Court Opinion

ID: 7686377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 03:20:20.94232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:26:36.248103
License: Public Domain

| xPITCHER, Judge,
dissenting.
I disagree with the result reached by the majority in this ease. I believe that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the work being performed was a part of Teledyne’s trade, business, or occupation. See, Picard v. Zeit Exploration Co., Inc., 92-2242 (La.App. 1st Cir. 3/11/94); 636 So.2d 922, writ granted and judgment set aside, 94-1555 (La. 9/30/94); 642 So.2d 862; Deal v. International Paper Company, 632 So.2d 870 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1994), writ granted and judgment reversed, 94-0677 (La. 4/29/94); 637 So.2d 453; Hanks v. Shell Oil *271Co., 93-737 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1/25/94); 631 So.2d 1189, writ granted and judgment set aside, 94-0483 (La. 4/4/94); 635 So.2d 1118; Moore v. Crystal Oil Company, 626 So.2d 792 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1993), writ granted and judgment reversed, 93-3103 (La. 2/25/94); 632 So.2d 758.