2022For example, “[w]hen an employee is required to check in at a certain place and is then dispatched to the work site for that day, he is generally in the course of employment in the travel between the check in place and the work site, but not between home and the check in place.” Id. “[M]ore than a short duration for the personal errand is needed to justify a deviation falling within the course and scope of employment, i.e., weighing all of the factors that increase the risks of exposing the employer to vicarious liability.” Timmons v. Silman, 99- 11 3264, p. 7 (La. 5/16/00), 761 So. 2d 507, 51 | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Matlock v. Hankel
green
1 sentence2018App. 4 Cir. 2/11/98), 707 So.2d 1016 , was responding to an emergency and thus in the course and scope of employment from the time of his boss' call. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Hargrove
neutral
1 sentence2014He likened his situation to that presented in Johnson v. Templeton, 99-1274 (La.App 3 Cir. 3/29/00), 768 So.2d 65 , writ denied sub nom., Schaefer v. Templeton, 00-1235 (La.8/31/00), 766 So.2d 1276 , and writs denied, 00-1912, 00-1930 (La.8/31/00), 766 So.2d 1285 ,1286. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Gutierrez v. Columbus Metairie Property Corp.
neutral
1 sentence2014He likened his situation to that presented in Johnson v. Templeton, 99-1274 (La.App 3 Cir. 3/29/00), 768 So.2d 65 , writ denied sub nom., Schaefer v. Templeton, 00-1235 (La.8/31/00), 766 So.2d 1276 , and writs denied, 00-1912, 00-1930 (La.8/31/00), 766 So.2d 1285 ,1286. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Phillips v. EPCO Carbon Dioxide Products, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2003In Phillips v. Epco Carbon Dioxide Products, Inc., 35,740 (La.App.2d Cir.2/27/02), 810 So.2d 1171 , writ denied, 02-0979 (La.6/7/02), 817 So.2d 1146 , this court had the occasion to review the jurisprudential development of this exception to the going-and-coming rule. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Phillips v. EPCO Carbon Dioxide Products, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2003In Phillips v. Epco Carbon Dioxide Products, Inc., 35,740 (La.App.2d Cir.2/27/02), 810 So.2d 1171 , writ denied, 02-0979 (La.6/7/02), 817 So.2d 1146 , this court had the occasion to review the jurisprudential development of this exception to the going-and-coming rule. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.