DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

140 citing documents.

  • Dupor v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets, Inc. 400 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Kavlich v. Kramer, La., (1975); Tripkovich v. Winn-Dixie of Louisiana, Inc., La.App., (1973); Fontanille v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., La.App., (1972), cert.
  • Sanders v. Stutes 400 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Bueche v. Alvin Roys, Inc., (La.App.
  • Reed v. Kroger Co. 400 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    a plaintiff in a self-service store slip and fall case need only prove that he was injured in an accident resulting from the unsafe condition of the floor or the aisle.
  • Miller v. Smith 391 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    (1975), and Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., (1976), changed the law in slip and fall cases.
  • Kirklin v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 391 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    The law concerning the liability of a where this State’s highest court held that in this type of case, once a customer establishes that a foreign object in a store has caused him to slip, fall, and injure himself, the burden then shifts to the defendant to go forward with the evidence to exculpate itself from the presumption that defendant was n
  • Smith v. Winn Dixie Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 389 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    (La.1975); Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Hanzo v. Travelers Ins.
  • Rigney v. Howard Bros. Discount Stores, Inc. 387 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Cline v. Kroger Company, Inc., (La.App.
  • Albritton v. JC Penney Co., Inc. 385 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    493 , (1971); Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Marshall v. Landmark Land Co. 383 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Keller v. Kelly 378 So. 2d 1006 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    Inc., La.1976, ; Kavlich v. Kramer, La.1975, .
  • Cline v. Kroger Co. 379 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Bell v. Bestyet Discount Foods No. 2 372 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
  • Fragale v. Sears 365 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Finally, the court found no contributory negligence where the plaintiff slipped on a piece of banana which “was easily seen.” Considering the evidence and the law, there is no basis for a reversal of the jury’s rejection of the defense of contributory negligence.
  • Johnson v. Ins. Co. of North America 360 So. 2d 818 La. 1978
  • Darensbourg v. Terranova 359 So. 2d 1332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    Kavlich v. Kramer, La., .
  • Bolin v. National Tea Co. 359 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Hanzo v. Travelers Ins. Co. 357 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Calecas v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Inc., (La.App.
  • Hyman v. National Super Markets, Inc. 353 So. 2d 397 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Green v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Johnson v. Insurance Co. of North America 351 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    and Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Dillman v. Nobles 351 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    the Louisiana Supreme Court described the order of proof required in cases such as this: when plaintiff has established that the cause of the accident was some allegedly negligent act of defendant, "(t)he burden then shifts to the defendant to go forward with the evidence to exculpate itself from the presum
  • Bueche v. Alvin Roys, Inc. 348 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Givens v. National Tea Co. 347 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie, above.
  • Followed Sansonni v. Jefferson Parish School Bd. 344 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    1976), or a or even a country club, as in Rosensweig v. Travelers Insurance Company, La.App., (1976).
  • Hutchinson v. Woolworth 345 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    and authorities cited therein.
  • Rousseau v. Deramus 342 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    1976); Kavlich v. Kramer
  • Giroir v. Pann's of Houma, Inc. 341 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Moore v. Southland Corp. 340 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    and Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., that the burden then shifted to the store owner to exculpate itself from negligence.
  • Baptiste v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 338 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Reed v. West Bros. of Eunice, L.A., Inc. 338 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Addressing itself to self-service stores where objects for sale are displayed, : “.
  • Whittaker v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets 334 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
    See Kavlich v. Kramer, La., (1975) and cases cited therein.
  • Ferrington v. McDaniel 336 So. 2d 796 La. 1976
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Rosensweig v. Travelers Ins. Co. 333 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
  • Lauve v. Employers' Commercial Union Insurance 332 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Plaintiff, contends that the burden shifts to the defendants to excul *899 pate themselves in cases of this type.
  • Calecas v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., Inc. 330 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
    Kavlich v. Kramer, La., (1975); Tripkovich v. Winn-Dixie of Louisiana, Inc., La.App., (1973); Fontanille v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., La.App.
  • Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 326 So. 2d 486 La. 1976
    Kavlich v. Kramer, La., (1975); Tripkovich v. Winn-Dixie of Louisiana, Inc., La.App., (1973); Fontanille v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., La.App.
  • Millsaps v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 327 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    the Court reviewed the principles that the storekeeper owes an affirmative duty in the use of his premises to exercise reasonable care to keep the aisles, passageways and floors in a safe condition, and that this duty includes a reasonable effort to keep objects off of the floor which might give rise to a sl
  • Richardson v. Winn-Dixie, Louisiana, Inc. 327 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    2d 619 , and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in the light of their recent decision in the case of Rosalea Mancuso, wife of/ (Sup.Ct.La.1975).
  • Payne v. F. W. Woolworth Co. 327 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    “Upon proof of such facts, we recently held in Kavlich v. Kramer, supra, [La., ] that the duty of going forward with the evidence to exculpate the store employees from negligence shifts to the store owner.
  • Newell v. Zurich Insurance Company 325 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    As a basis for reversing the trial court's judgment, the appellant urges upon us the recent decision by our Supreme Court in Kavlich v. Kramer, La., .
  • Buford v. Kroger Co. 323 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    After the trial judge decided this case, *173 (La.1975) was handed down.