DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of NY, 250 So. 2d 754.

214 citing documents.

  • Temes v. Manitowoc Corp. 181 So. 3d 733 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    See Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971); Guidry v. Louisville Tin & Stove Co., Inc., (La.App.
  • Del Dean David, Et Ux. v. Velsicol Chemical Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Susan and Edward L. Wilhelm v. Mosaic Global Operations, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • David v. Velsicol Chem. Corp. 49 So. 3d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Co., , a case which also involved Cooper’s Cattle Dip (emphasis added): A manufacturer of a product which involves a risk of 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 in the design
  • Alice Mabel Crews v. Broussard Plumbing and Heating La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    599, (1971); Naquin v. Marquette Cas.
  • Crews v. BROUSSARD PLUMBING AND HEATING 38 So. 3d 1097 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (1971); Naquin v. Marquette Cas.
  • ADELMANN-CHESTER v. Kent 33 So. 3d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Co. of N.Y., , a 1971 decision, can be used in the trial of a lawsuit filed in 1991, after the enactment of the LPLA.
  • Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America 938 So. 2d 35 La. 2006
    In Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971), plaintiff alleged that a brand of cattle dip was defective and caused the death of his cattle.
  • Patin v. ADMIN. OF TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND 907 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
  • Benjamin v. Housing Auth. of New Orleans 893 So. 2d 1 La. 2004
    Co. of New York, , (1971); Naquin v. Marquette Cas.
  • Day v. MOREHOUSE GENERAL HOSP. 865 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    Co. of N.Y., , (1971), the court defined fault for purposes of products liability and marked the point at which the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the strict products liability in tort theory, which was reflected in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, 1965.
  • David v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc. 849 So. 2d 38 La. 2003
    The plaintiffs also asserted claims of strict liability under Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971), which claims were rejected.
  • Hebert v. ANCO Insulation, Inc. 835 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, -603 , -756 (1971).
  • Chauvin v. Sisters of Mercy Health System, St. Louis, Inc. 818 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    Co. of N.Y., , (1971) [4] , this court held: "A manufacturer of a product which involves a risk of 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 in the design, composition, or manufacture of the article, if the
  • Moody v. Blanchard Place Apartments 793 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Norris v. Bell Helicopter Textron, supra ; Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York
  • Seal v. ST. TAMMANY PARISH HOSPITAL 848 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Co. of N.Y., , to Section 402(A) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, both of which contain an "unreasonableness" component.
  • Jurls v. Ford Motor Co. 752 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc. 726 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Co. of N.Y., , or the LPLA should have been the controlling authority for this action.
  • Young v. Logue 660 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    Co., , (1971) (requiring proof by a preponderance of the evidence that product was defective and that that defect was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injury); (La.App.
  • Quick v. Murphy Oil Co. 643 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    471 , (1962); Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (1971); Charles v. Bill Watson Hyundai, Inc., (La.App.
  • Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 636 So. 2d 211 La. 1994
  • Clement v. Griffin 634 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    Plaintiffs claim that the Traut case is factually distinguishable and point out that the Williams case was decided 13 years prior to the seminal Louisiana case on strict products liability, Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co., , apparently suggesting that the general principle of law stated in those cases is affected by those considerations.
  • State Farm v. Wrap-On Co. 626 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    In Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971), plaintiff alleged that a brand of cattle dip was defective and caused the death of his cattle.
  • Goins v. Galion Mfg. Co. 626 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., , (1971).
  • Simeon v. Doe 618 So. 2d 848 La. 1993
    Co., 259 La.599, (1971).
  • Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 607 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    (1971), the court held that if a product is proven defective by reason of its hazard to normal use, the plaintiff does not need to prove any particular negligence by the maker in the product's manufacture or processing: for the manufacturer is presumed to know of the vices in the thing he makes, whethe
  • Williams v. General Motors Corp. 607 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    By its fourth assignment of error, General Motors argues that Mr. Williams cannot prove as required by Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, , (1971) that there was a flaw or imperfection in the rack and pinion assembly.
  • O'BRIEN v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. 601 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    (1971); Schoeffler v. Remington Arms, Inc., (La.App.
  • Gilboy v. American Tobacco Co. 582 So. 2d 1263 La. 1991
    See Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (1971)
  • Home Insurance Co. v. National Tea Co. 577 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Co. of New York, , (1971).
  • Johnson v. South Pacific Canning Co. 580 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Co., (1971), the concepts of negligence and implied warranty are foreign to a cause of action against a manufacturer for damage caused by its product.
  • Armstrong v. Lorino 580 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    In order to prevail in their case against General Motors, the Armstrongs were required to prove, first, that the Beretta automobile made by General Motors was "defective", meaning it had a flaw or imperfection which made the car unreasonably dangerous when in normal use; Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, , (1971), and second, that their son's injuries were enhanced or made worse by the defect.
  • Hale Farms, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Company 580 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (1971).
  • Young v. FORD MOTOR CO., INC. 574 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
  • Delanzo v. ABC CORP. 572 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (1971); Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Reilly v. Dynamic Exploration, Inc. 571 So. 2d 140 La. 1990
    Co. of New York, , (1971).
  • Johnston v. Norcondo 572 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Co., [ ,] (1971), and Chappuis [ v. Sears Roebuck and Company, ] *205 supra., is that here personal injury damages are not involved").
  • Roberts v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 566 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of New York, , (1971).
  • Berry v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 565 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    Co. of N.Y., , (1971), was this kind of case.
  • Charles v. Bill Watson Hyundai, Inc. 559 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York
  • Lirette v. State Farm Insurance Co. 554 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries, Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971).
  • Burke v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 554 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    Robertson v. Gulf South Beverage, Inc., Weber v. *187 Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971).
  • Brown v. Landry 552 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Co. of New York, , (1971), (La.App.
  • Jarvis v. JI Case Co. 551 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Co. of N. Y, , (1971); (La.App.
  • Foster v. Craig Equipment Co. 550 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    1985); Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971).
  • Addison v. Williams 546 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Levi v. SW La. Elec. Membership Co-Op. 542 So. 2d 1081 La. 1989
    La.C.C.Code art. 2476; Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (1971); (La.App.
  • Frederick v. General Motors Corp. 544 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Buckbee v. United Gas Pipeline Co., Inc. 542 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., (La.
  • Surgi v. Otis Elevator Co. 541 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    Products Liability Claim Against Otis The court in Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., set out the standard of proof in a product liability claim, as follows: ...[U]nder Weber [ Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., ], the plaintiff in a products liability suit must only prove that the product was defective, i.e., unreasonably dangerous to normal use; that the product was in normal use at the time the injury occurred; that the product's *299 defect caused his injury; and that the injury