Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Day v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., 420 So. 2d 518.

15 citing documents.

Matthews v. Pete Mercer Const. 758 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
and Day v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Ashy v. Migues 760 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
However, the court reasoned that, “It is not physical contact with the vehicle that serves as a basis to determine whether a person is injured while alighting from a vehicle but it is the relationship between the person and the vehicle, obviously of time and in distance with regard to the risk of alighting that determines specific covérage.” Id., quoting Day v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Gauthreaux v. Allstate Insurance Co. 731 So. 2d 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
The court then cited with approval the case of Day v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc., (La.App.
Minor v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange 700 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
The physical relationship between the person and the vehicle was again stressed in Day v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Valentine v. Bonneville Ins. Co. 691 So. 2d 665 La. 1997
Quoting with approval the reasoning of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal in Day v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc., this Court in Westerfield stated: It is not physical contact with the vehicle that serves as a basis to determine whether a person is injured while alighting from a vehicle but it is the relationship between the person and the vehicle, obviously of time and distance with regard to the risk of ali
Valentine v. Bonneville Ins. Co. 672 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
In Day v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc., (La.App.
Armstrong v. Hanover Ins. Co. 614 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
(emphasis supplied), quoting Day v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc., (La.App.
White v. Williams 563 So. 2d 1316 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
1st Cir.1981), writ denied Day v. Coca Cola Bottling Company, Inc., (La.App.
Washington v. Allstate Ins. Co. 499 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Another unusual situation was in Day v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc., (La.App.
Martinez v. Great American Ins. Co. 499 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
See Day v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., (La.
Westerfield v. LaFleur 493 So. 2d 600 La. 1986
Smith v. Girley, supra ; Day v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc. (La.
Westerfield v. LaFleur 480 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Cf. Smith v. Girley, supra; Day v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Crear v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 469 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
In Day v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Darbonne v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America 452 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
3rd Cir.1980); and Day v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., (La.App.
Snider v. Kemper Ins. Co. 448 So. 2d 1383 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
223 , (1971) and in Day v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., (La.App.