Milazzo v. Crasto

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Milazzo v. Crasto

103 So. 3d 360, 2012 La. LEXIS 3366, 2012 WL 6062153

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 30, 2012

DocketNo. 2012-CC-1791

StatusPublished

This text of 103 So. 3d 360 (Milazzo v. Crasto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Milazzo v. Crasto, 103 So. 3d 360, 2012 La. LEXIS 3366, 2012 WL 6062153 (La. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In re James Construction Group LLC; Jewel, Gary; National Union Fire Insurance Company; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 069483; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CW 0385.

Granted. The undisputed facts establish the employee was not in course and scope of employment at time of accident, because he was on his way home form work, not being paid for his time, and was not on-call at the time of the collision. Even assuming the employee violated his employer’s policies by using the cell phone while driving, this fact is irrelevant, as he completed the conversation prior to the accident. Accordingly, the judgment of the district [361]*361court is reversed, and relators’ motion for summary judgment is granted.

JOHNSON and WEIMER, JJ., would deny.

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

In re James Construction Group LLC; Jewel, Gary; National Union Fire Insurance Company; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 069483; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CW 0385.

Granted. The undisputed facts establish the employee was not in course and scope of employment at time of accident, because he was on his way home form work, not being paid for his time, and was not on-call at the time of the collision. Even assuming the employee violated his employer’s policies by using the cell phone while driving, this fact is irrelevant, as he completed the conversation prior to the accident. Accordingly, the judgment of the district [361]*361court is reversed, and relators’ motion for summary judgment is granted.

JOHNSON and WEIMER, JJ., would deny.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 So. 3d 360, 2012 La. LEXIS 3366, 2012 WL 6062153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milazzo-v-crasto-la-2012.