Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bergeron v. Department of Highways, 60 So. 2d 4.

33 citing documents.

Ainsworth v. Bituminous Cas. Corp. 379 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Justice Dixon writing for the majority in Baumgartner (footnote 8, page 406) took the opportunity to express the court's "disapproval of a , (1952)."
Baumgartner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 356 So. 2d 400 La. 1978
[8] Although we find the last clear chance doctrine inapplicable to the instant case we take this opportunity to express our disapproval of a , (1952).
Johnson v. Powell 346 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Baumgartner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 346 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
See Bergeron v. Department of Highways, 1952, , .
Mugnier v. Checker Cab Company 309 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Joseph v. Boudreaux 230 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Stewart v. Tessitore 222 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
227, that thought is expressed as follows : ‘As graphically stated by some authorities, the doctrine of discovered peril is a two-edged sword, applicable equally to the rights of a defendant and those of a plaintiff’ * * *” , .
McGinty v. Insurance Co. of North America 205 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
227, that thought is expressed as follows: ‘As graphically stated by some authorities, the doctrine of discovered peril is a two-edged sword, applicable equally to the rights of a defendant and those of a plaintiff.’ ” [ , (1952)] It is our conclusion that the accident would not have occurred except for the *175 fault of Mrs. McGinty in attempting to cross the street without exercise of due care.
Naquin v. Callais 191 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
that "[t]he rule of `last clear chance' or `discovered peril' applies to both parties who are involved in an accident.
Homer v. Local Cab Co. 187 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Appellants therefore rely primarily upon the last clear chance doctrine and cite the following authorities to support their position : , (1952) ; Belshe v. Gant, 235 La.
LeBlanc v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 162 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Campisi v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York 152 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
See Fontenot v. Travelers Indemnity Company, supra; , 60 So.
James v. State 154 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
Defendants cite Bergeron v. Department of Highways, La.App., , reversed on other grounds, , , and Lowery v. Zorn, 184 La.
Biggs v. Verbois 151 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
at page 8, the Supreme Court, in refusing to make applicable the doctrine of last clear chance to the factual situation therein involved, observed: "* * * It involves as we have said various calculations of the rate of speed, of the time it takes to react to an emergency and the application of brakes as w
Emmco Insurance Co. v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin 150 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
In such circumstances, , , in our opinion, is particularly applicable wherein the Court (60 So.2d p. 8) said: “ * * * The rule of 'the last clear chance’ or ‘discovered peril’ applies to both parties who are involved in an accident.
Moore v. American Insurance Co. of Newark 150 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
at page 8, wherein the Supreme Court concluded the doctrine of last clear chance inapplicable to the factual situation therein involved, and observed: “ * * * It involves as we have said various calculations of the rate of speed, of the time it takes to react to an emergency and the application of brakes
Hudgens v. Mayeaux 143 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
NOTES [1] This shift of the duties imposed upon a , .
Angeron v. Guzzino 140 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
is deemed particularly apropos' the issue of last clear chance: “It involves as we have said various calculations of the rate of speed, of the time it takes to react to an emergency and the application of brakes as well as the distance in which a truck, like the one in this case, can be brought to a sto
Fontenot v. Travelers Indemnity Company 134 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Dean v. Pitts 133 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
943 , ; , ; Wheat v. Brandt, La.App.
Holt v. All State Insurance 131 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
and the cases cited therein.
Martin v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark 127 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
665, 667 .” Bergeron v. Department of Highways, 1952, , ; Maryland Cas.
Whitner v. Scott 116 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
The Maryland Casualty Co. case went on to cite the Bergeron case, stating the following ( ): "`In Bergeron v. Department of Highway, 1952, , , Justice LeBlanc noted that testing the ability of a motorist to avoid an accident involves calculation of: the rate of speed, the time it takes to react to an emergency, and apply the brakes; as well as a determination of the distance in which the vehicle can be brought to a stop, traveling at the given
Tauzier v. Bondio 111 So. 2d 756 La. 1959
Short v. City of Baton Rouge 110 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
it was held that a motorist making a left turn is not necessarily negligent in failing to maintain a constant lookout in the direction of approaching traffic.
Ballard v. Piehler 98 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
The Maryland Casualty Co. case went on to cite the Bergeron case, stating the following [ ]: "In Bergeron v. Department of Highways, 1952, , , Justice LeBlanc noted that testing the ability of a motorist to avoid an accident involves calculation of: the rate of speed, the time it takes to react to an emergency, and apply the brakes; as well as a determination of the distance in which the vehicle can be brought to a stop, traveling at the given
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co. 96 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
In Bergeron v. Department of Highways, 1952, , , Justice LeBlanc noted that testing the ability of a motorist to avoid an accident involves calculation of: the rate of speed, the time it takes to react to an emergency, and apply the brakes; as well as a determination of the distance in which the vehicle can be brought to a stop, traveling at the given
Arnold v. Reuther 92 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1957
referring to such split second calculations, the Supreme Court said: “As a result of those calculations, especially those of the rate of speed of the respective vehicles which are based principally on assumptions, the difference is one of seconds in the matter of time, and of a few feet only in the m
Stevenson v. Williams 76 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Bagala v. Kimble 74 So. 2d 172 La. 1954
an exhaustive review was made relating to the jurisprudence applicable to that doctrine, and we are of the opinion that what we said there is appropriate here: "The rule of `the last clear chance' or `discovered peril' applies to both parties who are involved in an accident.
Moore v. Nola Cabs 70 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
677 ; Bechtel v. Oriol, La.App., ; Duet v. Terrebonne, La.App., ; , ; Bagala v. Kimble, La.App., ; and Silvera v. Gallardo, La.App., .
Peiser v. Grand Isle, Inc. 69 So. 2d 51 La. 1953
Potomac Ins. v. City of Alexandria 66 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
For instance in one of the cases cited by plaintiff, , , where a bicyclist ran into the front fender of a truck that was making a left turn, the Supreme Court, reviewing a judgment of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, , said: “Where truck driver was not negligent in any manner when he stopped or slowed down and surveyed situation before making