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.

  • Boswell v. John Deere Co. 405 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    In his written reasons for judgment after stating the facts, the trial judge said: “The Supreme Court in Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, , (1971), stated that in order for a plaintiff to recover in a products liability case it must prove; (1) the manufacturer’s product was defective; (2) the product was being subjected to normal use; (3) the product was unreasonably dangerous in that use; and (4) the injuries were proximately caused by th
  • DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins. Co. 403 So. 2d 26 La. 1981
    Co. of N.Y., -09 , (1971).
  • LoBrono v. Gene Ducote Volkswagen, Inc. 403 So. 2d 723 La. 1981
  • Hebert v. Brazzel 403 So. 2d 1242 La. 1981
  • Reeves v. Dixie Brick, Inc. 403 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    116 , (1955); Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y., , (1971) and cases cited therein.
  • Smith v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 399 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Philippe v. Browning Arms Co. 395 So. 2d 310 La. 1981
  • Hudgens v. INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS, ETC. 393 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co., , (1971); (La.App.
  • Thornhill v. Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc. 394 So. 2d 1189 La. 1981
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of New York, , (1971).
  • LoBrono v. Gene Ducote Volkswagen, Inc. 391 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    See Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N. Y., , (1971); (La.App.
  • Hines v. Dixie Electric Membership Corp. 391 So. 2d 1203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    1st Cir. 1976); Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y., , (1971).
  • Hebert v. Brazzel 393 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Cobb v. Insured Lloyds 387 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    In Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company, , (1971), the court held a product is defective if "unreasonably dangerous to normal use."
  • Hunt v. City Stores, Inc. 387 So. 2d 585 La. 1980
    art. 2317, but not a , (1971).
  • Perkins v. American MacH. & Foundary Co. 385 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    In Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y., , (1971), the court said: "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 injur
  • Western Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Adams 381 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    It contends that it was not required to prove negligence directly, citing Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, , (1971), wherein the court stated: "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
  • Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Maytag Co. 374 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    The parties are in agreement that the standard of law to be applied in a case such as this is expressed in the following language from the opinion of the Louisiana Supreme Court in the landmark case of Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, , (1971): "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
  • Harris v. Bardwell 373 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (1971).
  • Reeves v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 370 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971); Lachney v. Motor Parts & Bearing Supply, Inc., (La.App.
  • Cain v. Handy City, Inc. 367 So. 2d 1217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    *1219 The entire ease is on the basis of faulty design of one alleged part of this machine and its [sic] it is apparent to me that it had nothing to do with the accident.” In Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of N.Y., , (1971) the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that a plaintiff claiming injury in a products liability case has the “burden of proving that the product was defective, i. e., unreasonably dangerous to normal use, and that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by reason of the de
  • Tri-State Etc. v. Fid. & Cas. Ins. Etc. 364 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y., , (1971) holds that a manufacturer is liable for injury caused by a defect in the design, composition or manufacture of a product.
  • Daniels v. Albach Co., Inc. 365 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
  • Tri-State Insurance Co. of Tulsa v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y. 364 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y., , (1971) holds that a manufacturer is liable for injury caused by a defect in the design, composition or manufacture of a product.
  • Walter v. Valley 363 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    The basic principles of product liability are set out in the case of Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company, , (1971), and we quote at : "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 artic
  • Richard v. Singer Lumber Co. 361 So. 2d 955 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    2 Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N.Y., , (1971), and cited cases.
  • Andry v. Canada Dry Corp., Div. of Norton Simon, Inc. 355 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    [3] While we express the principles involved in somewhat different language, we view our conclusions as consistent with the oft-quoted Louisiana Supreme Court decision of Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y., , (1971).
  • Lachney v. Motor Parts & Bearing Supply 357 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    The fountainhead case in Louisiana governing products liability is Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971).
  • Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 358 So. 2d 926 La. 1978
  • Leaber v. Jolley Elevator Corp. 354 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    LIABILITY OF ESCO AS THE MANUFACTURER OF THE ELEVATOR In Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of New York, , (1971), the Court held that a manufacturer of a product which involved the risk of injury to the user is liable for an *750 injury caused by a defect in the design, composition or manufacture of the article if the injury might reasonably have been anticipated, that the plaintiff has the burden of proof
  • Coon v. Blaney 353 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    Thus, strict liability for manufacture of a product unreasonably dangerous for normal use, as enunciated in Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y., , (1971), is not applicable.
  • St. Pierre v. Gabel 351 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    See Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971); (La.App.
  • Davis v. Reliance Elec. Co. 351 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co., , (1971); (La.App.
  • Rivere v. Philco Corp. 349 So. 2d 971 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y., , La., (1971).
  • Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 349 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    In Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y., , (1971) the court said: “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 injury
  • Savoy v. Action Products Co. 347 So. 2d 930 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    If the product is proven defective by reason of its hazard to normal use, the plaintiff need not prove any particular negligence by the maker in its manufacture or processing; for the manufacturer is presumed to know of the vices in the things he makes, whether or not he has actual knowledge of them.” (Emphasis added; cites omitted) Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of New York, , (1971).
  • Florence v. Clinique Laboratories, Inc. 347 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    See Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971); Rhodes v. Max Factor, Inc., (La.App.
  • Blalock v. American Emp. Ins. Co. 345 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of New York, , (1971) and cases cited.
  • Trahan v. Highlands Ins. Co. 343 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    Tidwell argues on the basis of Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971) and Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corporation et al., 258 La.
  • State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Gibson Products of Sulphur 346 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (3) Was Gibson Products Company of Sulphur otherwise guilty of negligence that was a proximate cause of the fire?” The Louisiana Supreme Court in the landmark case of Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , stated: “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 a
  • Foster v. Marshall 341 So. 2d 1354 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    The principles governing a manufacturer's liability for damages caused by a defective product are set forth in Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971): "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 injury might reasonab
  • Tiger Well Service, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co. 343 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Dixon v. Gutnecht 339 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    It is argued that by virtue of the holding in Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co., , (1971), Louisiana has joined the ranks of those common law jurisdictions who have imposed strict liability on the manufacturer for injuries resulting from the use of a defective product.
  • Hunt v. Ford Motor Co. 341 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, , (1971); (La.
  • Schoeffler v. Remington Arms, Inc. 339 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    (1971), our Supreme Court stated: “A manufacturer of a product which involved 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 manufacturer of the article, i
  • Avoyelles Country Club, Inc. v. Walter Kidde & Co. 338 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    Co. of N. Y., , (1971), and Media v. Mercedes-Benz of N. A., Inc., 262 La.
  • Juneau v. Interstate Blood Bank, Inc. of Louisiana 333 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    STRICT LIABILITY The plaintiffs presented a formidable argument for recovery based upon the strict liability theory set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, , (1971).
  • Madden v. LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO., INC. 334 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
    Co. of N.Y., , (1971); Prosser, Law of Torts § 103 (4th ed. 1971).
  • Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. 330 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Mackbee v. Ford Motor Co. 327 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Ashley v. Nissan Motor Corp. in USA 321 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975