DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Vervik v. State, Department of Highways, 302 So. 2d 895.

32 citing documents.

  • Jyi H. Steen v. State of La., Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    See also Vervik v. State, Dep’t of Highways
  • Steen v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 903 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    See also Vervik v. State, Dep’t of Highways
  • Hancock v. New Roads Motor Co. 762 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    & Dev., to support their contention that the expert testimony established that DOTD should be held liable based on its *167 failure to sign the curve.
  • Phillips v. ALLIANCE CAS. & REINS. CO. 689 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    See also Vervik v. State, Department of Highways, (La.
  • Jones v. Johnson 572 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Indeed, the jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that such a duty does exist; See, Briggs, , Trahan, ; Watson, ; and that it extends to plaintiffs such as the ones in this case; Ledbetter, ; Burge, .
  • Burkett v. Honeyman 561 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    Vervik v. State, Department of Highways
  • McManus v. Barber Bros. Contracting Co. 552 So. 2d 1017 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    “The Courts have consistently held that the Department of Highways has a duty to warn motorists using the public highways of dangerous conditions, such as curves, by means of warning signs, etc. Vervik vs. State, Department of Highways, (Sup.Ct.1974) *1019 Ardoin vs. State, Department of Highways, (La.App.
  • Thomas v. State 545 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    Vervik v. State of Louisiana, Department of Highways, (La.
  • Trahan v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 536 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    As stated in Vervik v. State, through Department of Highways, : "The Department of Highways is not an insurer of the safety of drivers upon the roads and highways of this state.
  • Robinson v. Estate of Haynes 509 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    (citations omitted) Vervik v. State, Department of Highways
  • Maxwell v. State, Department of Transportaiton & Development 499 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    “Specifically in relation to the duty to properly sign a highway, the Supreme Court in Vervik vs. State, Department of Highways, stated, *686 ‘reasonable care requires, and the Department does owe a duty to the traveling public to erect barricades, signs, and adequate markings to warn against extremely dangerous, trap-like hazards, unusual obstructions, perilous conditions, or defects in the road ...
  • Lam v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEVELOPMENT 495 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Vervik vs. State of Louisiana, Department of Highways, (La.
  • Kennison v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. 486 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Vervik v. State of Louisiana, Department of Highways, Richardson v. Continental Ins.
  • Files v. STATE, DOTD 484 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Vervik v. State, Department of Highways
  • Distinguished Ryan v. State 477 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    This case is thus distinguishable from Vervik v. State, Department of Highways
  • Richardson v. Continental Ins. Co. 468 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    Vervik v. State of Louisiana, Department of Highways
  • Lott v. Landor 452 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Tammany Parish Police Jury, Vervik v. State of Louisiana, Dept. of Highways
  • Stephens v. State Through Dept. of Transp. 440 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    See, Brandon v. State, Through Dept. of Highways, (La.App.
  • Bialy v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV. 414 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    (citations omitted) Vervik v. State, Department of Highways
  • Mobley v. Rego Co. 412 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Tammany Parish Police Jury, Vervik v. State of Louisiana, Dept. of Highways, (La.
  • Darbonne v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 408 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    325 , (1969); Vervik v. State, Department of Highways, (La.App.
  • Bush v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF HWYS. 395 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    (citations omitted) Vervik v. State, Department of Highways
  • Stewart v. Schmieder 386 So. 2d 1351 La. 1980
    Tammany Parish Police Jury, Vervik v. State of Louisiana, Dept. of Highways
  • Wall v. American Employers Ins. Co. 377 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
    See also Vervik v. State, Department of Highways, (La.App.
  • Marshall v. Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission 372 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Mauthe v. Gibson 367 So. 2d 1280 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    of Highways, Pelloat v. State Depart.
  • Boué v. Louisiana Department of Highways 369 So. 2d 1133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    App.1st Cir. 1973) reversed on other grounds
  • Ainsworth v. Treadway 361 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Vervik v. State, Department of Highways, Barr v. State, Louisiana Department of Highways, (La.App.
  • Darbonne v. Allstate Ins. Co. 357 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    Vervik v. State, Department of Highways
  • Ardoin v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS 333 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Vallot v. Touchet 337 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    Cf. Vervik v. State, Department of Highways
  • Distinguished Norris v. State 337 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    We also find the case at hand factually distinguishable from that of Vervik v. State, Department of Highways