Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Theunissen v. Guidry, 153 So. 2d 869.

32 citing documents.

Buckbee v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. Inc. 561 So. 2d 76 La. 1990
Sparacello v. Andrews 501 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Reeves v. Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company Theunissen v. Guidry , Townsend v. Missouri Pacific R.C.
Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Stidom 408 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Gasquet v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 391 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
the court held that contributory negligence is simply negligence and is measured by the same test, whether statutory or otherwise, as primary negligence; moreover, contributory negligence, being relative, is necessarily dependent upon the facts in each case.
Roberts v. Tiny Tim Thrifty Check 367 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
1067 , (1971); , (1963); (La.App.
Mixon v. Allstate Insurance Company 300 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
1067 , (1971); , (1963); (La.App.
Stewart v. GIBSON PROD. CO. OF NATCHITOCHES PARISH LA., INC. 300 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Contributory negligence is measured by the same standard as primary negligence [ , (1963)], and thus to determine the "reasonableness" of plaintiff's conduct, the risk of harm must be measured against the social utility of her conduct.
Pagitt Well Service, Inc. v. Sam Broussard, Inc. 293 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Little v. Mississippi Chemical Express, Inc. 285 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Reeves v. Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company 282 So. 2d 503 La. 1973
Smolinski v. Taulli 276 So. 2d 286 La. 1973
White v. J. Weingarten, Inc. 270 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Migliore v. Norfolk and Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company, La.App., (1st Cir. 1963).
Campbell v. American Home Assurance Company 258 So. 2d 81 La. 1972
261 , ; , ; D & D Planting Co. v. Employers Casualty Co., 240 La.
Lawton v. Abernathy 253 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
261 , (1967); , (1963); D & D Planting Co. v. Employers Casualty Co., 240 La.
Robinson v. Melton Truck Lines, Inc. 244 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corp. 238 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Roberts v. Dyer 230 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Kinchen v. Hansbrough 231 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Deamer v. Travelers Insurance Co. 223 So. 2d 224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Frisard v. Oalmann, La.App., ; Henderson v. Austin, La.App., ; , 153 So.
King v. King 217 So. 2d 395 La. 1968
261 , ; , ; D & D Planting Co. v. Employers Casualty Co., 240 La.
Lotz v. Jamerson Hardware Store 211 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Montalbano v. Hall, La.App., ; Deshotels v. Henry, La.App., , affirmed Deshotels v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, 245 La.
Bersuder v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 210 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
and McCandless v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, 239 La.
Hessler v. Travelers Insurance Co. 204 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
as authority for relieving Mrs. Smith of negligence, but we do not find this case applicable to the situation before us. The two cars in Theunissen v. Guidry were found to have reached the intersection at approximately the same time and, if the favored driver had seen the other vehicle, there was no
Ginlee v. Helg 203 So. 2d 714 La. 1967
D & D Planting Co. v. Employers Casualty Co., 240 La.
Brown v. New York Fire & Marine Underwriters, Inc. 198 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Courtney v. Traders & General Insurance 198 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
(1963); D & D Planting Co. v. Employers Casualty Co., 240 La.
Dartez v. City of Sulphur 179 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
See also: , ; Lee v. Carwile, La.App.
Frisard v. Oalmann 175 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
D & D Planting Company v. Employers Casualty Company, 240 La.
Young v. Sea Insurance Co. 173 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
However, there is no showing that Theunissen could have avoided and prevented the accident had he seen the Guidry car in the position it was and under the conditions it was being driven as stated in Guidry’s deposition * * , .
Home Gas & Fuel Co. v. Mississippi Tank Co. 166 So. 2d 252 La. 1964
(1963); D & D Planting Co. v. Employers Casualty Co., 240 La.
Memleb v. Allstate Insurance Co. 163 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
If defendant’s insured was driving at a lawful rate of speed of 20 miles per hour or less, she would be entitled to rely on the assumption that drivers entering intersections from her left would yield the right of way to her; , (1963).
Henderson v. Austin 157 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
746 , (1962) and Theunissen v. Guidry, et al., , (1963).