Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cormier v. Sinegal, 180 So. 2d 567.

23 citing documents.

Thomas v. Duncan 954 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Simmons v. Whittington 444 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Crowe v. State Farm, supra; (La.App.
Crowe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 416 So. 2d 1376 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Hanks v. Melancon 338 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Porter v. Johnson 337 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Thibodeaux v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 325 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Simmons v. Beauregard Parish School Board 315 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
3rd Cir. 1971); Sepulvado v. General Fire & Casualty Co.
Young v. Grant 290 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
(3rd La.App.1965); (1st La.App.1973)
Dupuy v. Pierce 285 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
The test as to whether a , in which this court stated: "In evaluating whether the child's conduct constitutes contributory negligence, the child is required to exercise only the care expected of his age, intelligence, and experience under the particular circumstances presented to him; in this respect, the obviousness or not of the danger to o
Hamilton v. Turner 273 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Co., supra [La.App., ]; Tate v. Hill, La.App., ; Cormier v. Sinegal, La.App., ; Lawrence v. Core, La.App., .
Skains v. Allstate Insurance 264 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Danna v. London Guarantee & Accident Company, La.App., ; ; .
Robinson v. Parish of East Baton Rouge 260 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Plaintiffs further allege that Rebecca Lee was not contributorily negligent; *61 that only under exceptional circumstances should a nine and one-half year old child be charged with contributory negligence, (La.App.
Dawson v. Fleming 260 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
The cited case of Cormier v. Sinegal, La.App., (3rd Cir. 1965), is indeed authority for that proposition.
Faia v. Landry 249 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
3 Cir., 1965, , we held that the test to be applied to determine the contributory negligence of small children is `a gross disregard of one's safety in the face of known, perceived and understood dangers.'" The Ates case, supra, presented no evidence to demonstrate the minor's "gross disregard of one's safety in the face of known
Woods v. Cappo 232 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Co., (1st La.App., 1967); (3d La.App., 1965) (1st La.App., 1967, writ refused, 1967).
Patterson v. Recreation and Park Commission 226 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Co., supra; Tate v. Hill, La.App., ; Cormier v. Sinegal, La.App., ; Lawrence v. Core, La.App., .
Morgan v. Travelers Insurance Co. 224 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
In the recent case of Cormier v. Sinegal, La.App., 3rd Cir., 1965, , we held that the test to be applied to determine the contributory negligence of small children is “a gross disregard of one’s safety in the face of known, perceived and understood dangers.” ’ “In the Ates case, however, the court held that the nine and one-half year old child was not contributorily negligent, becaus
Amacker v. Kirby 224 So. 2d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
(1st La.App., 1954); (3d La.App., 1961); (3d La.App., 1965); White v. Hanover Ins.
Sutton v. Rogers 222 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1969
481 (1936); Haywood v. Fidelity Mut.
Distinguished Price v. Watts 215 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
White v. Hanover Insurance Company 201 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Haywood v. Fidelity Mutual Insurance Company, La.App., , Stamps v. Henderson, La.App., ; Cormier v. Sinegal, La.App., .
Tate v. Hill 197 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
For cases recognizing and reaffirming the high duty of care required of a ; Jenkins v. Firemen's Insurance Company, Newark, N. J., La.App., ; Rainwater v. Boatright, La.App., .
Ates v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 191 So. 2d 332 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
2 Cir., 1946, ; , La.App.