DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Harris Drilling Co. v. Delafield, 62 So. 2d 627.

21 citing documents.

  • Price v. CORPUS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES 515 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    569 , (1963); , Raphael Brothers v. Cerophyl Laboratories, 211 La.
  • St. Pierre v. Lombard 512 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    [2] See Harris Drilling Co., , -30 (1952) for the role of custom in negligence assessment.
  • Kalmn, Inc. v. Empiregas Corp. 406 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    1947); , Naquin v. Marquette Casualty Company, 244 La.
  • Johnson v. Harry Jarred, Inc. 391 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    wherein we stated: `* * * Those who handle and distribute a highly inflammable gas are charged with the duty to exercise a degree of care commensurate with its dangerous nature and necessary to protect the public from any foreseeable injury therefrom.'" Id.
  • Wallace v. Pan American Fire & Cas. Co. 352 So. 2d 1048 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    569 , (1963); , (1953); Hake v. Air Reduction Sales Co., 210 La.
  • Allstate Insurance Co. v. Town of Ville Platte 269 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
    625 , (1964); , (1952); 38 C.J. S. Gas § 44, page 743.
  • Leake v. Prudhomme Truck Tank Service, Inc. 258 So. 2d 358 La. 1972
    569 , (1963); , (1953); Hake v. Air Reduction Sales Co., 210 La.
  • Miller Car Washes, Inc. v. Crowe 245 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1971
    569 , (1963); , (1953); Hake v. Air Reduction Sales Co., 210 La.
  • Pitre v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 234 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • Duet v. Texas Co. 198 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    *136 The case of Harris Drilling Co., , , is more similar to the present matter.
  • Bayou Materials, Inc. v. City of Donaldsonville 192 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    The standard of care required of it is expressed in the following quotation: ‘ * * * Those who handle and distribute a highly inflammable gas are charged with the duty to exercise a degree of care commensurate with its dangerous nature and necessary to protect the public from any foreseeable injury therefrom.’ , , quoted in Naquin v. Marquette Casualty Company [ 244 La.
  • Jaeger v. Herald 186 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    (1952); amended on other grounds, 242 La.
  • Geismar v. General Gas Corp. 182 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Further, plaintiff cites the case of Harris Drilling Company v. Delafield (1952) , , as applicable to instant case.
  • Surry v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company 170 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
    569 , , , , and Raphael Bros. v. Cerophyl Laboratories, 211 La.
  • Home Gas & Fuel Co. v. Mississippi Tank Co. 166 So. 2d 252 La. 1964
    569 , (1963) ; , (1953); Hake v. Air Reduction Sales Co., 210 La.
  • Heatly v. E. H. Reeder Construction Co. 165 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Those who handle and distribute it are charged with the duty to exercise that degree of care commensurate with its dangerous character and necessary to protect the public from any foreseeable injury therefrom.’ ” , .
  • Naquin v. Marquette Casualty Company 153 So. 2d 395 La. 1963
    Those who handle and distribute it are charged with the duty to exercise that degree of care commensurate with its dangerous character and necessary to protect the public from any foreseeable injury therefrom.” , , wherein we stated: “ * * * Those who handle and distribute a highly inflammable gas are charged with the duty to exercise a degree of care commensurate with its dangerous nature and necessary to protect the public from any foreseeable injury therefrom.” 6 In the instant case, the expe
  • Larned v. Wallace 146 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    Pennington v. Justiss-Mears Oil Co., La.App., ; , .
  • Pierce v. Atlantic Refining Company 140 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    dustry may well be a very relevant factor in determining whether conduct was reasonable under the circumstances, but, actually, the customary way of doing things does not conclusively establish the standard of what is reasonable conduct; the custom and usage of an industry may be deficient insofar as the standard of duty reasonably owed to the general public, , -630 ; Casanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, 204 La.
  • Pennington v. Justiss-Mears Oil Company 123 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    be regarded as a matter proper for consideration in determining whether or not sufficient care has been exercised in a particular case, but it is not conclusive or controlling, for the customary way of doing a thing may be a negligent way and may create a false standard of care, and, once negligence is established, such negligence cannot be justified by custom," , -630 .
  • Cargill, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Co. 126 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    It was said in Harris Drilling Company v. Delafield, 1952, , , 629: “Custom and usage may be regarded as a matter proper for consideration in determining whether or not sufficient care has been exercised in a particular case, but it is not conclusive or controlling, for the customary way of doing a thing may be a negligent way and may create a false standard of c