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.

Moreau v. STATE, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS 333 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Burley v. Louisiana Power & Light Company 327 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
471 , (1970) , (1962), plaintiff is entitled to recover only if defendant's conduct was a cause in fact of the injury and the duty breached by defendant was designed to protect against the particular risk involved.
Sutton v. Langley 330 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
Amco Und. of Audubon Ins. Co. v. AMERICAN RADIATOR & S. CORP. 329 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Pence v. Ketchum 326 So. 2d 831 La. 1976
471 , (1970); , (1962); Brown v. S. A. Bourg & Sons, Inc., 239 La.
Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 326 So. 2d 486 La. 1976
v. American Beverage Co., , (1962).
Lea v. Baumann Surgical Supplies Inc. 321 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
plaintiff maintains the line was a cause in fact of the accident in that the accident would not have happened had the line not been present.
Haas v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company 321 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
(1962) and Pierre v. Allstate Ins.
Simmons v. Beauregard Parish School Board 315 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Dixie Drive It Yourself System, New Orleans Co., , (1962).
Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 322 So. 2d 308 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
(1962), and Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 260 La.
Motors Insurance Corp. v. Thomas 315 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Blanchard v. Wicks 314 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Gore v. Miller 311 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Eubanks v. Brasseal 310 So. 2d 550 La. 1975
v. American Beverage Co., , (1962).
Stevenson v. Delahaye 310 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
3rd Cir. 1962), which case applied the legal principles set forth in Dixie Drive-It-Yourself, New Orleans Company, , (1962).
Roberts v. Winston Carriers, Inc. 304 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
She takes the position that this requirement was a safety measure designed to protect life and property on the highway, and that a violation of that provision *825 is negligence per se, , (1962).
Levron v. Dupre 307 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
471 , ; Laird v. State Farm Insurance Company, La.App., , , .
Harper v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 300 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Mixon v. Allstate Insurance Company 300 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
v. American Beverage Co., supra [ , ]; (La.
Thibodeaux v. Lock Clinic 303 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
v. American Beverage Co., , (1962).
Godeau v. Roadway Express, Inc. 299 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
(1962); Pierre v. Allstate Insurance Company, 257 La.
Stewart v. GIBSON PROD. CO. OF NATCHITOCHES PARISH LA., INC. 300 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
This dissatisfaction with past means of discerning liability led to the landmark decision, , (1962), in which the Court, citing with approval from a Comment in 16 La.L.Rev.
South Texas Lloyds v. Guarantee Insurance Co. 299 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
v. American Beverage Co., , -304 (1962), it was held that the driver of a tractor-trailer unit who failed to set out signal flares when his tractor became disabled and stopped on the travel portion of a highway, about noontime on a rainy day, was guilty of negligence which proximately caused a rear-end collision when the over
Murray v. Volkswagen Mid-American, Inc. 297 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
471 , (1970); , (1962)] our first inquiry is whether any causal relationship existed between the harm to Teresa and Rev. Sharp’s allegedly negligent conduct.
Shaw v. Travelers Insurance Company 293 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
v. American Beverage *572 Co., , (1962).
Little v. Mississippi Chemical Express, Inc. 285 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
v. American Beverage Co., , (1962).
Wright v. Travelers Insurance Co. 288 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Hernandez v. Toney 289 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
v. American Beverage Co., , (1962), intervening negligence or an intervening cause does not necessarily relieve another wrongdoer in the chain of events of liability.
Garner v. O'CONNOR 282 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Lombard v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 284 So. 2d 905 La. 1973
Addison v. Travelers Insurance Company 281 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Hall v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 278 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
See Harvey v. Great American Indemnity Company, La.App., (1959); Dixie Drive It Yourself System v. American *803 Beverage Co., , (1962).
Titard v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company 282 So. 2d 474 La. 1973
Dixie Drive It Yourself [ , (1962)] recognized that the intervening negligence of another could relieve the original wrongdoer of liability, but it stated that such a theory should not be used to relieve all but the last wrongdoer from liability.
Reeves v. Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company 282 So. 2d 503 La. 1973
Dixie Drive It Yourself System, , (1962).
Jones v. Allstate Insurance 279 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Plaintiffs contend Mrs. Milloy, who had been driving the stalled Chevrolet, was negligent in stopping her car in the traveled portion of a main thoroughfare in violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 34:141; that such violation constituted negligence per se and was a cause in fact of the accident, , (1962), and Summers v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (La.App.
Augustine v. Dugas 278 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
v. American Beverage Co., , (1962); and Brown v. LeBeau, La.App., (1971).
Plaisance v. Smith 278 So. 2d 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
v. American Beverage Co., , (1962) stated: “[6] The statute (referring to LSA-R.S.
Phillips v. Ursin 280 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
and Pierre v. Allstate, 257 La.
Brantley v. Brown 277 So. 2d 141 La. 1973
Hale v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 273 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
(1962), contending that even though Faulkenberry was negligent the highway department and paving company were also guilty of actionable negligence which was a cause in fact of the accident.
Smolinski v. Taulli 276 So. 2d 286 La. 1973
Vonner v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE 273 So. 2d 252 La. 1973
Mistretta v. Fiorella 269 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Laird v. Travelers Insurance Company 267 So. 2d 714 La. 1972
Dixie Drive *228 , (1962).
Welch v. Thomas 266 So. 2d 434 La. 1972
(1962), and Pierre v. Allstate Insurance Co., 257 La.
Travelers Insurance v. Thomas 266 So. 2d 438 La. 1972
(1962), and Pierre v. Allstate Insurance Co., 257 La.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Travelers Insurance 266 So. 2d 436 La. 1972
(1962), and Pierre v. Allstate Insurance Co., 257 La.
Dupre v. Darbonne 266 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1962) our Supreme Court rejected the concept of passive negligence, which places undue emphasis on the chronology of the negligent acts, and insulates the first wrongdoer from liability.
Moore v. Concrete Pipe Products, Inc. 263 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1962), and numerous cases cited therein.
L'Hoste v. Ciravola 261 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
See: , (1962); Attaway v. Schluntz, La.App., (1968); Lawrence v. Core, La.