DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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.

  • Lagarde v. Smith 169 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Cases wherein parking was a factor include Smith v. Henry, La.App., (2nd Cir. 1962); Graham v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, La.App., (2nd Cir. 1963) and Vowell v. *581 Manufacturing Casualty Company, , (1956).
  • Edwards v. Trahan 168 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    Graham v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., La.App.
  • Granger v. Travelers Insurance Co. 167 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Co., , ; Dodge v. Bituminous Casualty Co., 214 La.
  • Eubanks v. Wilson 162 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    2d 720 ; , ; and Suire v. Winters, 233 La.
  • LeNormand v. Hardware Mutuals Insurance 163 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    wherein the Supreme Court said: “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 *138 for a short time and distance, must guard against striking objects in the road wi
  • Carona v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 164 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Graham v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. 159 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    (1956): "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 *336 ahead, except imperfectly, and for a short time and distance, must guard against striking objects in the road with which he may be suddenl
  • Neuburger v. State ex rel. State Department of Highways 162 So. 2d 183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Gregoire v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. 158 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    We note further the rulings in the Tauzier and Puissegur cases, supra, , , which held a motorist traveling by night is not charged with the duty of guarding against striking an unexpected or unusual obstruction which he had no reason to anticipate he would encounter on the highway.
  • Wollerson v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Co. 159 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    1031 , (1940); , (1956); Robards v. American Automobile Insurance Co., (La.App.
  • Smith v. Henry 147 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
    In Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance *420 Company, , (1956), the Supreme Court recognized and applied the rule that a motorist traveling by night is not charged with the duty of guarding against striking an unexpected or unusual obstruction, which he had no reason to anticipate he would encounter on the highway, citing Jacobs v. Jacobs, 141 La.
  • Ramsey v. Langston 140 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
    Co., , (1956) as: "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
  • Mose v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania 134 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Co. et al., , , 913 in which *316 plaintiff’s pickup truck struck an unlighted lumber truck parked partially on the highway opposite a milk truck.
  • Peats v. Martin 133 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    Carter v. Le Blanc Lumber Co., La.App.
  • Lewis v. Quebedeaux 134 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    Co., , ; Rea v. Dow Motor Co., La.App.
  • Ardoin v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 133 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
  • Holt v. All State Insurance 131 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    796 , , 913: “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 confronted, constit
  • Holland v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 131 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    This same contention was advanced in the case of Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company, 1956, , ; and in connection therewith the Supreme Court stated: "Our rule that a motorist traveling on the public highways after dark or during a rain storm, fog, or other abnormal condition, which prevents him from seeing ahead, except imperfectly, and for a short time and distance, must guard against str
  • United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Powell 131 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    915 , ; , ; Kirk v. United Gas Public Service Co., 185 La.
  • Robards v. American Automobile Insurance Co. 128 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Broussard v. American Insurance Co. 127 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Company, , ; Kirk v. United Gas Public Service Co., 185 La.
  • D & D PLANTING CO. v. Employers Casualty Co. 124 So. 2d 908 La. 1960
    229 , ; , ; Capitol Transport Co., Inc. v. A. R. Blossman, 218 La.
  • Fontenot v. LaFleur 124 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
    Co., , ; Fisher v. Norwich Union Fire Ins.
  • Josey v. Granite State Fire Insurance Company 122 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    The general principle was somewhat recently stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court in Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co., et al., , , 913, as follows: "* * * A motorist traveling by night is not charged with the duty of guarding against striking an unexpected or unusual obstruction, which he had no reason to anticipate he would encounter on the highway."
  • Fisher v. Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society, Ltd. 119 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Co., , , at page 913) and is exculpated from negligence contributing to an accident alleged to arise from his failure to perceive such unexpected or unusual obstruction in his path, in the absence of a reasonable opportunity to observe the obstruction and thereafter to avoid the accident.
  • Page v. Northern Insurance Company of New York 117 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    Company, , ; Kirk v. United Gas Public Service Co., 185 La.
  • Brown v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance 116 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Co., , , at page 913) and is exculpated from negligence contributing to an accident alleged to arise from his failure to perceive such unexpected or unusual obstruction in his path, in the absence of a reasonable opportunity to observe the obstruction and thereafter to avoid the accident.
  • Puissegur v. Louque 113 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Our latest case recognizing an exception to the Assured Clear Distance Rule is Vowell *800 v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co. [ , ].
  • Tauzier v. Bondio 111 So. 2d 756 La. 1959
  • Washington Fire & Marine Insurance v. Canal Insurance 110 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Co., , ; Dodge v. Bituminous Cas.
  • Pennsylvania Fire Insurance v. Wright 110 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Casualty Insurance Co., , .
  • Ferguson v. Highway Insurance Underwriters 109 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
  • Myers v. American Chain & Cable Co. 109 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Company, , ; Kirk v. United Gas Public Service Co., 185 La.
  • Mouton v. Pacific Indemnity Co. 102 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    Co., , ; Dodge v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 214 La.
  • Hebert v. Spano 101 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    Co., , ; Dickson v. Peters, La.App., and Treadaway v. Marphis, La.App., .
  • Touchet v. Miller 100 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
  • Towles v. Jones 98 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    377 , Vowell v. Manufacturers *268 Casualty Insurance Company, , , and Warnick v. Louisiana Highway Commission, La.App., .
  • Suire v. Winters 97 So. 2d 404 La. 1957
    we considered the situation and circumstances surrounding an accident in which the operator of a pickup truck ran into the rear of a lumber truck parked on the highway; and under the facts and circumstances of that case we held that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence, saying: “Ou
  • Cormier v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 94 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    Co., , , and Dodge v. Bituminous Cas.
  • Rizley v. Cutrer 95 So. 2d 139 La. 1957
  • Senegal v. Thompson 91 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
  • State v. Baum 88 So. 2d 209 La. 1956
    796 , ; State v. Crovetto, 229 La.
  • State v. Mills 88 So. 2d 210 La. 1956
    796 , ; State v. Crovetto and Carbo, 229 La.
  • State v. Dominguez 88 So. 2d 660 La. 1956
  • State v. Forsyth 87 So. 2d 608 La. 1956
    796 , ; and State v. Crovetto, 229 La.
  • Graham v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance 86 So. 2d 916 La. 1956
  • Dyck v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance 86 So. 2d 915 La. 1956
    are equally applicable to the instant case, and our decision therein is controlling here.
  • Salmon v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance 86 So. 2d 915 La. 1956
    are equally applicable to the instant case, and our decision therein is controlling here.