DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dixie Drive It Yourself System New Orleans Co. v. American Beverage Co., 137 So. 2d 298.

561 citing documents.

  • Williams v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 210 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    (1962), plaintiffs’ conduct constitutes negligence per se precluding their recovery.
  • Newton v. Allstate Insurance Co. 209 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    we cannot agree with the holding of the trial court.
  • Hinegardner v. Dickey's Potato Chip Company 205 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    See Dixie Drive it Yourself System New Orleans Co., Inc. v. American Beverage Company (1962) , .
  • Monger v. McFarlain 204 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
    Smith v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., La.App., 189 So.
  • Picou v. Allstate Insurance Co. 206 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    Max Barnett Furniture Co. v. Barrosse, La.App., .
  • Barilleaux v. George D. Mattix, Inc. 202 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
  • Sittig v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 198 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
  • Beaugh v. Broussard 199 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    (1962) for the law on substantial cause in fact.
  • Landry v. Yarbrough 199 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    v. American Beverage Co. (1962) , .
  • Hartzog v. Eubanks 200 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    He also cited, among others, , .
  • Kinchen v. Traders & General Insurance 198 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    It argues that under the decision of the Supreme Court in Dixie Drive It Yourself System v. American Beverage Company (1962) , , which held that the violation by the defendant of a provision of the Highway Regulatory Act was negligence per se, this negligence is actionable if it was a legal cause of the collision, and it is clear that more than one legally responsible cause can, and frequently does, contribute to a vehicular c
  • Berluchaux v. Employers Mutual of Wausau 194 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    We agree that such an allegation is a different cause of action from that presented on the previous appeal and that it has some merit, particularly in view of the rationale of Dixie Drive It Yourself System New *466 , (1962), on which plaintiff relies.
  • Berluchaux v. Employers Mutual 197 So. 2d 79 La. 1967
    v. American Beverage Co., , ; Maggiore v. Laundry & Dry Cleaning Service, La.App., 150 So.
  • Vander v. New York Fire & Marine Underwriters, Inc. 192 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
  • Ates v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 191 So. 2d 332 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    Dixie Drive It Yourself System, etc., v. American Beverage Co., , ; McDonald, Proximate Cause in Louisiana, 16 La.L.Rev.
  • Hoover v. Wagner 189 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    625 , ; Bodan v. American Employers' Insurance Company, La.App., , or as stated by the Supreme Court in Dixie Drive It Yourself System New Orleans Co. v. American Beverage Company, et al., , , unless it amounts to a cause in fact of the accident.
  • Cashio v. Moody 190 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    See Dixie Drive It Yourself System New Orleans Co., Inc. v. American Beverage Company et al. (1962) , .
  • Arnold v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co. 190 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
  • Broussard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 188 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
  • Fontenot v. Fidelity General Insurance Company 185 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
    Dartez v. City of Sulphur, La.App.
  • Lee v. Peerless Insurance Company 183 So. 2d 328 La. 1966
    v. American Beverage Co., , ; Brown v. S. A. Bourg & Sons, Inc., 239 La.
  • Muse v. WH Patterson & Company 182 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    In their brief, appellants urge that "Assuming arguendo that Haidary was negligent, defendant's negligence was a proximate, contributory cause of the accident * * *, citing the case of Dixie Drive it Yourself System New Orleans Co. Inc. v. American Beverage Company, et al (1962) , .
  • Jackson v. Beechwood, Inc. 180 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Justice Sanders found that the driver of a truck who failed to display red signals had violated the safety statute requiring such display.
  • Jones v. Maryland Casualty Co. 179 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    The judge then resolved that Stinson was derelict and at fault in not having his car under such control as to be able to bring it to a stop within the range of his headlights, but held, on the authority of Dixie Drive It Yourself System New Orleans Co. v. American Beverage Company, et al., , (1962) such negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident.
  • Dartez v. City of Sulphur 179 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    Dixie Drive It Yourself New Orleans Co., v. American Beverage Co., , , Noted 23 La.L.Rev.
  • Martin v. State Ex Rel. Department of Highways 175 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    he contends the failure to have that barrier properly functioning constitutes negligence on the part of the Department of Highways and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the accident.
  • Normand v. American Home Assurance Company 171 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    Dixie Drive-It-Yourself System New Orleans Co., Inc. *809 v. American Beverage Company et al., , ; Bertrand v. Trunkline Gas Co. et al., La.App.
  • PIGGLY-WIGGLY OP. WRHSE. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 174 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
    v. American Beverage Co., , (1962); , La.App., 2d Cir. 1954; , La.App., 2d Cir. 1954 (cert.
  • Kinchen v. Cottle 173 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Defendants have cited tire cases of Dixie Drive it Yourself System v. American Beverage Company, (1962) , ; and Footer v. Phoenix Insurance Co. (1962) La.App., .
  • Champagne v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. 170 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
  • Surry v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company 170 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
    However, we pretermit further consideration of this point for the reason that although the violation of an ordinance may constitute negligence, per se, such negligence is actionable only if it was a legal cause of the accident; , ; Bodan v. American Employers Ins.
  • Johnson v. Johnson 171 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    829 , ; , ; Day v. National U. S. Radiator Corporation, 241 La.
  • Woods v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 172 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    v. American Beverage Co., , 137 So.
  • Courtault v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 169 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    the Supreme Court said a failure of the driver of a disabled vehicle to set out warning flares as required by law was negligence per se.
  • Vidrine v. General Fire and Casualty Company 168 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    The Terrill decision, however, , , which clarified the previously conflicting jurisprudence concerning remote and intervening negligence.
  • Lee v. Carwile 168 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
  • Home Gas & Fuel Co. v. Mississippi Tank Co. 166 So. 2d 252 La. 1964
    v. American Beverage Co., , (1962).
  • Call v. Huffman 163 So. 2d 397 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    359 , 77 N.E.2d 537 ; Ney v. Yellow Cab Co., 2 Ill.2d 74 , 117 N.E.2d 74 ; Padro v. Knobloch, 28 Misc.2d 898 , 214 N.Y.S.2d 216 ; Dixie Drive It Yourself System New Orleans Co., , .
  • Bertrand v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company 160 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    ( , for a recent statement by our Supreme Court of the law of legal cause).
  • Villarrubia v. Roy 162 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    U-Drive-It-Car Co. v. Texas Pipe Line Co., 14 La.
  • Barrilleaux v. Noble Drilling Corporation 160 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
  • Chivers v. Couch Motor Lines, Inc. 159 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    The present facts are thus distinguished, as well as for other reasons, from those in the decision relied upon by appellants, , , where the driver of the disabled vehicle was negligent because he made no attempt to warn oncoming traffic of the obstruction to traffic created by his vehicle.
  • Bodan v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS'INSURANCE COMPANY 160 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    This was pointed out and emphasized in a case cited by defendants, , .
  • Westchester Fire Insurance Company v. Dardar 158 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
    Bertrand v. Trunkline Gas Company, La.App., ; Dixie Drive It Yourself System, , ; Todd v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., La.App., .
  • Home Gas & Fuel Co. v. Mississippi Tank Co. 157 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Cavalier v. Peerless Insurance Co. of Keene 156 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    the Supreme Court held that a violation of a statute requiring a driver to display warning flags while stopped on a highway during the daytime is negligence per se and actionable if it is the proximate cause of the accident.
  • Parnell v. Connecticut Fire Insurance Company 156 So. 2d 462 La. 1963
    v. American Beverage Co., , (1962).
  • Theunissen v. Guidry 153 So. 2d 869 La. 1963
    3 , , we held that the essence of proximate cause in cases involving the violation of statutes is whether the risk and harm encountered fall within the scope of protection of the statute.
  • Naquin v. Marquette Casualty Company 153 So. 2d 395 La. 1963
    v. American Beverage Co., , ; Reynolds v. Texas & P. Ry.
  • Landrum v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 151 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    The doctrine of "passive negligence" , .