DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Smith v. Borchers, 146 So. 2d 793.

51 citing documents.

  • Watson v. Hicks 172 So. 3d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    4th Cir.1976) ( , (1962)).
  • Bouakhay Siripanyo v. Allstate Indemnity Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    3rd Cir. 1968, Smith v. Borchers, 1962, So.2d 793; Vico Insurance Co. v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La.App.4th Cir 1965, McDaniel v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co., La.App.
  • Siripanyo v. Allstate Indem. Co. 862 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    3rd Cir.1968, ; Smith v. Borchers, 1962, , ; Vico Insurance Co. v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La.App.4th Cir 1965, ; McDaniel v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co., La.App.
  • Chatman v. City of Opelousas 670 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Fields v. Senior Citizens Center, Inc. 528 So. 2d 573 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • Ponder v. Groendyke Transport, Inc. 454 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    3rd Cir.1974); , (1962); McCandless v. Southern Bell Tel.
  • Landry v. Aetna Insurance Co. 438 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Landry v. Aetna Insurance Co. 422 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Simmons v. Baumgartner 393 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
  • Zemo v. Louviere 349 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    [2] , ; Miller v. Berthelotte, La.App., ; Toomer v. Kararick, La.App., ; Soniat v. State Farm Mut.
  • Calamia v. Coyne 349 So. 2d 956 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (1962), the Supreme Court of Louisiana spoke on the duty of a motorist approaching an uncontrolled intersection from the right of another vehicle: “ * * * ‘The obligation rests upon the motorist traveling on a favored street to so operate his automobile as to comply with all provisions of traffic regul
  • Miller v. Berthelotte 346 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    No. 8095 of our docket handed down this day; So-niat v. State Farm Mut.
  • Toomer v. Kararick 346 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (1962).” We agree with the trial court’s finding and conclusion that the driver of the South Central Bell truck was negligent.
  • Abshire v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. 346 So. 2d 1354 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Soniat v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 340 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
  • Carney v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 335 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    4th Cir. 1967); , (1962); (La.App.
  • Bailey v. Hodge 284 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    (1962).’ ” There is no question concerning the negligence of the Hodge truck.
  • Barnett v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company 286 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
    (1962); McCandless v. Southern Bell Telephone & Tel.
  • Goodman v. Ales 280 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    See Smith v. Borchers, 243 La.746, (1962).” Thus it is the factual determination which decides whether the directional right-of-way has been accorded.
  • Gutelius v. Phoenix Insurance Company 266 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
  • Bergeron v. Trueblood 266 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    However, , , appellants argue that plaintiff was not relieved of the duty to use reasonable care in his approach to the intersection, including the duty to exercise a proper lookout, and that as a result of his alleged failure to use such care and to exercise such lookout he was guilty of contributory negligence.
  • Smith v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company 270 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
    For an interpretation of the preceding article appellants, Trinity Universal and Hermes, , (1962).
  • Alfred v. Benoit 253 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    If the superior driver sees or should see that the inferior motorist is not going to obey the traffic signal, and if thereafter the superior driver has a reasonable opportunity to avoid the accident, then he must do so, , (1962); (La.App.
  • Babin v. Casby 247 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    (1962); Veith v. Travelers Ins.
  • Communication Service of Louisiana, Inc. v. Smith 250 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    The driver of a motor vehicle is charged with a duty of maintaining a proper lookout, and he is held to have seen that which he should have seen by the exercise of due diligence; , (1962).
  • American Road Insurance Co. v. Roux 242 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    (1962); Veith v. Travelers Insurance Company, La.App., (1967) ; Bertrand v. Home Indemnity Co., La.App., (1968).
  • West v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 225 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    James v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, La.App., ; State Farm Mut.
  • Deshotel v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 224 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
    App. 3rd Cir. 1968, ; Smith v. Borchers, 1962, , ; Vico Insurance Co. v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La.App.
  • Excel Insurance v. Hunt 221 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    App.4th Cir. 1967); , (1962)
  • Denton v. Fontenot 216 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
    2d 896 (1960); , (1962).
  • Landry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 215 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
  • Hessler v. Travelers Insurance Co. 204 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    at 797: “Even when one has the right of way he is not relieved from the necessity of looking into the direction from which others may be expected to come, and where such care would have prevented the accident, he who fails to look or to keep a proper lookout cannot recover, even though the other party
  • Jewell v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 200 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    (1962) are practically identical with those in the instant case and therefore that decision should be controlling.
  • Robert v. Travelers Indemnity Company 196 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    See Smith v. Borchers (1962) , ; Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Co. (1960) 240 La.
  • Sims v. Miller 193 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Co., 240 La.
  • Louisiana Fire Insurance v. Allstate Insurance Co. 186 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Frisard v. Oalmann 175 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    23 , ; , ; McCandless v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, 239 La.
  • Young v. Sea Insurance Co. 173 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    relied on by the lower court, is applicable here.
  • Alleman v. Patterson 172 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    “Defendant has cited a number of decisions of our appellate courts, beginning with Baker v. State, La.App., , , .
  • Jones v. Continental Casualty Co. of Chicago, Ill. 169 So. 2d 50 La. 1964
    23 , ; , ; Grayson v. Allstate Insurance Company, La.
  • Christ v. State, Department of Highways 161 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    McCandless v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, 239 La.
  • Malachias v. Latour 160 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Following our reasoning in Smith v. Borchers, La.App., , which case was affirmed by the Supreme Court, , , we held: “[I]n order to constitute pre-emption, sntry of an intersection must be made sufficiently in advance of approaching traffic to permit a safe crossing without requiring an emergency stop by such approaching traffic in order to prevent an accident.” In that case, we laid down the rule in the f
  • Durham v. Oelsner 159 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Appellants contend that this case is precisely like the Borchers case ( , , affirming La.App., ) wherein the plaintiff was found guilty of contributory negligence.
  • Henderson v. Austin 157 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Cited as authority for this conclusion are Smith v. Borchers, et al., , (1962) and Theunissen v. Guidry, et al., 244 La.
  • Parnell v. Connecticut Fire Insurance Company 156 So. 2d 462 La. 1963
    23 , ; , (1962) ; McCandless v. Southern Bell Telephone & Tel.
  • Deshotels v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 156 So. 2d 465 La. 1963
    1020 , , ; (1962), recently decided by this court.
  • Theunissen v. Guidry 153 So. 2d 869 La. 1963
    The Court of Appeal rendered its decision on November S, 1962, the same day this Court rendered a , , Rehearing Denied, Dec.
  • Cieutat v. Boutee 152 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Co., La.App., ; Lambert v. Rogers, La.App., ; Heindel v. Transcontinental Insurance Co., La.App., ; Drez v. Grand, La.App., .’ ” , , recently reviewed the jurisprudence regarding the duties of drivers approaching intersections of streets with equal dignity and held: “ * * * Even when one has the right of way he is not relieved from the necessity of looking into the direction from which others may be expected to come, and where suc
  • Tuger v. Audubon Insurance 152 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    in cases of this nature the court must consider the locus in quo, the physical facts and the testimony of the witnesses in arriving at a decision regarding negligence of the parties involved.
  • Deshotels v. Henry 148 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    The facts in this case are almost identical to those presented in Smith v. Borchers, La., (affirming the Fourth Circuit decision reported at ), and the issues presented in both of these cases are identical.