Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Simon v. Ford Motor Company, 282 So. 2d 126.

80 citing documents.

Guillory v. Avondale Shipyard, Inc. 414 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury.” In granting the directed verdict, the trial court relied on our Supreme Court’s
Seals v. Morris 410 So. 2d 715 La. 1982
Oliver v. Parish of Jefferson 408 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
The defendant in the present case, however, (La.
Oliver v. Jones 376 So. 2d 1256 La. 1979
Novick v. Textron, Inc. 375 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Simon v. Ford Motor Company, La., ; Weber v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York, La.App., .
Arceneaux v. Domingue 365 So. 2d 1330 La. 1978
However, in exceptional cases when a plaintiff-motorist is without fault (such as when he is in his own lane and is struck head-on by an oncoming motorist, ), "the driver is required to exculpate himself of any fault, however slight, contributing to the accident."
Vitari v. Lewis 361 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
See Simon v. Ford Motor Company, on rehearing, (La.App.
Sentry Ins. Co. v. Thomas 360 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Darbonne v. Allstate Ins. Co. 357 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
our Supreme Court reiterated the rule to be applied with regard to the liability of a driver who is involved in a collision in the opposing lane of travel: *1273 "When a driver on his wrong side of the road collides with another car which is in its correct lane of traffic, the driver is required to exculpate
Baham v. Patterson 353 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Moore v. Travelers Insurance Co. 353 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Barnes v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 350 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Jones v. Continental Casualty Company of Chicago, Illinois, 246 La.
Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Doyal 353 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Johnigan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 345 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Rizley v. Cutrer, 232 La.
Shively v. Pickens 346 So. 2d 1314 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
In this regard the court in Simon v. Ford Motor Company, Inc., stated: "The trespassing motorist `having caused the accident by leaving his own traffic lane, is presumed guilty of negligence and the onus rested on him to demonstrate that the accident resulted from such a state of unforeseeable circumstances beyond his control (and to which he did not contribute)
Foster v. Marshall 341 So. 2d 1354 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
Two Louisiana cases in which a manufacturer was held free from liability for damages caused by the failure of a component of a and Meche v. Farmers Drier & Storage Company, (La.App.
Shelmire v. Linton 343 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Lapeyrouse v. LeCompte 343 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
In holding Mrs. LeCompte at fault, which holds that a motorist who is involved in an accident while traveling in an opposing traffic lane, bears the burden of exculpation from the slightest degree of negligence, which onus Mrs. LeCompte did not discharge.
Hunt v. Ford Motor Co. 341 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
Miller v. Montgomery Ward and Company, Inc. 317 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
American Security Ins. Co. v. Griffith's Air Con. 317 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
the Supreme Court expressed substantially the same views in the following language: "Considering the heavy burden on Ferrington to exculpate himself from any fault, we are unable to say that the failure of himself and his insurer to preserve the defective ball joint, immediately claimed to be the cause of t
Glazer v. Louisiana Trailer Sales, Inc. 313 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Farmer v. Ford Motor Company 316 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
was a damage suit arising out of an automobile accident caused by the failure of the steering mechanism.
Daniels v. Soileau 311 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Rizley v. Cutrer, 232 La.
Roberts v. Winston Carriers, Inc. 304 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Plaintiff, argues that since the collision occurred in plaintiff's lane of traffic, there is a presumption that defendants were negligent, and that the defendant driver is required to exculpate himself of any fault, however slight, contributing to the accident.
Tillman v. Canal Insurance Co. 307 So. 2d 630 La. 1975
The Court of Appeal did not correctly apply the sudden emergency doctrine, , in any manner applicable.
Tillman v. Canal Insurance Co. 305 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
One of the latest cases decided by the Supreme Court dealing with the liability of the driver who leaves his own side of the road and collides with an innocent motorist is Simon v. Ford Motor Company et al., La., (1973).
Johnson v. McKay 306 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Peltier v. Seabird Industries, Inc. 304 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
1st Cir. 1971), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds, (La.
Pear v. Labiche's Inc. 288 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
106 , (1972), and the recent case of Simon v. Ford Motor Company, La., (1973).