Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Holland v. Buckley, 305 So. 2d 113.

97 citing documents.

Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 398 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Cardwell v. Jefferson Rentals Division 379 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
2315 through 2324 of the Louisiana Civil Code on liability for offenses and quasi-offenses extending strict liability to the owner of an animal under Art. 2321 and to the parents of small children under Art. 2318
Dufour v. Tabony 374 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Junot v. Lee 372 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
y negligence will not bar his recovery in a pedestrian-automobile accident); Turner v. Bucher, La., (holding a parent with whom a child resides is liable for the damages occasioned by the child's acts, which acts are tortious when measured by normal standards, even though the child is of such tender years as to be legally incapable of committing a tort); and Holland v. Buckley, La., (holding there is a presumption of fault on the part of the owner of a domesticated animal which harms another per
Matte v. Guillory 370 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
to the facts found, in that there is no evidence that plaintiff's son was bitten by a dog.
Daniel v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 368 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
Mays v. American Indem. Co. 365 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
Art. 2321 [5] to the circumstances of this case.
Hebert v. Maryland Cas. Co. 366 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Miss Hebert's claim against defendant Stroughter is based on Civil Code article 2321, [1] wherein it was said: *1047 "We hold, therefore, that the correct interpretation of Civil Code Article 2321 is as follows: When a domesticated animal harms another, the master of the animal is presumed to be at fault.
Arceneaux v. Domingue 365 So. 2d 1330 La. 1978
Tri-State Etc. v. Fid. & Cas. Ins. Etc. 364 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 2d 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
Marquez v. City Stores Co. 363 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
The court commented: “Considering its location and physical condition, it is very improbable that anyone could accidentally get his hand caught in the opening through any normal or foreseeable use of the escalator.” In that case the court specifically declined to apply Art. 2321
Normand v. City of New Orleans 363 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Ardoin v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 360 So. 2d 1331 La. 1978
[4] Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corp., supra, 249 So.2d at 137 ; see, Stone, Tort Doctrine in Louisiana, 17 Tul.L.Rev.
Duplechain v. Thibodeaux 359 So. 2d 1058 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
The court, held: "Thus when a plaintiff proves that he has been bitten by a dog of another, the burden shifts to the owner of the animal to exculpate himself by showing (1) that the harm was caused by the fault of the victim; (2) by the fault of a third person for whom the owner is not responsible, or (3) by a fortuit
Alfonso v. Market Facilities of Houston, Inc. 356 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
St. Martin v. Maryland Casualty Co. 357 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
*887 wherein the Supreme Court stated: “When a domesticated animal harms another, the master of the animal is presumed to be at fault.
Stevens v. Zurich Insurance 357 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury
Hebert v. United Services Auto. Ass'n 355 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
Tardo v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERV., INC. 353 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Next, (1976) (1975) (1974), imposing liability without proof of negligence for delictual acts of a small child and a dog respectively to liability for damages caused when a diseased tree fell from defendant's property on plaintiff's automobile.
Vidrine v. White 352 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
Appellant White contends that Ricky was a trespasser to whom no duty was owed; that the jury erred in casting White in judgment when the fault, if any, was that of his wife; and that the dog-bite resulted from Ricky's fault, contributory negligence, and assumption of the risk, inapplicable.
Brooks v. US FID. & GUARANTY CO. 358 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
In this court, plaintiffs argue that defendant is liable under the provisions of Articles 2317 and 2321 of the Civil Code, in which the court said: "The issue before us is: When an innocent bystander is bitten by a dog, who shall bear the damages so caused?
Leger v. Delano Plantation, Inc. 352 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
Justice Dixon dissented from the writ denial in Harrington , stating that the apparent result was a different law for dogs [ ] and for cows.
Kyle v. City of New Orleans 353 So. 2d 969 La. 1977
Holland v. Buckley, La., (1974); Weiland v. King, La., (1973); Dixie Drive It Yourself System v. American Beverage Co., 242 La.
Parks v. Paola 349 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
The trial judge found that this case was controlled by Holland v. Buckley, La., (1974), and held that defendant had not rebutted the presumed fault established by that ruling.
Parker v. Hanks 345 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
This is a personal injury action arising out of a
Thibo v. Aetna Ins. Co. 347 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
3rd Cir. 1976), this court refused to apply the doctrine of strict liability imposed on the animal owners under Article 2321
Betbeze v. Cherokee Nat. Ins. Co. 345 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
because they have shown that the harm was caused by the fault of a third person for whom they have no responsibility.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Kimball 340 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
known in legal circles as the dog-bite case.
Babin v. Zurich Ins. Co. 336 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Defendants' position is based upon the rule in Holland v. Buckley, La., (1974) that: "* * * The owner may exculpate himself from such presumed fault only by showing that the harm was caused by the fault of the victim, by the fault of the third person for whom he is not responsible, or by a fortuitous event."
Harrington v. Upchurch 337 So. 2d 222 La. 1976
Harrington v. Upchurch 331 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Counsel urges that the applicable law is that found in the recent case of Holland v. Buckley, La.
Flores v. Commercial Union Insurance Company 337 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
The issues on appeal are: (a) whether the cattle were killed due to Lott's negligence; (b) whether the cattle owners were negligent barring their recovery; and (c) the applicability of Civil Code Art. 2321
Fontenot v. Soileau 336 So. 2d 1006 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Evans v. Litton 334 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
Lanieux v. STATE LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY AND DEPT. OF CORR. 328 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
ELLIS, Judge (dissenting): I am of the opinion that this case is governed by Article 2321 of the Civil Code
Collins v. Wilson 331 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
be followed, there would be a presumption of fault on the part of the teacher in the event of damage to a third party by a student under his supervision.
Atkins v. Hudson 327 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Here, the defendant was clearly liable to Miss Atkins because, at the time her dog bit Miss Atkins, its vicious propensities were known to her; she knew the dog had bitten Mrs. Hall the previous day.
Dotson v. Continental Insurance Co. 322 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Continental further contends that the trial judge erred as a matter of law in applying the rule recently announced in Holland v. Buckley, La., (1974), to find liability under the circumstances of this case.
Loescher v. Parr 324 So. 2d 441 La. 1975
Likewise reverting to earlier jurisprudence, we held that under Article 2321 the owner of an animal which creates an unreasonable risk of injury to others is liable for the harm done by that animal because of its deficient conduct, even though the owner himself was not personally negligent.
Norberg v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 321 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Plaintiff relies upon the applicability of the rationale expressed in a recent Supreme Court case, (1974), which imposes a presumption of fault in the nature of strict liability.
Young v. Sentry Insurance Company 319 So. 2d 419 La. 1975
a decision which, by a narrow 4-3 margin, repudiated a long line of this Court's decisions beginning in 1883 with Montgomery v. Koester, 35 La.Ann.
Young v. Sentry Insurance Company 315 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
(1974)decided on October 28, 1974, wherein the High Court placed responsibility, in the nature of strict liability under LSA C.C.
Adkins v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. 313 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
The Supreme Court granted the writ, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeal, , decided October 28, 1974.
Holland v. Buckley 312 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Thereafter, on plaintiff-appellant’s application, the Supreme Court granted writs of certiorari [ ], and upon trial thereof the question of liability was resolved against the defendants and the cause was remanded to this court for the determination of the amount of damages sustained by plaintiff [ ].
Turner v. Bucher 308 So. 2d 270 La. 1975
" [14] this Court reappraised the liability of the owner of an animal for damages caused by the animal.
Thomas R. Adkins, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. 303 So. 2d 184 La. 1974