DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corporation, 249 So. 2d 133.

224 citing documents.

  • Dorry v. LaFleur 387 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    In Prestenbach v. Sentry Insurance Company, supra, at page 1335, the Supreme Court further discussed the knowledge element of the defense: " , (1971), `the determination of whether a plaintiff has assumed a risk is made by subjective inquiry .
  • Boutte v. Pennsylvania Millers Mut. Ins. Co. 386 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Dofflemyer v. Gilley 384 So. 2d 435 La. 1980
    (1971): The determination of whether a plaintiff has assumed a risk is made by subjective inquiry, whereas contributory negligence is determined objectively under the reasonable man standard.
  • Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 398 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • South Central Bell Tel. Co. v. Hartford Acc. & Indemnity Co. 385 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Keller v. Kelly 378 So. 2d 1006 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
  • Cardwell v. Jefferson Rentals Division 379 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    (1971) and culminated with Loescher v. Parr .
  • Dofflemyer v. Gilley 378 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    The court stated the law of assumption of the risk as follows: “ , (1971), ‘the determination of whether a plaintiff has assumed a risk is made by subjective inquiry .
  • Bass v. Aetna Ins. Co. 370 So. 2d 511 La. 1979
    1005, , (1971): "The determination of whether a plaintiff has assumed a risk is made by subjective inquiry, whereas contributory negligence is determined objectively under the reasonable man standard.
  • Hebert v. Maryland Cas. Co. 369 So. 2d 708 La. 1979
  • Guillotte v. Houston General Ins. Co. 368 So. 2d 1026 La. 1979
    Co., , (1971); Schofield v. Continental Ins.
  • Daniel v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 368 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    (1971), which preceded Holland v. Buckley and was the first of the four Supreme *814 Court cases clearly enunciating that there may be fault without negligence.
  • Roberts v. Tiny Tim Thrifty Check 367 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    See: , (1971); Theunissen v. Guidry, 244 La.
  • Russell v. Windsor Properties, Inc. 366 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    425 , (1970); , (1971) and, concurring opinions in Chaney, supra, and Hero, supra).
  • Tri-State Etc. v. Fid. & Cas. Ins. Etc. 364 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
    Compare, , (1971); Richard v. Singer Lumber Co., Inc., (La.App.
  • Tri-State Insurance Co. of Tulsa v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y. 364 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Compare, , (1971); Richard v. Singer Lumber Co., Inc., (La.App.
  • McLaughlin v. HOME INDEMNITY INS. CO. 361 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Andry v. Kinberger 364 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    [3] , ; see also Wunstell v. Crochet, La.App., .
  • Guilyot v. Del-Gulf Supply, Inc. 362 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Corp., 1971, , ] and "for that which is caused by the act of persons [including minor children, art. 2318, insane wards, art. 2319, and employees, art. 2320] for whom we are answerable, or of the thing [including animals, art. 2321, and buildings, art. 2322] which we have in our custody", art. 2317.
  • Wilson v. Voss 361 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Poe v. State Farm General Ins. Co. 360 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
  • Ardoin v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 360 So. 2d 1331 La. 1978
    NOTES [1] , (1971); Stone, Tort Doctrine in Louisiana, 17 Tul.L.Rev.
  • Dunson v. Triad Chemical Co. 360 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Charia v. Stanley 359 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    See, e. g., Hero Lands v. Texaco, supra ; Lombard v. Sewerage & Water Board, *294 (La.1973); , (1971); Fontenot v. Magnolia Petroleum Co ., La.
  • Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 358 So. 2d 926 La. 1978
  • DI VINCENTI BROS. v. Livingston Parish S. Bd. 355 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    For further treatment of the broad scope of fault, see Ferdinand Fairfax Stone, Tort Doctrine in Louisiana: The Materials for the Decision of a Case, 17 Tul.Law Rev. 159 (1942); F. Stone, Tort Doctrine in Louisiana: The Concept of Fault, 27 Tul.Law Rev. 1 (1952); , (1971).
  • Dupre v. Tri-Parish Flying Serv., Inc. 355 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
  • Evans v. Travelers Insurance 351 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Pearson v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 345 So. 2d 123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    In distinguishing these cases the Court said: "Plaintiff relies principally on Chaney v. Brupbacher, La.App., ; , ; Hall v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., La.App., ; and Boure v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La.App., , to refute the contributory negligence.
  • Pope v. Spiers 347 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Parker v. Hanks 345 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    Plaintiff urges that this concept of "victim's fault" has not yet been interpreted but urges that it is the same as contributory negligence or assumption of risk which were rejected as a , (1971).
  • Trahan v. Highlands Ins. Co. 343 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    599 , (1971) , (1971), that considering the trial jury's specific finding that the drilling rig manufactured by Pemco was defective and that such defect was a proximate cause of the accident, Pemco is strictly liable to Tidwell for indemnification irrespective of the latters actual negligence.
  • Thibo v. Aetna Ins. Co. 347 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    (1971) sets out the rules concerning assumption of risk in a strict liability case.
  • Bourque v. Olin Corp. 346 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    Specifically, plaintiff argues that this is a case where defendant was engaged in an ultra-hazardous activity to which plaintiff's contributory negligence is not a viable defense, , (1971).
  • Andrepont v. Naquin 345 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Morales v. Houston Fire & Cas. Co., Inc. 342 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    Plaintiff contends, however, , (1971), that negligence need not be proved, since a proprietor is absolutely liable under C.C.
  • Joubert v. STATE THROUGH STATE PARK, ETC. 345 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    : "The defense of contributory negligence which is urged here presupposes original negligence on the part of the defendant.
  • Graham v. Allied Chemical Corp. 341 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (1975), and the principle it reiterates that contributory negligence is not a defense in a case where strict liability is imposed because of an ultrahazardous activity.
  • 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
  • Frank v. Pitre 341 So. 2d 1376 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Prestenbach v. Sentry Ins. Co. 340 So. 2d 1331 La. 1976
    (1971), "the determination of whether a plaintiff has assumed a risk is made by subjective inquiry .
  • Babin v. Zurich Ins. Co. 336 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
    [1] , (1971), points out that while all negligence can be dealt with as a fault concept, all fault cannot be treated in terms of negligence.
  • Thompson v. Warehouse Corp. of America, Inc. 337 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
    Plaintiff correctly argues that a firefighter is not without remedy for any risk whatsoever; see Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corp., 1971, , .
  • Ambrosia v. Cherokee Insurance Co. 332 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    (1971) has struck out the defense of contributory negligence.
  • Gibbens v. Edgens 328 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    (1971); Reymond v. State Department of Highways, [ 255 La.
  • Dean v. Hercules Incorporated 328 So. 2d 69 La. 1976
  • Wunstell v. Crochet 325 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
    (1971); see also the specific language in dissenting opinion in Wooten v. Wimberly, La., (1972).
  • Loescher v. Parr 324 So. 2d 441 La. 1975
  • Ayala v. Bailey Electric Company, Inc. 318 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    667 et seq and 2315, as plaintiffs urge [ , (1971)1, or on simple negligence.