Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Le Blanc v. Louisiana Coca Cola Bottling Co., 60 So. 2d 873.

47 citing documents.

Justiss Oil Company, Inc. v. Oil Country Tubular Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
522, (1958); So.2d 873 (1952).
Justiss Oil Co. v. Oil Country Tubular Corp. 216 So. 3d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Simmons v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 194 So. 3d 653 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Brookshire’s conceded the general rule of deleterious condition cases stated in Crosby and Landreneau, supra, , (1952), but argued that it applied only to manufacturers of foodstuffs, not to non-manufacturing sellers.
Aucoin v. Southern Quality Homes, LLC 984 So. 2d 685 La. 2008
Touro Infirmary v. Sizeler Architects 900 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Mike Legros v. Arc Services, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
522, (1958) ]; So.2d 873 (1952).
LeGros v. ARC Services, Inc. 867 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
522 , (1958)]; , (1952).
Porteous v. St. Ann's Cafe & Deli 713 So. 2d 454 La. 1998
Coca Cola Bottling Co., , (1952); Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, 129 La.
Cooper v. Borden, Inc. 709 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Simeon v. Doe 618 So. 2d 848 La. 1993
LeBlanc v. Louisiana Coca Cola Bottling Co., 221 La.919, (1952).
Johnson v. South Pacific Canning Co. 580 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Ard v. Kraft, Inc. 540 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
(1952); Rouse v. George A. Hormel & Co., (La.App.
Riviere v. JC Penney Co., Inc. 478 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
LeBlanc v. Louisiana Coca *967 Cola Bottling Co., , (1952); Sticker v. General Foods Corp., La.App., (1st Cir. 1975).
Stewart v. Barq's Beverages, Inc. 442 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Harrison v. Gulf South Beverages, Inc. 438 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
LeBlanc v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Ltd., , (1952); (La.
Craig v. Albertson's Southco, Inc. 415 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
See Le-Blanc v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Ltd., , (La.App.
Horowitz v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 376 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
the Court stated that a plaintiff who consumed a part of a soft drink which contained foreign matter is entitled to rely on the manufacturer’s implied warranty that the product is safe for human consumption.
Demars v. Natchitoches Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 353 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
Dixon v. Gutnecht 339 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
It is found in cases involving food and drink ( , (1953); in matters of redhibition (C.C.
COTTON STATES CHEM. CO., INC. v. Larrison Enterprises, Inc. 342 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
Rouse v. George A. Hormel & Co. 339 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
(1952); Sticker v. General Foods Corp., La.App., (1st Cir. 1975).
Sticker v. General Foods Corp. 324 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Stelly v. Gerber Products Company 299 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Quoting LeBlanc v. Louisiana Coca-Cola B. Co., 1952, , , plaintiffs argue that the manufacturer's "warranty of wholesomeness result[s] from the sale and distribution of its foods or beverages for consumption by the public in the original package or sealed containers."
Baughman v. Quality Mobile Homes, Inc. 289 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Lawson ex rel. Lawson v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Lake Charles 287 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Loyacano v. Continental Insurance Company 283 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
Simmons v. Baton Rouge Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Ltd. 282 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
The law concerning the proof required in this case is set out in LeBlanc v. Louisiana Coca Cola Bottling Company, Ltd., , (1952) and Givens v. Baton Rouge Coca Cola Bottling Company, Ltd., (La.App.
Mushatt v. Page Milk Company 262 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
(1952), which considered an illness arising out of consumption from a bottle of soda pop.
Paul v. Hardware Mutual Ins. Co. 254 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
Le Blanc v. Louisiana Coca Cola Bottling Co., Ltd., , ; Reine v. Baton Rouge Coca Cola Bottling Co., La.App., .
Banks v. Jefferson Bottling Company 249 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
See LeBlanc v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Ltd., , ; Givens v. Baton Rouge Coca-Cola Bottling Company, La.App., .
Thomas v. Gillette Company 230 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
Gauche v. Ford Motor Company 226 So. 2d 198 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
Cartwright v. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, NJ 223 So. 2d 822 La. 1969
Except in the food and drink cases, where the courts have found an implied warranty based on the theory that the preparer or manufacturer of food products is presumed to know the conditions under which they were prepared, and it warranted, their fitness for human consumption to the consumer (see LeBlanc v. Louisiana Coca Cola Bottling Company, Ltd., , ), the courts of this state have consistently rejected any deviation from the theory that Revised Civil Code Article 2317 must be read in connecti
Minot Hooper Co. v. Crowley Industrial Bag Co. 217 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Tuminello v. Mawby, 220 La.
Glasper v. Wright Root Beer Co. 216 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
In seeking an increase in the award of the Trial Court, plaintiff-appellant has presented to us the following cases: , (1952) wherein a woman after drinking a beverage from a bottle felt a slimy substance in her mouth which turned out to be a deteriorated fly, she was nauseated and vomited for a couple of days, and the Court awarded her $300.00.
McCauley v. Manda Brothers Provisions Company 211 So. 2d 637 La. 1968
In 1952, , , moved to the theory of implied warranty of wholesomeness.
Broussard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 210 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
' "In LeBlanc v. Louisiana Coca Cola Bottling Co., 1952, , , the other key case in Louisiana, there could not have been an implied warranty against redhibitory vices, even on an assignment theory: no sale was made to the plaintiff.
McCauley v. Manda Brothers Provisions Co. 202 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
320 , (1951); , (1952); (La.App.
Givens v. Baton Rouge Coca-Cola Bottling Company 182 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
LeBlanc v. Louisiana Coca Cola Bottling Co., Ltd., , (1952).
Love v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 175 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
(1952) has application and plaintiff has only to show that the ice cream contained a foreign matter and that she sustained injury therefrom to make a prima facie case.
Lesher v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company 129 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
367 ; Le Blanc v. Louisiana Coca Cola Bottling Company, Ltd., 1952, , ; McAvin v. Morrison Cafeteria Company of Louisiana, Ltd., La.App.
Reine v. Baton Rouge Coca Cola Bottling Company 126 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
It is the law of this State that the consumption by an individual of a bottled beverage from its original container and contaminated with unwholesome matter establishes a prima facie case for the assessment of damages against the manufacturer as established by the Supreme Court of this State in the case of Le Blanc v. Louisiana Coca Cola Bottling Company, Ltd., , .
Walker v. American Beverage Company 124 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1960
Morrow v. Bunkie Coca Cola Bottling Co. 84 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
In his assigned reasons for judgment the District Judge held that under the decision of Le Blanc v. Louisiana Coca Cola Bottling Co., 1952, , , plaintiff had made out her case by a preponderance of the evidence.
Miller v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 70 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
The relatively recent case of Le-Blanc v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Ltd., 1952, , , is apposite and controlling.
Montz v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 64 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
In LeBlanc v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Ltd., , , the Supreme Court was of the opinion that where the purchaser of a soft beverage, in a capped bottle, in apparent good condition, proves that the beverage contained unwholesome matter, and that he sustained injury from its consumption, he establishes a prima facie case for the assessment of damag
Johnson v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 63 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Defendant insists that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has no application herein and that the Supreme Court of this State, in the recent case of Le Blanc v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Ltd., 1952, , , expressly distinguished "bottle explosion cases" from those in which "a foreign ingredient" is involved as is reflected by the following language extracted therefrom: "The plaintiffs in the explosion cases depend entirely upon the law of negligence for recovery; the plaintiff in this case i