DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., 158 So. 2d 162.

71 citing documents.

  • Cangelosi v. OUR LADY OF LAKE REG. MED. CTR. 564 So. 2d 654 La. 1990
  • Pace v. Loyal Order of Moose, Metairie Lodge 2195 538 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    laintiff has preponderantly proved that the defendant is responsible in tort for his injury, we have in our most recent decision on the issue noted that the real test of applying res ipsa loquitur to be as follows: “Do the facts of the controversy suggest negligence of the defendant, rather than some other factors, as the most plausible explanation of the accident?” , (1963).
  • Kincade v. Doll 472 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    See also, Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , (1963); Enterprises, (La.App.
  • Richards v. Daniels 430 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
  • Trapani v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 424 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
    Pilie v. National Food Stores of La., Inc., , (1963).
  • Toussant v. Guice 414 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    (1963); Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins.
  • Holman v. Reliance Ins. Cos. 414 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    n this respect, the principle of "res ipsa loquitur" (the thing speaks for itself) sometimes comes into play as a rule of circumstantial evidence, whereby negligence is inferred on the part of a defendant because the facts indicate this to be the more probable cause of injury in the absence of other as-plausible explanation by witnesses found credible.6 , (1963); Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Auto.
  • Benjamin v. United States Steel Corp. 396 So. 2d 332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    this respect, the principle of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ (the thing speaks for itself) sometimes comes into play as a rule of circumstantial evidence, whereby negligence is inferred on the part of a defendant because the facts indicate this to be the more probable cause of injury in the absence of other as-plausible explanation by witnesses found credible.6, , (1963); Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins.
  • Maryland Casualty Co. v. Saunders 394 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    (1963); Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins.
  • Keller v. Kelly 378 So. 2d 1006 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
  • Hebert v. Town of Ville Platte 373 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Walker v. Union Oil Mill, Inc. 360 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
  • Jenkins v. Ferguson 357 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    (1963); Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Auto.
  • Randall v. Roran Corp. 354 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Pille v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , (1963); Boudreaux v. American Insurance Company, 262 La.
  • Johnson v. Insurance Co. of North America 351 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    It is defendant’s and Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , (1963), where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was held to be inapplicable.
  • Brown v. Southern Ventures Corporation 331 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Sheppard v. Travelers Insurance Company 333 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    721 , (1972); and Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , (1963).
  • Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Rothman 331 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , ; Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 233 La.
  • Green v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 325 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
    276, (S.Ct.1963) (S.Ct.1974).
  • Garrison v. Hotel Dieu 319 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    Pilie *562 v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, , (1963); Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Auto.
  • Gregory v. Guarisco 320 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    (1963); Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Auto.
  • FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. OF CONN. v. Garrick 312 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Richardson v. Winn-Dixie, Louisiana, Inc. 309 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , (1963)
  • Pear v. Labiche's Inc. 301 So. 2d 336 La. 1974
  • Taylor v. CNA Insurance Group 300 So. 2d 479 La. 1974
    The Court of Appeal affirmed, citing Pilie v. National Food Stores, Inc., , (1963)
  • Locascio v. Lake Terrace Center, Inc. 293 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    The case of Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , , has been the source for much conflicting and troublesome jurisprudence in slip and fall cases where there is the possibility that another customer caused a hazard to be present, but it causes no difficulty where the owner or his agents or employees causes such a hazard: “As pointed out previously, ou
  • Distinguished Morais v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarket 290 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
    The facts and proof is distinguishable from the case of Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. (1963) , .
  • McMorris v. Insurance Company of North America 289 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Taylor v. CNA Insurance Group 286 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    See Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , (1963); (La.App.
  • Ziegler v. McCrory Corp. 278 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Plaintiff concedes that Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , (1963) correctly holds the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur inapplicable in this type of case.
  • Hartford Fire Insurance v. Captain 278 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    laintiff has preponderantly proved that the defendant is responsible in tort for his injury, we have in our most recent decision on the issue noted that the real test of applying res ipsa loquitur to be as follows : ‘Do the facts of the controversy suggest negligence of the defendant, rather than some other factors, as the most plausible explanation of the accident?’ , (1963).
  • Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. United States F. & G. Co. 276 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
    (1963); Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Auto.
  • McCann v. Baton Rouge General Hospital 276 So. 2d 259 La. 1973
    270 , (1968); Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , (1963); Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
  • Ehrhard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 274 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Boudreaux v. American Insurance Company 264 So. 2d 621 La. 1972
    (1963); Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Auto.
  • Fedrowisch v. Fidelity-Phenix Insurance Companies 265 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    See Rideau v. National Food Stores, Inc., , (1963); Frederic v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., and Fish v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
  • LeBlanc v. George Theriots, Inc. 261 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Defendant grocer cites Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , (1963) where recovery was denied when two six-bottle cartons of coca-cola fell from a display and struck plaintiff customer’s foot.
  • McCann v. Baton Rouge General Hospital 258 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Brown 256 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    544 , (1957); Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , (1963).
  • Nero v. Ideco 255 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Joyner v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 251 So. 2d 166 La. 1971
  • Leake v. Prudhomme Truck Tank Service, Inc. 238 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    3rd Cir. 1967) is in point: “ * * * In Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , (1963), our Supreme *9 Court said ‘each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances, and * * * res ipsa loquitur will not be applied unless the facts and circumstances indicate that the negligence of the defendant, rather than the negligence of others, is the most plausible explanation of t
  • Thomas v. Gillette Company 230 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
    See also Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , (1963); (La.App.
  • Lang v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 230 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    Peters v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, La.App., ; Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , (1963); Alexander v. General Accident Fire & Life Insurance Corp., La.
  • Broussard v. National Food Stores of La., Inc. 233 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
  • Phillips v. Katz & Besthoff, Inc. 225 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Redondo 225 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    See Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , .
  • Kuhn v. Oulliber 225 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    The Supreme Court recognized this when it said in the Foggin case: "Each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances," citing Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , (1963).
  • Connecticut Fire Insurance v. Lavergne 224 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, supra [ , ]; Talbert v. Tyler, supra [ ]; James v. Childs, Division of Kroger Company, (La.App.
  • Guilbeau v. Royal Indemnity Co. 224 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    562 ; Pilie v. National *98 Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., , (1963); Alexander v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, La.App., ; Pros-ser, Law of Torts, 3d, 401-405.