Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kavlich v. Kramer, 315 So. 2d 282.

140 citing documents.

Gevona Rixner v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
Estate of Jennifer Herring v. Microtel Inn & Suites Franchising La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Rigney v. Howard Bros. Discount Stores, Inc., (La.App.
Estate of Herring v. Microtel Inn & Suites Franchising 94 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Rigney v. Howard Bros. Discount Stores, Inc., (La.
Lofton v. Hayward 806 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Bergeron v. K-Mart, supra; (La.App.
Richard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 702 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 699 So. 2d 1081 La. 1997
9:2800.6, and continuing through this Court's opinion in Welch v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 94-2331 (La.5/22/95) , [2] it is the Welch decision, interpreting constructive notice, upon which we now focus our attention.
Holden v. STATE UNIV. MED. CENTER 690 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
The issue of the burden of proof in a slip and fall case has been addressed judicially and legislatively with differing views since the 1975
Stewart v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 686 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
9:2800.6 which had increased defendant's burden of proof in slip and fall cases.
Boutte v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 674 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
See also Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Kinchen v. J.C.
Wilson v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. OF LOUISIANA 665 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Welch v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 655 So. 2d 309 La. 1995
Before our 1975 slip and fall cases were decided with plaintiff bearing the burden of proving defendant's negligence.
Stark v. National Tea Co. 655 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Kimble v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ().
Welch v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 645 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
In 1975, the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the rule first enunciated in Joynes , that when the plaintiff establishes he slipped and fell on a substance on the merchant's floor, the "burden then shifts to the defendant to go forward with the evidence to exculpate itself from the presumption that it was negligent."
Parfait v. Hospital Service District No. 1 638 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Historically, has not been applied to the hospital setting.
Cobb v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 624 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
Braud v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. 618 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Perez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 608 So. 2d 1006 La. 1992
Cash v. Charter Marketing Co. 607 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
9:2800.6; Smith v. Winn Dixie Stores of Louisiana, Inc., (La.App.
Reynolds v. St. Francis Medical Center 597 So. 2d 1121 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Davis v. Wal-Mart, Inc. 594 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
In McCardie, supra, the Louisiana Supreme Court reiterated the criteria it announced in Brown v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., infra, a plaintiff must meet in order to recover in a slip and fall case, stating: " this court held that after a plaintiff proves there was a foreign substance on a store's floor (the floor of a self-service convenience store) that caused the plaintiff to fall and sustain an injury, the burden of proof shifts to the owner of the store to exculpate itself from the presumpt
Marshall v. a & P Food Co. of Tallulah 587 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Gonzales v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
Stockwell v. Great Atlantic & Pacific 583 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Crandell v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 580 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
Hall v. Petro of Texas, Inc. 580 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Fuller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 577 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
LeBlanc v. Alton Ochsner Medical Found. 563 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
should not be applied to the extent that it imposes an increased duty on AOMF.
Jones v. City of New Orleans 559 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Gonzales v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
Speyrer v. Sziszaks 559 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Estes v. Kroger Co. 556 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie of Louisiana, Inc.
Bordelon v. Wendy's of New Orleans 553 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Morgan v. Stanley Stores, Inc. 550 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
1987); Brown v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
Cascio v. Continental Casualty Co. 547 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Kavlich v. Kramer, La., (1975); Tripkovich v. Winn-Dixie of Louisiana, Inc., La.App.
Kelley v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 545 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Kavlich v. Kramer, La., (1975); Tripkovich v. Winn-Dixie of Louisiana, Inc., La.App.
South Cent. Bell Tel. Co. v. American Holding Corp. 548 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Bonnette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 542 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
1 In McCardie, supra, the court stated: “ this court held that after a plaintiff proves there was a foreign substance on a store’s floor (the floor of a self-service convenience store) that caused the plaintiff to fall and sustain an injury, the burden of proof shifts to the owner of the store to exculpate itself from the presumption that it was ne
Perron v. Ambassador Ins. Co. 541 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Kimble v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 539 So. 2d 1212 La. 1989
Bergeron v. K-Mart Corp. 540 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Dulaney v. Travelers Insurance Company, 434 So.
Doming v. K-Mart Corp. 540 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Brown v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 535 So. 2d 1307 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
and Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., a slip and fall victim whose fall was caused by a foreign substance on a supermarket floor could recover only by proving that the store operator or his employee caused the hazard, or that the operator had actual or constructive knowledge of
Brown v. Schwegmann's Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 534 So. 2d 1344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., *1346 Brown v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Smith v. Winn-Dixie Stores of Louisiana, Inc., (La.App.
Diaz v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 533 So. 2d 1034 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Holden v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 532 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
The slip and fall cases, Brown v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., and Kavlich, v. Kramer, as well as the protruding object cases, (La.App.
Dickson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 535 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Kimble v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 527 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Miller v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. 527 So. 2d 989 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Brown v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., (La.
Meshell v. Shamsie 528 So. 2d 1023 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Rutledge v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 523 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
That case relied heavily on two cases that the Court had previously decided Brown v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., (La.
Raymond v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 522 So. 2d 1350 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
a tort victim injured by a fall caused by a foreign substance on a supermarket floor could recover only by proving that the store operator or his employee caused the hazard, or that the operator had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard and fa
Fuller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 519 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988