DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite White v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 64 So. 2d 245.

71 citing documents.

  • Christy Robinette v. Old Republic Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    Co., So.2d 245 (1953); Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 209 La.
  • Robinette v. Old Republic Insurance Co. 229 So. 3d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    Co., , (1953); Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 209 La.
  • Logan v. Louisiana Dock Co., Inc. 541 So. 2d 182 La. 1989
    Co., , (1953); See Art. V, section 5, La.
  • Adams v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford 543 So. 2d 480 La. 1989
    Co., , (1953); Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 209 La.
  • Alexander v. Dominick 533 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Insurance Co., , at 249 (La.1953), as follows: “It is firmly established by the above cited authorities of this Court and others of the Courts of Appeal of this State, too numerous to mention, that a guest is under no duty to supervise the driving of the vehicle and he is not obliged to look out for sudden or unexpected
  • Hutson v. Madison Parish Police Jury 496 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    Co., , (1953), sets forth the often quoted rule regarding contributory negligence of a guest passenger: Contributory negligence is, as the phrase signifies, negligence which contributes to the accident, that is, negligence having causal connection with it and but for which the accident would not have occurred.
  • Crowe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 416 So. 2d 1376 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    3 Cir. 1972), affirmed, held, on page 809, that: " , (1963) is still applicable to us, and a guest or passenger in an automobile has the right to place reliance upon the driver and is not required to monitor the operation or pay strict attention to the road, save under special circumstances or conditions which dictate preventive measures by such passenger
  • McCoy v. Franklin Parish Police Jury 414 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Co., , (1953), sets forth the often quoted rule regarding contributory negligence of a guest passenger: Contributory negligence is, as the phrase signifies, negligence which contributes to the accident, that is, negligence having causal connection with it and but for which the accident would not have occurred.
  • Gasquet v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 391 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    Co., , (1953), the Supreme Court stated: "However, a guest may be denied recovery on the ground of contributory negligence in instances where he is guilty on his own part of independent negligence of such a nature, that, but for which, his injuries would not have been sustained."
  • Baham v. Patterson 353 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Edwards v. Government Employees Insurance 356 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Although a passenger has a duty to warn the driver of dangers known to him which are apparently unknown to the driver, “a guest is under no duty to supervise the driving of the vehicle and he is not obliged to look out for sudden or unexpected dangers that may arise.” , (1953).
  • Williams v. Harvey 328 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
  • Williams v. Harvey 328 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Bennett v. Leiva 284 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Co., , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 , our Supreme Court resolved that a passenger in an automobile has the right to rely upon the driver there *799 of and is not required to oversee the operation of the vehicle or pay strict attention to the road, except under special conditions or circumstances where common sense and pr
  • Jagers v. Royal Indemnity Company 276 So. 2d 309 La. 1973
  • Jagers v. Royal Indemnity Company 257 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
    (1963) is still applicable to us, and a guest or passenger in an automobile has the right to place reliance upon the driver and is not required to monitor the operation or pay strict attention to the road, save under special circumstances or conditions which dictate preventive measures by such passenger
  • Badeaux v. Patterson Truck Line, Inc. 247 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
    as follows: "* * * a guest is under no duty to supervise the driving of the vehicle and he is not obliged to look out for sudden or unexpected dangers that may arise.
  • Craker v. Allstate Insurance Company 250 So. 2d 746 La. 1971
  • Richards v. American Home Assurance Co. 241 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    938 , (1953); , (1953); Delaune v. Breaux, 174 La.
  • Deshotel v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 224 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
    The rule for independent contributory negligence of a guest passenger is set forth in White v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company, 1953, , 64 So.
  • King v. King 217 So. 2d 395 La. 1968
    Co., , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 , we held: “It is firmly established by the above cited authorities of this Court and others of the Courts of Appeal of this State, too numerous to mention, that a guest is under no duty to supervise the driving of the vehicle and he is not obliged to look out for sudden or unexpected
  • Landry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 215 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
    [ 42 A.L.R.2d 338 ] (and authorities cited in both majority and dissenting opinions thereof)."
  • Lawrence v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company 213 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1968
    [ 42 A.L.R.2d 338 ] (and authorities cited in both majority and dissenting opinions thereof).'
  • Passman v. Allstate Insurance Co. 208 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    Co., , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 .
  • Treadway v. State Farm Insurance Company 204 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    Co., , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 .
  • Courtney v. Traders & General Insurance 198 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Co., , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 (1953).
  • Beavers v. Butler 188 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
    Co., , -250 , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 (1953), stated: "Contributory negligence is, as the phrase signifies, negligence which contributes to the accident, that is, negligence having causal connection with it and but for which the accident would not have occurred.
  • Collier v. Maryland Casualty Co. 190 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Fontana v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 173 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    Co., , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 .
  • Smith v. Marquette Casualty Company 176 So. 2d 133 La. 1965
  • McMorris v. Hanover Insurance Co. 175 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    [ 42 A.L.R.2d 338 ] (and authorities cited in both dissenting opinions thereof)."
  • Frisard v. Oalmann 175 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Co., , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 .
  • Bertrand v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company 160 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    Co., , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 ), nor do we think they were guilty of any independent negligence barring recovery.
  • Bodan v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS'INSURANCE COMPANY 160 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
  • Birdwell v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 160 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Co., , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 (1953); Roberts v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., La.App., (2d Cir.1962).
  • Gaspard v. LeMaire 158 So. 2d 149 La. 1963
    Co., , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 , wherein we resolved that a guest or passenger in an automobile has the right to place reliance upon the driver and is not required to monitor the operation or pay strict attention to the road, save under special circumstances or conditions from which it would be reasonable to conclud
  • Theunissen v. Guidry 153 So. 2d 869 La. 1963
  • Carter v. Canal Insurance Co. 154 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Co., , , wherein, at page 249 of 64 So.2d, Justice McCaleb as the organ of the Supreme Court said: “Contributory negligence is, as the phrase signifies, negligence which contributes to the accident, that is, negligence having causal connection with it and but for which the accident would not have occurred.
  • Sloan v. Flack 150 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    Co., , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 .
  • Johnson v. Gill 148 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    42 A.L.R.2d 338 ; McAllister v. Travelers Insurance Co., La.App., ; Otis v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La.App., .
  • Lea v. Cannon 146 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    42 A.L.R.2d 338 ; Upshaw v. Great American Indemnity Company, La.App., .
  • Gaspard v. Lemaire 146 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Coco v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 136 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    42 A.L.R.2d 338 ; Bordelon v. Couvillion, La.App.
  • Gaspard v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company 131 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    42 A.L.R.2d 338 ; Upshaw v. Great American Indemnity Company, La.
  • Bordelon v. Couvillion 130 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    The general rule involving contributory negligence in the case of a guest passenger is well stated in the case of White v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., et al., , , and reads as follows : “Contributory negligence is, as the phrase signifies, negligence which contributes to the accident, that is, negligence having causal connection with it and but for which the accident would not have occurred.
  • Constantin v. Bankers Fire and Marine Insurance Co. 129 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    42 A.L.R.2d 338 ; Upshaw v. Great American Indemnity Company, La.App., .
  • McDermit v. Northern Ins. Co. 126 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    Co. et al., , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 .
  • D & D PLANTING CO. v. Employers Casualty Co. 124 So. 2d 908 La. 1960
    Co. et al., , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 .
  • Thornton v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc. 123 So. 2d 885 La. 1960
    Co., , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 ; Herget v. Saucier, 223 La.
  • Hargett v. Chemical Service, Inc. 116 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Co., , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 ; Delaune v. Breaux, 174 La.