DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Forcum-James Co. v. Duke Transportation Co., 93 So. 2d 228.

41 citing documents.

  • Cedarholley Investment, LLC v. Pitre 209 So. 3d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • Maw Enterprises, L.L.C. v. City of Marksville 149 So. 3d 210 La. 2014
  • Patrick E. Phillips v. G & H Seed Company, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    and [in] abandoning the per se exclusion of such damages which our courts have heretofore adopted on the heels of Robins and Forcum-James [ So.2d 228 (1957) ].”3 The cases since have consistently followed the duty-risk analysis set forth in PPG.
  • Phillips v. G & H Seed Co. 86 So. 3d 773 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    290 (1927), and Louisiana’s adoption thereof, , should be overruled.
  • Patrick E. Phillips v. G & H Seed Company, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    and [in] abandoning the per se exclusion of such damages which our courts have heretofore adopted on the heels of Robins and Forcum-James [ So.2d 228 (1957)].3 The cases since have consistently followed the duty-risk analysis set forth in PPG.
  • Phillips v. G & H SEED CO. 66 So. 3d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    and [in] abandoning the per se exclusion of such damages which our courts have heretofore adopted on the heels of Robins and Forcum-James [ , (1957) ].” 3 The cases since have consistently followed the duty-risk analysis set forth in PPG.
  • Cleco Corp. v. Johnson 795 So. 2d 302 La. 2001
  • CLECO CORP. v. Johnson 775 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    1984); , (1957); Community Coffee Company, Inc. v. Tri-Parish Construction & Materials Inc., (La.App.
  • Martin v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. 628 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Later, affirming its holding in D.R. Carroll & Co., the Supreme Court again specifically rejected a claim by the insurer against a tortfeasor grounded solely on the theory of legal subrogation, stating in Forcum-James Co., , (1957): "It is a basic principle of the law that a tortfeasor is responsible only for the direct and proximate result of his acts and that, where a third person suffers damage by reason of a contractual obligation to the injured party, such damage is too remote and indir
  • Criticized Great SW Fire Ins. Co. v. CNA Ins. Companies 557 So. 2d 966 La. 1990
    245 , (1958); , (1957), and by legal commentators.
  • Professional Answering Service, Inc. v. Central Louisiana Electric Co. 521 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    PPG Industries, , (1957); Community Coffee Company, Inc. v. Tri-Parish Construction & Materials, Inc., (La.App.
  • Pro. Answering Serv. v. Cent. La. Elec. 521 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    PPG Industries, , (1957); Community Coffee Company, Inc. v. Tri-Parish Construction & Materials, Inc., (La.App.
  • Lagarde v. Allstate Ins. Co. 515 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    the Supreme Court established the rule that there is no cause of action for tortious (intentional or negligent) interference with a contract.
  • New Orleans v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. 517 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • Community Coffee Co., Inc. v. Tri-Parish Const. & Materials, Inc. 490 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    -231 (1957), the Louisiana Supreme Court observed as follows: It is a basic principle of the law that a tort-feasor is responsible only for the direct and proximate result of his acts and that, where a third person suffers damage by reason of a contractual obligation to the injured party, such damag
  • Toce Oil Co. v. Central Industries, Inc. 488 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    In neither PPG Industries, supra, , (1957), the leading authority supporting appellants’ rule of law, was the plaintiff sub-rogated to the rights of the owner of the thing.
  • Illinois Cent. Gulf RR Co. v. Texaco, Inc. 467 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    On appeal, ICGRR argues that it had spelled out a right and a cause of action against Texaco and that the trial judge had mechanically—and erroneously—applied a , (1957).
  • Babin v. Texaco, Inc. 449 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    In Forcum-James Co., , (1957), plaintiff had a contract with the state to build a new bridge and to maintain a temporary bridge during construction.
  • Sanborn v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. 448 So. 2d 91 La. 1984
  • PPG Industries, Inc. v. Bean Dredging 447 So. 2d 1058 La. 1984
    The court of appeal affirmed, , (1957).
  • Hebert v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co. 433 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Sentry Indem. Co. v. Rester 430 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    (1957) and American Indemnity Co. v. New York F. & M. Under., Inc., (La.App.
  • A.V. Smith Construction Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. 422 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    The dismissal of the action was apparently done in reliance upon Forcum-James Co., , (1957).
  • PPG Industries, Inc. v. Bean Dredging Corp. 419 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    290, 1927 , and Louisiana's adoption thereof, , should be overruled.
  • Adams v. Campbell 420 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • LeBlanc v. Oakmont Marine Corp. 401 So. 2d 397 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    In Forcum-James Co., , (1957), plaintiff was under contract with the Louisiana Department of Highways to maintain a bridge.
  • Veuleman v. Sims 382 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Ledet v. Continental Grain Co. 380 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    In Forcum-James Co., , (1957), the Court stated: “It is a basic principle of the law that a tort-feasor is responsible only for the direct and proximate result of his acts and that, where a third person suffers damage by reason of a contractual obligation to the injured party, such damage is too remote and indirect to become
  • Rond v. Sims 355 So. 2d 591 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Forcum-James Company, , (1957).
  • Courtney v. Harris 355 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    In Forcum-James Co., , (1957), our Supreme Court cited the Supreme Court of the United States' opinion in Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 , 48 S.Ct.
  • Desormeaux v. Central Industries, Inc. 333 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Desormeaux v. Central Industries, Inc. 337 So. 2d 225 La. 1976
    TATE, J. Although the issue is correctly decided under existing jurisprudence, this court should re-examine Forcum-James Co., , (1957) insofar as applicable to situations such as is here presented.
  • Baughman Surgical Assoc., Ltd. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 302 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    (1957), the plaintiff was under contract to maintain a certain highway bridge.
  • Messina v. Sheraton Corporation of America 291 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    (1957), is clearly dispositive of the instant case.
  • Harris v. Huval Baking Company 265 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
    (1957), negates the establishment by appellant of a right of action in tort.
  • Volkswagen Insurance Co. v. Bishop 231 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    at 232: “The requirement of Article 2160 of the Civil Code that the subrogation be expressed and made- at the same time as the payment has not been rigidly adhered to by the jurisprudence.
  • Explained Great American Insurance v. Davis 217 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    (1957), as explained in the recent case of American Indemnity Co. v. New York F & M Underwriters, Inc., (1st Cir. La.App.1967).
  • Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc. 205 So. 2d 422 La. 1967
    245 , (1958); , (1957); Cox v. Shreveport Packing Co., 213 La.
  • American Indemnity Co. v. New York F. & M. Under., Inc. 196 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    (1957), we believe the law fairly well settled, as contended by counsel for American, to the effect that the insurer who pays a claim to his insured is subrogated to the rights of the insured against the negligent third party causing the damage as a matter of law, even though the policy contained no sub
  • Criticized McDaniel v. Hearn 158 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    For instance, , , it was observed by the Supreme Court that “It is a basic principle of the law that a tort-feasor is responsible only for the direct and proximate result of his acts and that, where a third person suffers damage by reason of a contractual obligation to the injured party, such damage is too remote and i
  • Marquette Casualty Company v. Brown 103 So. 2d 269 La. 1958
    we found tiie views expressed in the London, Guarantee & Accident Ins.