Leggio v. Broussard

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Leggio v. Broussard

163 So. 2d 356, 246 La. 75, 1964 La. LEXIS 2474

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided May 4, 1964·No. No. 47206·Published

Opinion

In re: A. B. Broussard, Jr., A. B. Brous-sard and Sons, Inc., and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 162 So.2d 23.

Writ refused. According to the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no merit in the assignment of error.

McCALEB, J.,

is of the opinion that a writ should be granted as this case is one exclusively cognizable under the Employers Liability Act. See Dobson v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 228 La. 837, 84 So.2d 210 — As a tort action, no recovery should be had as plaintiff assumed the risk of injury as operator of the tractor under the circumstances presented.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re: A. B. Broussard, Jr., A. B. Brous-sard and Sons, Inc., and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 162 So.2d 23.

Writ refused. According to the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no merit in the assignment of error.

McCALEB, J.,

is of the opinion that a writ should be granted as this case is one exclusively cognizable under the Employers Liability Act. See Dobson v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 228 La. 837, 84 So.2d 210 — As a tort action, no recovery should be had as plaintiff assumed the risk of injury as operator of the tractor under the circumstances presented.

Leggio v. Broussard, 163 So. 2d 356, 246 La. 75, 1964 La. LEXIS 2474 (La. 1964).

Pincite

163 So. 2d 356 (Leggio v. Broussard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related