Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cartwright v. Chrysler Corporation, 232 So. 2d 285.

47 citing documents.

Clofer v. Celotex Corp. 528 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
(1970) provides the test for when prescription begins to run: [I]t is not necessary that the party have actual knowledge of the conditions as long as there is "constructive notice."
Plaquemines Par. Com'n Council v. Delta Dev. Co. 502 So. 2d 1034 La. 1987
(1970), and finding that in 1941 the levee boards' causes of action were known, or reasonably knowable, the courts refused to apply the exception of contra non valentem non currit praescriptio.
Varnado v. Insurance Corp. of America 484 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
(1970) held: Whatever is notice enough to excite attention and put the [plaintiff] on his guard and call for inquiry is tantamount to knowledge or notice of everything to which inquiry may lead and such information or knowledge as ought to reasonably *816 put the [plaintiff] on inquiry is sufficient to
Bellamy v. Janssen 477 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Succession of Rovira v. BOARD OF COM'RS 418 So. 2d 1382 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Landry v. Pierre Part Natural Gas Co. 413 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Sciacca v. Polizzi 403 So. 2d 728 La. 1981
Reed v. General Motors Corp. 400 So. 2d 919 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Sciacca v. Polizzi 394 So. 2d 1319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
(1970), the court said: “While there are numerous appellate court decisions providing, ‘A manufacturer or seller of a product which involves a risk or injury to the user is liable to any person, whether the purchaser or a third person, who without fault on his part sustains an injury caused by a defect
Castrillo v. Stimulation Technology, Inc. 393 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
(1970), the court said: “.
Cordova v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 387 So. 2d 574 La. 1980
Powell v. Department of Highways 383 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
*429 First, , (1970) the court said the following with respect to C.C.
Hebert v. Confederate Memorial Medical Center 381 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
(1970), and Quick, supra, as authority for sustaining defendant's plea of prescription.
Stafford v. Division of Administration 380 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Cordova v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 378 So. 2d 1088 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
our Supreme Court stated as follows the rule as to what is sufficient notice to the plaintiff to commence the running of prescription: "Whatever is notice enough to excite attention and put the owner on his guard and call for inquiry is tantamount to knowledge or notice of every thing to whic
Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections 375 So. 2d 1319 La. 1979
Yarbrough v. Louisiana Cement Co., Inc. 370 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
at page 287: "* * * Also, it is not necessary that the party have actual knowledge of the conditions as long as there is `constructive notice.'
Nathan v. Carter 372 So. 2d 560 La. 1979
(1970); Hyman v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co., 139 La.
Lott v. Haley 370 So. 2d 521 La. 1979
Fleur De Leis Apts v. DAVIDSON SASH, ETC. 364 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Fiberglass Insulators, Inc. 367 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
(1970), the Supreme Court noted the contra non valentem doctrine has been infrequently applied in Louisiana cases.
Nathan v. Carter 367 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Well settled is the rule that the doctrine of contra non valentem applies only where ignorance of a party’s right to file suit is not “willful and does not result from negligence.” , (1970); (La.App.
Sumerall v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 366 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
(1970), the court stated constructive knowledge to be: ".
Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections 366 So. 2d 964 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Lott v. Haley 363 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
3rd Cir. 1975) writ refused, , (1970); Marguette Casualty Company v. Brown, 235 La.
Carroll v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 363 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
Sartin v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 359 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
(1970), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the injured party need not have actual knowledge of the conditions to start the running of prescription as long as there is "constructive notice," i. e., "(W)hatever is notice enough to excite attention .
Henson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 354 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
The requirements for application of the doctrine are set out in Cartwright v. Chrysler *615 Corp., , (1970).
Brown v. State, Through Dept. of Correction 354 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
555 (4th Cir., 1934); Lucas v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., La.App., (1st Cir., 1967); , (1970).
Bayonne v. Hartford Ins. Co. 353 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
Although prescription does not run against one who is ignorant of the fact that would entitle him to bring his suit, , (1970), knowledge of the fact is presumed where plaintiff has sufficient information to incite her curiosity as to the cause of the injury, (La.App.
Blalock v. American Emp. Ins. Co. 345 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
Quick v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 347 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
(1970), the court stated constructive knowledge to be: ".
Dauzat v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 336 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
(1970), the Louisiana Supreme Court expounded on the doctrine of constructive notice: ".
Duhon v. Saloom 323 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Blouin v. Loyola University 325 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Culotta v. Police Jury of Ascension Parish 316 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
(1970), the Supreme Court stated: ".
Marcel v. Hospital Corp. of Sisters of Saint Joseph 322 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Lasseigne v. Earl K. Long Hospital 316 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
(1970), and Steel v. Aetna Life & Casualty, (La.App.
Neyrey v. Lebrun 309 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Lemoine v. Avoyelles Farmers Co-Op 307 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
(1970); Perrin v. Rodriguez, 153 So.
Steel v. Aetna Life & Casualty 304 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Israel v. Smith 302 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Doughty v. General Motors Corp. 303 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
(1970), is dispositive of this case.
Richard v. Smith Engineering Works, Inc. 297 So. 2d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Buvens v. Buvens 286 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
(1970)) examined this doctrine which clearly applies to the situation in this case.
Duhon v. Lafayette General Hospital 286 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
crystalized the jurisprudence on this subject matter as follows: "The rule that prescription does not run against one who is ignorant of the existence of facts that would entitle him to bring suit, applies only when such ignorance is not wilful and does not result from negligence, and the doctrine ha
Cyr v. Louisiana Intrastate Gas Corporation 273 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
See for example, , ; Ayres v. New York Life Insurance Company, 219 La.