La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1061 (2026)

Principal contractors; liability

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

SUBPART C.  LIABILITY OF PRINCIPAL TO EMPLOYEES

OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

§1061.  Principal contractors; liability

A.(1)  Subject to the provisions of Paragraphs (2) and (3) of this Subsection, when any "principal" as defined in R.S. 23:1032(A)(2), undertakes to execute any work, which is a part of his trade, business, or occupation and contracts with any person, in this Section referred to as the "contractor", for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of the work undertaken by the principal, the principal, as a statutory employer, shall be granted the exclusive remedy protections of R.S. 23:1032 and shall be liable to pay to any employee employed in the execution of the work or to his dependent, any compensation under this Chapter which he would have been liable to pay if the employee had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from, or proceedings are taken against, the principal, then, in the application of this Chapter reference to the principal shall be substituted for reference to the employer, except that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the earnings of the employee under the employer by whom he is immediately employed.  For purposes of this Section, work shall be considered part of the principal's trade, business, or occupation if it is an integral part of or essential to the ability of the principal to generate that individual principal's goods, products, or services.

(2)  A statutory employer relationship shall exist whenever the services or work provided by the immediate employer is contemplated by or included in a contract between the principal and any person or entity other than the employee's immediate employer.

(3)  Except in those instances covered by Paragraph (2) of this Subsection, a statutory employer relationship shall not exist between the principal and the contractor's employees, whether they are direct employees or statutory employees, unless there is a written contract between the principal and a contractor which is the employee's immediate employer or his statutory employer, which recognizes the principal as a statutory employer.  When the contract recognizes a statutory employer relationship, there shall be a rebuttable presumption of a statutory employer relationship between the principal and the contractor's employees, whether direct or statutory employees.  This presumption may be overcome only by showing that the work is not an integral part of or essential to the ability of the principal to generate that individual principal's goods, products, or services.

B.  When the principal is liable to pay compensation under this Section, he shall be entitled to indemnity from any person who independently of this Section would have been liable to pay compensation to the employee or his dependent, and shall have a cause of action therefor.

Acts 1989, No. 454, §3, eff. Jan. 1, 1990; Acts 1997, No. 315, §1, eff. June 17, 1997.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 585 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case: Prejean v. Maint. Enter., Inc., 8 So. 3d 766 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Prejean v. Maint. Enter., Inc., 8 So. 3d 766 (La. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 62× “R.S. 23:1061. Mr. Prejean filed an opposition to Murphy Oil's motion arguing that the Murphy Oil-MEI contract did not entitle Murphy Oil to statutory employer status because the language of the contract limited Murphy Oil to paying compensation "if the immediate employer,…”
Dean v. Southmark Const., 879 So. 2d 112 (La. 2004). · cites it 16× “R.S. 23:1061 mandates that a statutory employment relationship is not created in the absence of a written agreement recognizing the principal as a statutory employer.”
St. Angelo v. United Scaffolding, Inc./X-Serv., Inc., 40 So. 3d 365 (La. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 46× “On November 8, 2007, ExxonMobil and CRLLC moved for Summary Judgment, alleging that they had immunity from tort liability as statutory employer of plaintiffs as pursuant to La.Rev.Stat. § 23:1061. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to their motion.”
Brock v. Chevron Chem. Co., 750 F. Supp. 779 (E.D. La. 1990). · cites it 42× “La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 23:1061 (West 1985 & Supp.”
Johnson v. Motiva Enter. LLC, 128 So. 3d 483 (La. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 22× “R.S. 23:1061, 6 which added Subpart (A)(3) and became effective on June 17, 1997, created a presumptive statutory employer status based on a written contract between the principal and immediate employer.”
Everett v. Rubicon, Inc., 938 So. 2d 1032 (La. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 16× “The amended statute tracked the language defining "principal" in LSA-R.S. 23:1061 [3] and further provided, in pertinent part: *1036 The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee or his dependent .”
Jorge-Chavelas v. La. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 307 F. Supp. 3d 535 (M.D. La. 2018). · cites it 16× “72 A related issue, but one not advanced by Farm Bureau, is whether Plaintiffs were the statutory employees of Harang Sugars under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1061. Finally, related to all of the above issues are the coverage defenses asserted by Farm Bureau.”
Fleming v. JE Merit Constructors, Inc., 985 So. 2d 141 (La. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 13× “However, in 1997, the Louisiana legislature amended LSA-R.S. 23:1061 by adding subsection A(3), to provide, in pertinent part: Except in those instances covered by Paragraph (2) of this Subsection, a statutory employer relationship shall not exist between the principal and the…”
Dustin Wright v. Excel Paralubes, 807 F.3d 730 (5th Cir. 2015). · cites it 8× “R.S. 23:1061(A) only. Irrespective of [CP’s] status either as the statutory employer or as the special employer (as defined in La.”
Vincent v. Ryder Enter., Inc., 352 So. 2d 1061 (La. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 11× “While maintaining that it is not liable to plaintiff, Getty contends in an amended answer that if liability is found to exist, then in accordance with the provisions of LSA-R.S. 23:1061, Getty is the "statutory employer" of plaintiff and thus plaintiff's remedy against Getty is…”
Allen v. Exhibition Hall Auth., 842 So. 2d 373 (La. 2003). · cites it 4× “" [4] Thus, LSA-R.S. 23:1061, which establishes the workers' compensation responsibility of a principal under the statutory employer doctrine, provides in pertinent part: When any person, in this Section referred to as the "principal", undertakes to execute any work, which is a…”
Jorge-Chavelas v. La. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 917 F.3d 847 (5th Cir. 2019). · cites it 4× “La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1061(A)(1). The catch is that the relationship must be formed by *854 contract.”
Show all 585 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1061(1): 1 case
Joseph v. Par. of St. John the Baptist, 772 So. 2d 737 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1061(2): 1 case
Charlie v. Mobile Modular Mgmt. Corp, No. 2:21-cv-00715 (W.D. La. Jan. 6, 2023).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1061(3): 1 case
Whotte v. Int'l Paper Co., 177 So. 3d 149 (La. Ct. App. 2015).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1061(A): 41 cases
Dustin Wright v. Excel Paralubes, 807 F.3d 730 (5th Cir. 2015). “R.S. 23:1061(A) only. Irrespective of [CP’s] status either as the statutory employer or as the special employer (as defined in La.”
Lopez v. US Sprint Commc'ns Co., 973 So. 2d 819 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
Richard v. Teague, 636 So. 2d 1160 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
Ryan v. Blount Bros. Const., Inc., 927 So. 2d 1242 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
Dugan v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 41 So. 3d 1263 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1061(A)(1): 38 cases
Dean v. Southmark Const., 879 So. 2d 112 (La. 2004). “R.S. 23:1061 mandates that a statutory employment relationship is not created in the absence of a written agreement recognizing the principal as a statutory employer.”
Dustin Wright v. Excel Paralubes, 807 F.3d 730 (5th Cir. 2015). “R.S. 23:1061(A) only. Irrespective of [CP’s] status either as the statutory employer or as the special employer (as defined in La.”
Mitchell v. S. Scrap Recycling, LLC, 93 So. 3d 754 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
Jorge-Chavelas v. La. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 917 F.3d 847 (5th Cir. 2019). “La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1061(A)(1). The catch is that the relationship must be formed by *854 contract.”
Everett v. Rubicon, Inc., 938 So. 2d 1032 (La. Ct. App. 2006). “The amended statute tracked the language defining "principal" in LSA-R.S. 23:1061 [3] and further provided, in pertinent part: *1036 The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee or his dependent .”
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1061(A)(2): 24 cases
Dean v. Southmark Const., 879 So. 2d 112 (La. 2004). “R.S. 23:1061 mandates that a statutory employment relationship is not created in the absence of a written agreement recognizing the principal as a statutory employer.”
Maddox v. Steel, 814 So. 2d 569 (La. Ct. App. 2001).
LFI Fort Pierce, Inc. v. Acme Steel Bldgs., Inc., 200 So. 3d 939 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
Prejean v. Maint. Enter., Inc., 8 So. 3d 766 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 23:1061. Mr. Prejean filed an opposition to Murphy Oil's motion arguing that the Murphy Oil-MEI contract did not entitle Murphy Oil to statutory employer status because the language of the contract limited Murphy Oil to paying compensation "if the immediate employer,…”
Jorge-Chavelas v. La. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 917 F.3d 847 (5th Cir. 2019). “La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1061(A)(1). The catch is that the relationship must be formed by *854 contract.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1061(A)(3): 56 cases
Prejean v. Maint. Enter., Inc., 8 So. 3d 766 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 23:1061. Mr. Prejean filed an opposition to Murphy Oil's motion arguing that the Murphy Oil-MEI contract did not entitle Murphy Oil to statutory employer status because the language of the contract limited Murphy Oil to paying compensation "if the immediate employer,…”
Johnson v. Motiva Enter. LLC, 128 So. 3d 483 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “R.S. 23:1061, 6 which added Subpart (A)(3) and became effective on June 17, 1997, created a presumptive statutory employer status based on a written contract between the principal and immediate employer.”
St. Angelo v. United Scaffolding, Inc./X-Serv., Inc., 40 So. 3d 365 (La. Ct. App. 2010). “On November 8, 2007, ExxonMobil and CRLLC moved for Summary Judgment, alleging that they had immunity from tort liability as statutory employer of plaintiffs as pursuant to La.Rev.Stat. § 23:1061. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to their motion.”
Dean v. Southmark Const., 879 So. 2d 112 (La. 2004). “R.S. 23:1061 mandates that a statutory employment relationship is not created in the absence of a written agreement recognizing the principal as a statutory employer.”
Rolls v. Packaging Corp of Am., 34 F.4th 431 (5th Cir. 2022).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1061(A)(8): 1 case
Johnson v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 99 F. Supp. 2d 755 (E.D. La. 2000).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1061(B): 7 cases
Jorge-Chavelas v. La. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 917 F.3d 847 (5th Cir. 2019). “La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1061(A)(1). The catch is that the relationship must be formed by *854 contract.”
Efferson v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 816 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D. La. 1993).
Ring v. Decor Gravure Corp., 768 So. 2d 116 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
Cajun Concrete Serv. Inc. v. Lemoine Co., Inc., 791 So. 2d 709 (La. Ct. App. 2001).
Crescent City Const., Inc. v. Camper, 898 So. 2d 408 (La. Ct. App. 2004).
La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1061(c): 1 case
Courville v. Citgo Petroleum Corp, No. 2:20-cv-01415 (W.D. La. Dec. 2, 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.