Wearrien v. Viverette’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 292 So. 2d 216 - LeBrane v. Lewis · 744 So. 2d 606 - Hardy v. Bowie · 673 So. 2d 994 - Baumeister v. Plunkett · 559 So. 2d 467 - Ermert v. Hartford Ins. Co. · 617 So. 2d 477 - Benoit v. Capitol Mfg. Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is not determinative that the predominant motive of the tortfeasor servant is to benefit himself or a third person, for such a motive does not prevent the act from being within the scope of employment. Rather, the courts will look to see if the purpose of serving the master’s business actuated the servant to any appreciable extent. If so, the master is subject to liability if the act is otherwise within the service. Ermert v. Hartford Insurance Company, 559 So.2d 467 (La.1990); Dickerson v. Piccadilly Restaurants, Inc., [ 99-2633 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/22/00) , 785 So.2d 842 ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) whether the tortious act was primarily employment rooted; (2) whether the act was reasonably incidental to the performance of the employee’s duties; (3) whether the act occurred on the employer’s premises; and (4) whether it occurred during the hours of employment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.