DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Washington v. T. Smith & Son, 68 So. 2d 337.

21 citing documents.

  • Humphries v. TL James & Co. 468 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    (4th Cir.1953), (2nd Cir.1968), (1st Cir.1968).
  • Lyons v. Parish of Jefferson 425 So. 2d 955 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    Referring to art. 2317, Washington v. T. Smith & Son, states "[t]he article means by things in one's custody such things over which that person maintains supervision and control ..."
  • Miller v. Lambert 380 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    Washington v. T. Smith & Son, (Orl.La.App.
  • Brummerloh v. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark 377 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Plaintiffs cite Washington v. T. Smith & Son, for proposition that agent or contractor is liable under Art. 2317 for things in his control.
  • Abshire v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Ins. Co. 289 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    1 Cir. 1958); Washington v. T. Smith & Son
  • Canter v. Koehring Company 283 So. 2d 716 La. 1973
    1st Cir. 1958); Washington v. T. Smith & Son, (La.App.
  • Johnson v. Schneider 271 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    See for example, Spillers v. North Assurance Co. of America, La.App., ; Sampson v. Schultz, La.App., ; Berry v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, La.App., ; Ellender v. Sabel, La.App., ; Adams v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, La.App., ; Washington v. T. Smith & Son, La.App., .
  • Boudreaux v. Falco 215 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    1 Cir. 1958); Washington v. T. Smith & Son
  • Smith v. Chemical Construction Corporation 215 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    See Washington v. T. Smith & Son
  • Wilcox v. American Oil Co. 215 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    As was pointed out in Washington v. T. Smith & Son, : “The article means by things in one’s custody such things over which that person maintains supervision and control.
  • Rezza v. Cziffer 186 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    App., ; Washington v. T. Smith & Son, La.App., ; Trascher v. Eagle Indemnity Co. of New York, La.
  • Daigle v. Cobb 175 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    That the test expressed in Washington v. T. Smith & Son, La.App., (in which a shipping agent was held responsible for injuries caused by a falling create) is two-fold: (a) Was the duty on the part of the director, officer or agents to use due care and; (b) Did the act of omission or commission constitute a breach of that duty?
  • Jolly v. Travelers Ins. Co. 161 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    See Adams v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York, La.App., ; Washington v. T. Smith & Son, La.App., ; Malone La.
  • Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 158 So. 2d 162 La. 1963
    App.), , wherein the doctrine was applied against a steamship agent that had charge of a large crated airplane wing stored on a wharf which fell and injured a workman nearby, is authority for applying the doctrine in this case.
  • Lamb Rental Tools, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London 154 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Co., La.App., ; Washington v. T. Smith & Son, La.App., .
  • Southwestern S. & M. Co. v. Industrial Mollasses Corp. 135 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
    1123 ; First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Winnfield v. Continental Equity Life Insurance Company, La.App., ; Washington v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., La.App., .
  • First Fed. S. & L. Ass'n v. Continental Equity L. Ins. Co. 124 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    182 ; Washington v. T. Smith & Son, La.App.Orleans, 1953, (writs denied).
  • Adams v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York 107 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    (Emphasis added) The test as laid down after a lengthy discussion in the case of Washington v. T. Smith & Son, La.App., , is the correct one to be applied in testing the sufficiency of plaintiff's petition in the case at bar.
  • Gillis v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 95 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
  • Spurlock v. Boyce-Harvey MacHinery 90 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Cases which similarly hold liable the owner or custodian of goods or equipment which fell so as to injure persons on the premises include: Washington v. T. Smith & Son, La.App., , certiorari denied; Patrick v. T. Smith & Son, La.
  • McNulty v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 73 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    See Vienne v. Chalona, La.App., ; Trascher v. Eagle Indemnity Co. of New York, La.App., ; Washington v. T. Smith & Son, La.App., .