DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co., 86 So. 2d 909.

98 citing documents.

  • Ida Cosey Wylie v. Joseph C. Peltier, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Gagliano v. Gosling 768 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Co., , rehearing denied: “a motorist traveling on the public highways after dark or ...
  • Spiegal v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. 680 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Dubois v. Louviere 462 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • McCoy v. Franklin Parish Police Jury 414 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Co., , ; Dodge v. Bituminous Casualty Co., 214 La.
  • Darby v. Lemoine 410 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Plaintiff argues, under his version of the facts that there were no lights on the pickup truck, , (1956); Stelly v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of N. Y., (La.App.
  • McLeod v. Woodel 341 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    2d Cir. 1976); , (1956); Welch v. Mayhall, supra.
  • Parker v. Continental Ins. Co. 341 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    (1956); Welch v. Mayhall, supra .
  • Flores v. Commercial Union Insurance Company 337 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
    Co., , ; Sittig v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas.
  • Martin v. State, Dept. of Highways 322 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    McCallum v. State, Dept. of Highways, , (1956).
  • Ortego v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 295 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    377 (1940); , (1956); and the progeny of those cases.
  • South Texas Lloyds v. Guarantee Insurance Co. 299 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    (1956), in which there was a lumber truck stopped in the roadway next to a milk truck for a period of four-to-five minutes without visible lights, the Supreme Court held that the driver of the overtaking car was not guilty of contributory negligence because oncoming traffic prevented a passing move
  • Conde v. Mayer 273 So. 2d 308 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Co., S (La.App.1964); and Vowell v. Manufacturer’s Casualty Insurance Co., , (1964).
  • Veal v. Hotard 256 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    42) , (1956), urged by counsel for Gilbert Veal as applicable in the instant case, wherein it was held that a motorist driving at night is not charged with the duty of guarding against striking an unexpected or unusual obstruction which he had no reason to anticipate that he would encounter on the highway.
  • Dudley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 255 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Craker v. Allstate Insurance Company 250 So. 2d 746 La. 1971
  • Peggy Parish v. Liberty Universal Insurance Co. 251 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Co., , ; and Sittig v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas.
  • Harkins v. State, Department of Highways 247 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
    Applicable to the issue of Harkins' contributory negligence is the jurisprudence that a motorist is not required to guard against striking an unexpected or unusual obstruction which he could not reasonably anticipate would be encountered on the highway, , 86 So.
  • Robinson v. Melton Truck Lines, Inc. 244 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    796 , (1956); Fairfax v. American Casualty Company, of Reading, Pennsylvania
  • Mabile v. Thibaut Farms 244 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1956), and cases cited therein.
  • Smith v. Girley 242 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    *38 , ; Puissegur v. Loque, La.App., , and Woods v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, La.App., , defendant Girley argues he should be exonerated from liability under the rule that a motorist is not deemed negligent for failing to avoid a collision when suddenly confronted
  • Richards v. American Home Assurance Co. 241 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    938 , ; , .’ ” In the same case (Ferguson v. Highway Insurance Underwriters, supra) the court also held that: “• * * * when the guest permits the driver to be reckless without protesting he will be considered to have consented to and acquiesced in the driver’s negligence if he had an opportunity to protest, and t
  • Derouen v. Allstate Insurance 237 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    (1956) and its progeny which hold a night motorist free of negligence where he strikes an unusual obstruction on the highway, such as an unlighted vehicle.
  • Fairfax v. American Casualty Co. of Reading 236 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    1031 , (1949); , .(1956).
  • Distinguished Hathorn v. McKay 236 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    Co., , , concerns an unlighted parked vehicle which the oncoming driver had no reason to anticipate.
  • O'Reilly v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 230 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    796 , , wherein it is stated: “Our rule that a motorist traveling on the public highways after dark or during a rainstorm, fog, or other abnormal condition, which prevents him seeing ahead, except imperfectly, and for a short time and distance, must guard against striking objects in the road with which he may be sudden
  • Odom v. Texas Farm Products Co. 229 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1969
  • St. Amand v. Petro Sales, Inc. 225 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Co., , ; Sittig v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas.
  • Driscoll v. Allstate Insurance Co. 223 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    Stelly v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, La.App., ; Sittig v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins.
  • Calais v. Thibodeaux 220 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
    1031 , ; , (1956); Brunson v. Royalty Indemnity Company, La.App., .
  • King v. King 217 So. 2d 395 La. 1968
  • Miller v. Kinney 213 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    See Judge Tate’s , (1956); (La.App.1st Ci
  • Adams v. Allstate Insurance Company 212 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
    (1956), and cases cited therein.
  • Phillips v. Garden 211 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1968
    (1956) to support their contention that Garden was free of negligence.
  • Rowe v. Travelers Insurance Co. 208 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    Co., , (1956); Sittig v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins.
  • Lawrence v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 208 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    Defendants attempt to bring this case under the exception to the general rule of the standard of care of a night driver, , : “Our rule that a motorist traveling on the public highways after dark or during a rainstorm, fog, or other abnormal condition, which prevents him seeing ahead, except imperfectly, and for a short time and distance, must guard against striking objects in the road with which he may be suddenly confronte
  • Bertrand v. Home Indemnity Co. 209 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    Co., , (1956); and Suire v. Winters, 233 La.
  • Sittig v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 198 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
    Co., , ; Dodge v. Bituminous Cas.
  • Wortham v. Owens 200 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Co., , ; Sittig v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas.
  • Stelly v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 201 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    This court’s majority opinion held, , (1956), that the plaintiff did not have the duty to guard “against striking an unexpected or unusual obstruction which he had no reason to anticipate he would encounter on the highway” and concluded that defendant’s truck constituted such an obstruction.
  • Brown v. New York Fire & Marine Underwriters, Inc. 198 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
  • Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 192 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
    Co., , ; Dodge v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 214 La.
  • Morgan v. Toups-Cook Truck Sales, Inc. 194 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Co. (1956), , ; Graham v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (La.App.1963), ; Mose v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania (La.App.1961), ; Fontenot v. LaFleur (La.App.1960), , and Edwards v. Trahan (La.App.1964), .
  • Arnold v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co. 190 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    thus: "Our rule that a motorist traveling on the public highways after dark or during a rainstorm, fog, or other abnormal condition, which prevents him seeing ahead, except imperfectly, and for a short time and distance, must guard against striking objects in the road with which he may be suddenly con
  • Shively v. Hare 189 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Also apropos to the facts of the instant case, are Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co. (1956) , ; Dodge v. Bituminous Casualty Corporation, (1949) 214 La.
  • Gros v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company 183 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    involving circumstances remarkably similar to those in the instant case, a motorist traveling after dark at a lawful rate of speed was exonerated from liability for striking an unlighted vehicle parked in his lane of travel.
  • Cain v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. 178 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    1031 , ; , ; Suire v. Winters, 233 La.
  • Normand v. American Home Assurance Company 171 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    Herget v. Saucier, supra; , .
  • Thibodeaux v. Jack's Cookie Corporation 169 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    Co., , ; Graham v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., La.App.
  • Woods v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 172 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Those seeking to establish Johnson's negligence rely heavily upon Vowell Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company, , , from which we quote with approval, the following: "Our rule that a motorist traveling on the public highways after dark or during a rainstorm, fog, or other abnormal condition, which prevents him seeing ahead, except imperfectly, and for a short time and distance, must guard against striking objects i