Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Green v. Taca International Airlines, 304 So. 2d 357.

50 citing documents.

William Campbell v. Orient-Express Hotels Louisiana, Inc., Windsor Court Hotel Inc. of Delaware, Windsor Court Hotel, L.L.C., Windsor … La. 2025
Michael Leblanc and Jill Leblanc v. Michael E. Powers Construction, Inc. and XYZ Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
Salafian v. Gabriel 146 So. 3d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Buildings 113 So. 3d 175 La. 2013
Airlines, -60 (La.1974) (citations omitted).
Jensen v. City of New Orleans ex rel. New Orleans Aviation Board 64 So. 3d 298 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
To support her position, she relies on Green v. TACA International Airlines, (La.1974), .
Babin v. PLANET BEACH TANNING SALONS, INC. 54 So. 3d 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
“Indemnity shifts the entire loss from a tort-feasor only technically or constructively at fault to one primarily responsible for the act that caused the damage.”
Louisiana Crane Co. v. Quality Contract Services, Inc. 10 So. 3d 896 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Louisiana Crane Co. v. Quality Contract Services, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Melancon Equipment, Inc. v. National Rental Co., Ltd. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Melancon Equipment v. National Rental Co. 978 So. 2d 1053 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Dewayne S. Eaves v. Spirit Homes, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Dr. Lord argues that he is entitled to be indemnified for, or reimbursed, his legal fees and lost income because pursuant to Green v. TACA Int’l Airlines, indemnity “shifts the entire loss from a tort-feasor only 8 technically or constructively at fault to one primarily responsible for the act that caused the damage.” Id.
Eaves v. Spirit Homes, Inc. 931 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Dr. Lord argues that he is entitled to be indemnified for, or reimbursed, his legal fees and lost income because pursuant to Green v. TACA Int’l Airlines, indemnity “shifts the entire loss from a tort-feasor only | technically or constructively at fault to one primarily responsible for the act that caused the damage.” Id.
McGough v. Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. 779 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Dartez v. Atlas Assurance Co. 746 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Green v. Taca Inter[n]ational Airlines, Sutherland v. Hammer[Hamner], (La.App.
Nassif v. Sunrise Homes, Inc. 739 So. 2d 183 La. 1999
Hollander v. Days Inn Motel 739 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Mayo v. Benson Chevrolet Co., Inc. 717 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Freeman v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., Inc. 714 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Decourt v. Caracci 704 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
has summed up the principle this way: indemnity shifts the entire loss from a tortfeasor only technically or constructively at fault to the person primarily responsible, while contribution apportions the loss among those jointly responsible.
Eppinette v. City of Monroe 698 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Jones v. Hyatt Corp. of Delaware 681 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
See Galland v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
Kesler v. Thedford 670 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
has summed up the principle this way: indemnity shifts the entire loss from a tortfeasor only technically or constructively at fault to the person primarily responsible, while contribution apportions the loss among those jointly responsible.
Shuff v. Southern Silica of Louisiana 626 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
has summed up the principle this way: indemnity shifts the entire loss from a tortfeasor only technically or constructively at fault to the person primarily responsible, while contribution apportions the loss among those jointly responsible.
Egros v. Pempton 606 So. 2d 780 La. 1992
Home Ins. Co. v. National Tea Co. 588 So. 2d 361 La. 1991
4th Cir.1976) (); see also Litvinoff, Stipulations as to Liability and as to Damages, 52 Tul.L.Rev.
Perkins v. J.W. Contractors, Inc. 586 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Illinois Cent. Gulf R. v. Deaton, Inc. 581 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
3 Cir.1989), quoting Green v. Taca *717 International Airlines, (La.
May v. Acadiana Regional Airport 562 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Lebleu v. Southern Silica of Louisiana 554 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Otherwise, the general rule of contribution only, art. 2104 must be applied."' *859 (La.1974), summed up the principle as follows: "`Indemnity shifts the entire loss from a tortfeasor only technically or constructively at fault to one primarily responsible for the act that caused the damage ...
Casson v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. 548 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
summed up the principle as follows: "Indemnity shifts the entire loss from a tortfeasor only technically or constructively at fault to one primarily responsible for the act that caused the damage...
Klumpp v. XYZ Ins. Co. 547 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
has summed up the principle this way: indemnity shifts the entire loss from a tortfeasor only technically or constructively at fault to the person primarily responsible, while contribution apportions the loss among those jointly responsible.
CAJUN ELEC. POWER CO-OP., INC. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. 528 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Sutherland v. Hamner 488 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Gonzales v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 459 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Appalachian Corp. v. Brooklyn Cooperage Co., 151 La.
Robinson v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. 454 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Breaux v. Rimmer & Garrett, Inc., (La.App.
Robinson v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 454 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Breaux v. Rimmer & Garrett, Inc., (La.App.
Davenport v. Nixon 434 So. 2d 1203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Wallace v. Pan American Fire & Cas. Co. 426 So. 2d 224 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
the respective duties of defendants in a high risk industry, *229 that of common carriers, were considered along with the right to recover indemnity.
Hamiter v. Hamiter 414 So. 2d 1379 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
4th Cir. 1973), reversed on other grounds, (La.App.
Kraaz v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc. 410 So. 2d 1048 La. 1982
Bantin v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 411 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
the Supreme Court, in passing on applicability of an indemnity agreement, stated: “Agreements have the effect of law between the parties, and the courts are bound to give effect to all such contracts according to the true intent of the parties.
Bantin v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 411 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
the Supreme Court, in passing on applicability of an indemnity agreement, stated: "Agreements have the effect of law between the parties, and the courts are bound to give effect to all such contracts according to the true intent of the parties.
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. National Molasses Co. 396 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1981
The prevailing rule in Louisiana regarding indemnification to a (La.
Smith v. New Orleans Public Serv., Inc. 391 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Wise v. Prescott, 244 La.
Smith v. Willis-Gertrude-Geddes Funeral Homes, Inc. 380 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Polozola v. Garlock, Inc. 376 So. 2d 1009 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
general categories: (1) those that specifically mention in some way that the indemnitor will indemnify the indemnitee against the indemnitee's own negligence; [See e. g., Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., supra ]; (2) those that specifically mention in some way that the indemnitor will not indemnify the indemnitee against the indemnitee's own negligence [see e. g., ]; and (3) those that are silent on that specific subject, but contain other language that might be so construed.
Fontenot v. Monsanto Co. 363 So. 2d 1309 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
They argue (a) that if Monsanto is not cast in judgment for plaintiff's injuries, they (Monsanto) would obviously have no cause of action for indemnification and (b) that the indemnity provisions do not include indemnification for loss resulting from Monsanto's sole negligence where such intention has not been expressed more precisely, (La.App.
Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company v. Central Plumbing & Heating Company 339 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Melancon v. Juno 337 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Breaux v. Rimmer & Garrett, Inc. 320 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975