Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite McElveen v. Gant, 102 So. 2d 477.

36 citing documents.

Bertrand v. Henry 815 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Bordelon, 617 So.2d at 1341 ; , (1958).
Bordelon v. SOUTH CENT. BELL TELEPHONE CO. 617 So. 2d 1337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Toten v. General Motors Corp. 479 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Turner v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 471 So. 2d 709 La. 1985
( Baumgartner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., supra; Guilbeau v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., supra; , (1958)).
Lindstrom v. Arnold 421 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Widcamp v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 381 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Dufrene v. Dixie Auto Ins. Co. 373 So. 2d 162 La. 1979
Co., , (1958); Jackson v. Cook, 189 La.
Baumgartner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 356 So. 2d 400 La. 1978
Miller v. Carter 346 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Jackson v. Cook, 189 La.
Pierre v. Landry 341 So. 2d 891 La. 1977
1973); , (1958); Jackson v. Cook, 189 La.
Guilbeau v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 338 So. 2d 600 La. 1976
See: , (1958); Jackson v. Cook, 189 La.
Dixon v. Copeland 289 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Kemp v. Kennedy 283 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
(1958); Jackson v. Cook, 189 La.
Leake v. Prudhomme Truck Tank Service, Inc. 258 So. 2d 358 La. 1972
Morales v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 246 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
The plaintiff argues that the first duty on an operator of a motor vehicle is to keep a sharp lookout ahead to discover the presence of those who might be in danger, citing the following line of cases: , (1958); Jackson v. Cook, 189 La.
Sanders v. National Surety Corp. 230 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Jackson v. Cook, 189 La.
Price v. Watts 215 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
Jackson v. Cook, 189 La.
Fletcher v. Berard 198 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
1st Cir. 1963); , (1958); Venero v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
Venero v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 196 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
1st Cir. 1963); , (1958).
Homer v. Local Cab Co. 187 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
595 , (1952) ; , (1958) ; Zachery v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., La.App., (1st Cir. 1959) ; Broussard v. Thompson, La.App., (3rd Cir. 1961); Campisi v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, La.App., (3rd Cir. 1963).
Simms v. Sims 181 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
: “Under the last clear chance doctrine as enunciated by Louisiana jurisprudence, a motorist who observes or who should by the exercise of reasonable care have observed another in a position of peril may be held responsible for injuries caused by an ensuing collision with the other despite any contribu
Howard v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York 179 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Rottman v. Beverly, 183 La.
Eubanks v. Wilson 162 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
983 , ; , ; Geohegan v. Greyhound Corp., 226 La.
Lanaux v. Marquette Casualty Co. 162 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Rottman v. Beverly, 183 La.
Campisi v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York 152 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
117 , , Broussard v. Thompson, La.
Moreau v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 146 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
479: “Under the last clear chance doctrine as enunciated by Louisiana jurisprudence, a motorist who observes or who should by the exercise of reasonable care have observed another in a position of peril may be held responsible for injuries caused by an ensuing collision with the other despite any con
Vinet v. Checker Cab Company 140 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
said: "Thus, when the light suddenly turned from red to green in their favor, the present motorists were under a duty, before proceeding through the intersection, to exercise due care to discover any pedestrians already therein in reliance upon the previously red signal inhibiting motor traffic.
Gambino v. Duplessis 138 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
(and other cases cited therein); Pereira v. Herbert, La.App., ; Deck v. Page, La.App., ; Broussard v. Thompson, La.App., ; Cox v. Gross, La.App., ; Ingram v. McCorkle, La.App., ; Keenan v. Wactor, La.App., ; Woodard v. Bur
Phares v. Biggs 135 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Counsel for plaintiff, , (1958); and Broussard v. Thompson (3rd Circuit, 1960), La.App., .
Keenan v. Wactor 130 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
[Citations omitted]', , ."
Fontenot v. LaFleur 124 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
Ingram v. McCorkle 121 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
[Citations omitted]", , .
Distinguished Obitz v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 118 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
cited by plaintiff, is distinguishable and has no application because there was nothing to excuse the failure of *179 the motorist in that case from observing, during his approach up to and across a very broad intersection, pedestrians who had commenced to traverse the roadway before the light had ch
Benjamin v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 113 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
however’ *22 the Supreme Court re-defined the doctrine of last clear chance with all of its modifications, as follows: “Under the last clear chance doctrine as enunciated by Louisiana jurisprudence, a motorist who observes or who should by the exei'cise of reasonable care have observed another i
Theriot v. Marquette Casualty Co. 111 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Franklin v. Holomon 110 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
sprudence, a motorist who observes or who should by the exercise of reasonable care have observed another in a position of peril may be held responsible for injuries caused 'by an ensuing collision with the other despite any contributory negligence on the part of the latter if, after the duty to make such observation arose, the motorist could reasonably have avoided the accident,” , , at page 479.