DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 326 So. 2d 486.

122 citing documents.

  • Holden v. STATE UNIV. MED. CENTER 690 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Beginning with Kavlich , as further explained in Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., the Supreme Court required the defendant storekeeper to exculpate itself from a presumption of negligence imposed merely by the plaintiff's showing that the fall occurred because of a foreign substance on the floor.
  • Filasek v. Doctor's Hospital of Jefferson 673 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Lachico v. First National Bank Shares, Inc. 673 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Part of the rationale for imposing such a high degree of care on store merchants, as stated by the supreme court in Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., is as follows: [T]he self-service grocery system requires customers to focus their attention on the shelves and to handle merchandise.
  • 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.
  • Welch v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 655 So. 2d 309 La. 1995
  • Welch v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 645 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Breaux v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 635 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    App. 1st Cir.1993); Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Ritchie v. S.S.
  • Inzerella v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 640 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Reasonable protective measures including periodic inspections must be taken to keep the aisles and floors free from substances or objects that may cause customers to fall.” Castille, supra; see, Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie, Inc.
  • Braud v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. 618 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., (La.
  • Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 616 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Hall, supra ; Castille v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, (La.App.
  • Castille v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea 591 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie, Inc.
  • 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
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Saucier v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Incorporated, (La.App.
  • Hall v. Petro of Texas, Inc. 580 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Ritchie v. S.S.
  • Smith v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 574 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    See Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., (La.
  • Eugene v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 570 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Boudreaux v. Melville Corp. 562 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    art. 2315, which provides as follows: “Every act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it.” Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Jones v. City of New Orleans 559 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    Gonzales v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • 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
    Gonzales v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc., (La.
  • Cascio v. Continental Casualty Co. 547 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    The duty of care required of store owners for the protection of their customers, in cases such as this, is set forth in Gonzales v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc., at 488 (La., 1976): The duty of a store owner to protect his customers from foreign substances on the floor is one of reasonable care under the circumstances.
  • Lewis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 546 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Miller v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., supra .
  • Kelley v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 545 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    As explained by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., at 488: The action is based on Article 2315 of the Louisiana Civil Code.
  • Pool v. Missouri Pacific RR Co. 541 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Doming v. K-Mart Corp. 540 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Saucier v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Incorporated, (La.App.
  • Broomfield v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc. 537 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Hanzo v. Travelers Ins.
  • 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 the hazard and failed to take reasonable steps to remedy the condit
  • Mulkey v. Tubb 535 So. 2d 1294 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Brown v. Schwegmann's Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 534 So. 2d 1344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Dickerson v. Kroger, Inc., (La.App.
  • Ardoin v. Dixieland Foods, Inc. 534 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Diaz v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 533 So. 2d 1034 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    3rd Cir.1986); Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • 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
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Pfiffner v. Touro Infirmary 529 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Rollings v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., (La.
  • Miller v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. 527 So. 2d 989 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    The Court in Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., held that among the factors a trier of fact should consider in determining the reasonableness of a store owner's protective measures are: (1) the type and volume of merchandise; (2) the type of display; (3) the floor space utilized for customer service; (4) the nature of customer service; and (5) the volume
  • Smith v. State Through Dept. HHR 523 So. 2d 815 La. 1988
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • 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 failed to take reasonable steps to remedy the condition.
  • Webster v. Terrebonne Parish Council 515 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Part of the rationale for imposing such a high degree of care for the latter group was stated by our Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., at p. 488: [T]he self-service grocery system requires customers to focus their attention on the shelves and to handle merchandise.
  • Sellers v. Caddo Parish Com'n 503 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Bonnette v. K-Mart, Inc. 502 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Arch v. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., Inc., (La.App.
  • Walden v. PAT GOINS BENTON RD. BEAUTY SCHOOL 501 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Nettles v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 496 So. 2d 1296 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., (La.
  • Saucier v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 499 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., (La.
  • McCargar v. Babin Motors, Inc. 499 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    The jury was instructed to apply the slip and fall negligence standard as set forth by the *1083 and Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., (La.
  • Davis v. Winningham Datsun-Volvo, Inc. 493 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Brown v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Taylor v. Kroger Co., Inc., (La.
  • Lambert v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 490 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    * * * ⅜ * * Upon proof of such facts, we recently held in Kavlich v. Kramer, supra, that the duty of going forward with the evi *806 dence to exculpate the store employees from negligence shifts to the store owner.” Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., , at page 488 (La.1976).
  • Batiste v. Joyce's Supermarket 488 So. 2d 1318 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    685 (La.1984); Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., (La.
  • Riley v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 489 So. 2d 931 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    1975) and Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., the injured victim could recover from the store operator only by proving the store operator or his employee caused the hazard and failed to take reasonable steps to remove the hazard.
  • Sierra v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 487 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    The duty of care required of store owners for the protection of their customers in such cases as this is set forth in Gonzales v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. at 488 (La.1976).
  • Lee v. K-Mart Corp. 483 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., wherein the following appears: The circumstances that determine the reasonableness of protective measures include the type and volume of merchandise, the type of display, the floor space utilized for customer service, the nature of customer service, and the volume of business.