DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Herget v. Saucier, 67 So. 2d 543.

37 citing documents.

  • Logan v. Louisiana Dock Co., Inc. 541 So. 2d 182 La. 1989
    785 , (1955); , (1953); Board of Com'rs.
  • Touchette v. Braud 382 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    (1953); Nicolle v. Roberts, supra and numerous cases cited therein.
  • Adams v. Travelers Indemnity Company 277 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
  • Communication Service of Louisiana, Inc. v. Smith 250 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    471 , (1962); , (1953); Normand v. American Home Assurance Company, La.App., (3rd Cir. 1965).
  • Richards v. American Home Assurance Co. 241 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    270 , (1968); , (1953); White v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 222 La.
  • Roy v. Edmonson 221 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    (1953); Nicolle v. Roberts, supra and numerous cases cited therein.
  • King v. King 217 So. 2d 395 La. 1968
    be said to be a contributing cause of any injury he may sustain.” , and Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co., 229 La.
  • Landry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 215 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
    (1953), as follows: "Generally, a guest passenger is not required to keep a constant lookout for the dangers of the highway, or to pay attention to the ordinary road and other traffic conditions incident to automobile driving, it being his right and privilege to place reasonable reliance upon the driver
  • Lawrence v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company 213 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1968
    [ ] In rejecting the plea that the guest in the cited case, Benson, was guilty of contributory negligence by failing to protest or warn the driver of the danger, the court held he was entitled to reasonably rely upon the driver for the exercise of necessary care and caution, , , stated: `Generally, a guest passenger is not required to keep a constant lookout for the dangers of the highway, or to pay attention to the ordinary road and other traffic conditions incident to automobile driving, it be
  • McMorris v. Hanover Insurance Co. 175 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    where the Court said: "Generally, a guest passenger is not required to keep a constant lookout for *703 the dangers of the highway, or to pay attention to the ordinary road and other traffic conditions incident to automobile driving, it being his right and privilege to place reasonable reliance upon t
  • Normand v. American Home Assurance Company 171 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    2d 152 ; Ulmer v. Travelers Insurance Co., supra; , .
  • LeBlanc v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 157 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Aaron v. Martin, 188 La.
  • Bernard v. Hungerford 157 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    Aaron v. Martin, 188 La.
  • Ulmer v. Travelers Insurance Company 156 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Sloan v. Flack 150 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
  • Davis v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 134 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
  • Felt v. Price 126 So. 2d 330 La. 1961
    Jackson v. Jones, 224 La.
  • Derouen v. American Employers Insurance Company 123 So. 2d 896 La. 1960
  • Thornton v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc. 123 So. 2d 885 La. 1960
    994 , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 ; , ; Jackson v. Jones, 224 La.
  • Cornelius v. Fields 122 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
  • Nicolle v. Roberts 117 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. St.
  • Cofield v. Burgdorf 115 So. 2d 357 La. 1959
    1048 , ; , ; and authorities cited in these cases.
  • Ferguson v. Highway Insurance Underwriters 109 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    994 , [ 42 A.L.R.2d 338 ]; , ; Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company, 229 La.
  • Vidrine v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 105 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    994 , [ 42 A.L.R.2d 338 ]; , ; Wilkinson v. Great Am[erican] Indem.
  • Langlois v. Continental Insurance Co. 103 So. 2d 72 La. 1958
    994 , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 ; , ; Ducuy v. Falgoust, 228 La.
  • Demerest v. Travelers Insurance Company 102 So. 2d 451 La. 1958
    769 , ; Savoie v. Dupuy, supra, , .
  • Jackson v. Young 99 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    made this observation in dealing with the duty of a guest passenger which we quote: "Generally, a guest passenger is not required to keep a constant lookout for the dangers of the highway, or to pay attention to the ordinary road and other traffic conditions incident to automobile driving, it bei
  • Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 99 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    The legal principle applicable to the contention here made is aptly stated in the case of *159 Herget v. Saucier, 1953, , , to the effect: “Generally, a guest passenger is not required to keep a constant lookout for the dangers of the highway, or to pay attention to the ordinary road and other traffic conditions incident to automobile driving, it being his right and privilege to place reasonable reliance upon the driv
  • Rizley v. Cutrer 95 So. 2d 139 La. 1957
    994 , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 ; , and Thomas v. Checker Cab Company of New Orleans, 229 La.
  • Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Baumgardner 92 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    939 , ; Moncrieff v. Lacobie, La.App., First Circuit 1956, .
  • Senegal v. Thompson 91 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Our Supreme Court has recently redefined and clarified the duty of a passenger with regard to operation of a , and White v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 222 La.
  • Gaines v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. 86 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Ordinarily probably, the plaintiff, being a guest passenger, is not answerable for the negligence of his driver in these circumstances since he “is not required to keep a constant lookout for the dangers of the highway * * *, it being his right and privilege to place reasonable reliance upon the driver, in charge of the car for the exercise of the necessary care and caution.” , , at page 545; White v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 222 La.
  • Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co. 86 So. 2d 909 La. 1956
    994 , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 ; , .
  • Benson v. Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co. of New York 79 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
    it was stated: "Generally, a guest passenger is not required to keep a constant lookout for the dangers of the highway, or to pay attention to the ordinary road and other traffic conditions incident to automobile driving, it being his right and privilege to place reasonable reliance upon the driv
  • Fernandez v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 76 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    The Supreme Court observed in the case of Herget v. Saucier, 1953, , , 545: “Generally, a guest passenger is not required to keep a constant lookout for the dangers of the highway, or to pay attention to the ordinary road and other traffic conditions incident to automobile driving, it being his right and privilege to place reasonable reliance upon the driver in charge of
  • Taormina v. Reid 71 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    To convict her of negligence on this basis, in our opinion, would be utterly unreasonable.” , , the Supreme Court said: “Generally, a guest passenger is not required to keep a constant lookout for the dangers of the highway, or to pay attention to the ordinary road and other traffic conditions incident to automobile driving, it being his right and privilege to place reasonable reliance upon
  • Jackson v. Jones 69 So. 2d 729 La. 1953
    199 , , ), the matter will be remanded to the Court of Appeal for the determination of the quantum of damages to which plaintiff may be entitled.