DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Company, 124 So. 2d 535.

62 citing documents.

  • Stephanie Hayes v. Jason C. Covey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Hayes v. Covey 939 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Meshell v. Lovell 732 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    (1960); Petersen v. State Farm Auto.
  • DeRosier v. South Louisiana Contractors 583 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
  • Petersen v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. 543 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • Alexander v. Dominick 533 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    *80 , (1960); Doyle v. Employer’s Fire Insurance Company, (La.App.
  • Spencer v. Hynes 452 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Kirk v. Allstate Ins. Co. 366 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
  • Doyle v. Employer's Fire Ins. Co. 349 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    4 Cir. 1969); , (1960); (La.App.
  • Maze v. Pedigo 278 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    When the superior motorist should reasonably realize in time that the inferior traffic will continue its approach and will obstruct the superior motorist’s passage across the intersection, he is guilty of negligence should he fail to take every precaution to avoid a collision.” , (1960) and cases cited therein.
  • Otillio v. Scopes 265 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    (1960), and cases therein cited.” However, the defendant’s vehicle in that case had traveled fifty feet or more in crossing the intersection and the front of his vehicle had cleared the intersection before being struck by the plaintiff’s vehicle.
  • Healy v. Schwall 265 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
    Meynier & Dillman Hardware Co. v. Aronson, La.App., ; Roussell v. Strug, La.App., ; and West v. Travelers Indemnity Co., La.App., .
  • Cannon v. Stout 257 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    1006 , ; , ; Barrett v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., La.App., , and Drago v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., La.App., .
  • Yates v. Kimble 256 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    1st Cir. 1967), , (1960), McConathy v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, (La.App.
  • Sylvester v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 234 So. 2d 754 La. 1970
    It refers specifically to the cases of Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Company, Inc., , and Winfree et al. v. Consolidated Underwriters, 246 La.
  • Meynier & Dillman Hardware Co. v. Aronson 229 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
    (1960) and cases cited therein; Roussell v. Strug, La.App., (4th Cir. 1969).
  • Sylvester v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 236 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Roussell v. Strug 225 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    (1960), and cases therein cited.
  • Excel Insurance v. Hunt 221 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    (1960); Davis v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, (La.App.3d.
  • Landry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 215 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
    3d Cir. 1965, writ refused); , (1960).
  • Demouchet v. Doucet 207 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    the courts have given increased recognition to the right of the motorist travelling on right-of-way streets to indulge in the assumption that traffic approaching intersections from less favored streets will observe the law.
  • Ricardo v. American Indemnity Co. 201 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Plaintiffs rely primarily on the landmark case of Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Company, Inc., , .
  • Lilly v. Schmitt 198 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
  • Robert v. Travelers Indemnity Company 196 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    746 , ; Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Co. (1960) , ; Baranco v. Cotten (1957) La.App., ; and Wilson v. Williams (1955) La.App., .
  • Wallace v. Travelers Insurance Company 195 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Co., La.App., ; Landrum v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., La.App., , , .
  • Sims v. Miller 193 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
  • Odom v. Foy 193 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    such a stop sign, has a right to assume that any driver approaching the intersection from the less favored street will observe the law and bring his car to a complete stop before entering the intersection, and such motorist can indulge in this assumption until he sees, or should see, that the other car has not observed, or is not going to observe, the law.” , , the Supreme Court of this state said: “The law does not require and the courts have held in numerous cases that you are not called upon
  • Davis v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 191 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • McConathy v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 188 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    1st Cir. 1960), awarded $12,500; , (1960), awarded $12,500.
  • Louisiana Fire Insurance v. Allstate Insurance Co. 186 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Counsel for Louisiana Fire contends the driver on a right-of-way street owes the duty to a motorist approaching an intersection from an inferior street to maintain some observation and may not *665 be indifferent to the rights of others, , (1960), and Smith v. Borchers, 243 La.
  • Granata v. Simpson 181 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    See: Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Company (1960) , .
  • Reynolds v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. 178 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Co., Inc., , .
  • Hulin v. Guilbeaux 171 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    1006 , , unless the superior motorist should reasonably realize, in time to avoid the accident, that an inferior motorist is going to violate his right of way, , .
  • Courtault v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 169 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    the intersection was five cornered, unusual and particularly dangerous, which contrasts to the typical intersection in the instant case.
  • Southall v. Graves 165 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    144 , ; , ; White v. Travelers Insurance Company et al, La.App., 2d Cir., 1957, ; Paggett et al v. Travelers Indemnity Company et al, La.App., 2d Cir., 1957, ; Prewitt ex ux.
  • Smith v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania 161 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Co., Inc., , .
  • Keller v. Louque 159 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Renz v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company, La.App., ; Freeman v. Audubon Insurance Company, La.App., .
  • Jones v. Southern General Insurance Company 157 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
  • LeBlanc v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 157 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    at page 537, the Supreme Court stated the following: “This preference created by statutes or by signals or stop signs on a favored street does not relieve the driver traveling on the favored street from the duty of exercising ordinary care of having his car under control and operating it at a reasonabl
  • Biggs v. Verbois 151 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Youngblood v. Robison, 239 La.
  • Patterson ex rel. Caraway v. Allstate Insurance Co. 147 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Plaintiff’s next argument is that this case does not fall within the doctrine of the Koob case, supra, , and other similar cases in which an increased degree of care was imposed on even the superior driver because he approached a particularly dangerous intersection.
  • Johnson v. Gill 148 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    We can gainsay (sic) that fact, he was negligent.” Succinctly stated, plaintiffs’ position is confined solely to an attempt to bring the present case under the recently established rule announced by the Supreme Court in Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Company, Inc., , , to the effect that a motorist upon a superior highway, though possessing the right of way, must maintain a proper lookout, must keep his car under control and must, to avoid liability, take every possible precaution when obvious circu
  • Anderson v. Adams 148 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Conceding the obvious recent tendency of the courts to favor the motorist having the right of way and place an increasingly heavy burden of exculpation on the driver proceeding along the inferior street, , and Noonan v. London Guarantee and Accident Company, La.App., , it is nevertheless basic law that each case of this nature must be determined in the light of its own peculiar facts and circumstances.
  • Pelous v. Stepter 147 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    “When the motorist having the right of way should reasonably realize in time that the inferior traffic will continue its approach and will obstruct the superior motorist’s passage across the intersection, he is derelict in his duty, and thus guilty of negligence, should he fail to take every precaution possible to avoid a collision.” Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Company, Inc., , .
  • Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 148 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    The above was the comment of Justice McCaleb in a concurring opinion in Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Company, Inc., , (1960).
  • Smith v. Borchers 146 So. 2d 793 La. 1962
    See, Wilson v. Williams, La.App., ; , ; Allen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., La.App., .
  • Clingman v. Millerville Mud Sales, Inc. 146 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Gerrets v. Reed, La.App., ; St.
  • Sepulvado v. General Fire & Casualty Company 146 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    See Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Company, Inc., , ; ; Burnaman v. La Prairie, La.
  • Emmco Insurance v. Lavoi 144 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Burnaman v. La Prairie 140 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    2d 403 ; Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Company, Inc., , ; Palmer v. American General Ins.