Court Opinion

ID: 9688726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:01:31.594286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:41.502549
License: Public Domain

McCALEB, Justice
(dissenting in part).
I concur in the rulings of the majority herein in all respects save one. Conceding the correctness of the conclusion that Holland and Humphreys were the borrowed employees of Martone, I do not believe that this circumstance relieves the insurer of the principal employer, Bon-Air Ranch, from liability for workmen’s compensation under our law. When these employees were performing personal services for Martone, manager of Bon-Air Ranch, the services rendered were incidental to their employment by Bon-Air Ranch and, hence, both it and Martone should be responsible, in solido.
That the regular employer of a borrowed employee is liable for workmen’s compensation for accidental injuries sustained by the borrowed employee, while engaged in performance of services for the borrowing employer, has heretofore been recognized by us in the leading case of Kern v. Southport Mill, 174 La. 432, 141 So. 19. To the same effect in principle is *385Dobson v. Standard Accident Insurance Co., 228 La. 837, 84 So.2d 210 and I perceive no reason why these authorities should not be applied here.
I therefore dissent from that part of the judgment which relieves American Casualty Company from liability.
On Rehearing of Nos. 43641 and 43662.