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.

  • Hull v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 480 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    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.
  • Edmond v. Market Basket Stores, Inc. 479 So. 2d 1020 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    The Supreme Court elaborated on this duty in Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., as follows: "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.
  • Arch v. GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA CO., INC. 477 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    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).
  • Johnson v. Tayco Foods 475 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Rose v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 474 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    A large spread of oil with large pieces of broken glass on the floor before the accident is a pre-existing hazard, in the sense of Johnson and of Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Arnold v. TG & Y. STORES CO. 466 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    4th Cir.1982); Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Blanchard v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc. 463 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    Gonzales v. Winn Dixie, Louisiana, Inc., (La.
  • Brown v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 452 So. 2d 685 La. 1984
    and Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., a tort victim injured by a fall in a supermarket caused by a foreign substance on the 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 condi
  • Thompson v. TG & Y Stores Co. 448 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 448 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    See Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Van Lieu v. Winn-Dixie of Louisiana 446 So. 2d 1362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Rollings v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 439 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Kavlich v. Kramer, supra; Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Smith v. Winn Dixie Stores of Louisiana, Inc., supra.
  • McCarter v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 436 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • Jackson v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 436 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Shortly after the Kavlich decision, the Supreme Court decided the case of Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Robinson v. Gulf Ins. Co. 434 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    1975); Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., (La.
  • Carriere v. Olivier 432 So. 2d 1089 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Inc., La.1976, ; Kavlich v. Kramer, La.1975, .
  • Carollo v. Shoney's Big Boy Enterprises 433 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    (La.1975); Hanzo v. Travelers Ins.
  • Brown v. McDonald's Corp. 428 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Gonzales v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Hebert v. Winn Dixie Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 426 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Gonzales v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. Peralta v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets, Inc. (La.App.
  • Gums v. Delta Downs, Inc. 425 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    and Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie, Louisiana, Inc., in support her contention.
  • Kinchen v. JC Penney Co., Inc. 426 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    1978); Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Ruffin v. Trapp Chevrolet Inc. 424 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Lombard v. Winn Dixie, Inc. 423 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Inc., the supermarket also is obliged to provide obstacle-free access to and egress from an aisle to which it invites its patrons to peruse its newspaper advertisements.
  • Brown v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 417 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Robinson v. FW Woolworth Co. 420 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Gonzalez v. Winn-Dixie, Louisiana, Inc.
  • Buras v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 417 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Thomas v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 407 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit; although the court expressed the opinion that it did not agree with Gonzales and the store should be the insurer of the safety of its customers.
  • Jaconne v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets 407 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    2315 to leave a six-inch-high display platform in such a condition that, to a shopper distracted by the business of shopping and by the store’s deliberately attractive displays (see Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie, La.1976, ), it appears to be two displays with an aisle between them.
  • Peralta v. Schwegmann Bros. Gt. Supermkts 406 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    Gonzales v. Winn Dixie Stores of La., Inc., Hanzo v. Travelers Ins.
  • Alongi v. F.W. Woolworth Co. 405 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Serean v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets, Inc. 405 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • West v. US Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 405 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    4th Cir. 1976), a case much like the instant case in which the principles laid down in Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie, Louisiana, Inc., were applied.
  • Keller v. Schwegmann Bros., Inc. 402 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    [3] See Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., La., .
  • Mercadel v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 399 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    The short length of time transpiring between the spill and the fall was not such as to call into play defendant’s (1976), (1975) and other cases.
  • Watson v. West Bros. of Ville Platte, Inc. 399 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Co. of North America, stated: "Our opinions in Kavlich [ v. Kramer, ] and Gonzales [ v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana Inc., ] shift the burden of proof to a store operator after a plaintiff has shown that a premise hazard caused his injury.
  • Dupor v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets, Inc. 400 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    The evidentiary problem in these cases was analyzed in Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Reed v. Kroger Co. 400 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., (La.App.
  • Maryland v. WINN-DIXIE, LA., INC. 393 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie, Louisiana, Inc.
  • 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.
  • Thomas v. State ex rel. Department of Revenue 393 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Plaintiffs assert the appropriate duty for defendant is that imposed on public stores by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., in which the court held that because of the increased risk of harm to customers from items dropped on the floor and because the displays of the self-service grocery system seeking the focus of the customers on the shelves the storekeepers’ duty correspondingly increased; they are required to minimize risk b
  • Buckley v. Exxon Corp. 390 So. 2d 512 La. 1980
    Straley v. Calongne Drayage & Storage, Inc., Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • 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.
  • 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
    This rule was reaffirmed in Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Johnson v. Ins. Co. of North America 360 So. 2d 818 La. 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.
  • Crockem v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets 355 So. 2d 1077 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    See Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Calecas v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Inc., (La.App.