Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Loescher v. Parr, 324 So. 2d 441.

515 citing documents.

Johnson v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV. 497 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Hutson v. Madison Parish Police Jury 496 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
McCart v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, (La.App.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. South Central Bell Telephone Co. 497 So. 2d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Rozell v. Louisiana Animal Breeders Co-Op., Inc. 496 So. 2d 275 La. 1986
found liable the owner of a tree that fell because it "constituted an unreasonable hazard of injury to those upon whom it might foreseeably fall."
Landry v. State 495 So. 2d 1284 La. 1986
this Court analyzed the elements of recovery under 2317: the plaintiff must prove (a) that the thing which caused the damage was in the care (custody) of the defendant owner, (b) the existence of a defect or vice of the thing and (c) that his damage occurred through this defect or vice.
Roberson v. Huggins 498 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Clements v. Fluor Engineers, Inc. 496 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Tircuit v. Board of Commissioners 496 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Burguieres v. City of New Orleans 497 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
In 1976 wherein liability was imposed under Article 2317 of the Civil Code.
Farlow v. Roddy 493 So. 2d 592 La. 1986
Loescher v. Parr [ ], supra.
Forest v. STATE EX REL. LOUISIANA DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV. 493 So. 2d 563 La. 1986
vehicle was the sole cause in fact of the accident; that decedent James Forest was contributorily negligent, and thus in the alternative plaintiffs' awards should be reduced by decedent's percentage of fault; that James Forest voluntarily assumed the risk of injury; and that the accident was caused by the fault *567 of a third party and/or by victim fault, should absolve the state.
Clairmont v. City of New Orleans 492 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
rehearing denied January 16, 1976.
Carollo v. Newton 492 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
sets forth the following conditions for C.C.
Geisler v. Allstate Insurance Co. 489 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Jones v. City of Baton Rouge, etc., (La.App.
Ducote v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. 488 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
3rd Cir.1984), writ den.
Spencer v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 488 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Gonzalas v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 487 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Wood v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 486 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
1983); Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
Myers v. Ford Motor Co. 486 So. 2d 1030 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co., supra; Colleps v. State Farm General Ins.
Willis v. Cajun Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 484 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
447 and 449 n. 7 (La.1975), appears the following: The provision that one is responsible for damage "which is caused by the act ...
Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. 484 So. 2d 110 La. 1986
Landry v. State 483 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
The presence of the hole presented an unreasonable risk of harm to people in plaintiffs position.” The Levee Board argues that the trial court misapplied the doctrine of strict liability under Article 2317
Young v. City of New Orleans 482 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
LaJaunie v. METRO. PROPERTY & LIABILITY INS. CO. 481 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
where the court explained: "When harm results from the conduct or defect of a person or thing which creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, a person legally responsible under these code articles for the supervision, care, or guardianship of the person or thing may be held liable for the damage thus c
Snider v. Pagragan 480 So. 2d 1053 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Our appreciation of the duty-risk analysis in tort actions is that the only distinction to be made between article 2315 cases and those arising under articles 2317 and 2322, is that in the latter *1054 the defendant's knowledge of the defect creating an unreasonable risk of harm is presumed
Barnett v. Duraso 479 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Varnado v. Sanders 477 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Guidry v. Whitmore 477 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Stephens v. Stephens Truck Lines, Inc. 478 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Jones v. City of Baton Rouge, supra
Matt v. Cox 478 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Sibley v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Louisiana State University 477 So. 2d 1094 La. 1985
Jacobs v. Spinnakers 474 So. 2d 1019 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
n. 7 (La.1975), Justice Tate quoted with approval the following language on the question of what constitutes "custody" for purposes of liability: "[T]he things in one's care are those things to which one bears such a relationship as to have the right of direction and control over them, and to draw some kind of b
Tischler v. City of Alexandria 471 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
The Louisiana Supreme Court described the legal foundation for imposing liability under Article 2317 as follows: "When harm results from the conduct or defect of a person or thing which creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, a person legally responsible under these code articles for the supervision, care, or guardianship of the person or thing may be held liable for the damage thus caused, despite
Aguillard v. Langlois 471 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
art. 2317 wherein the Supreme Court said: When harm results from the conduct or defect of a person or thing which creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, a person legally responsible ...
Brown v. Harlan 468 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Foab v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 471 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Soverign Ins. Co. v. Texas Pipeline Co. 470 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
2317, 2318, 2320, 2321 and 2322) are set forth in Loescher v. Parr, supra, [ ] 446 as follows: *974 `When harm results from the conduct or defect of a person or thing which creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, a person legally responsible under these code articles for the supervision, care, or guardianship of the person or thing may be held liable for the damage thus caused, despite
Howell v. State, Department of Transportation 467 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
art. 2317 contributory negligence has been equated to “victim fault” the principle case interpreting the article.
Humphries v. TL James & Co. 468 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Hayes v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT 467 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Plaisance v. Highland Insurance Co. 467 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Rigao v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans 467 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
both deal with objects that were defective.
Thomas v. Missouri Pacific RR Co. 466 So. 2d 1280 La. 1985
McDermott v. Jester 466 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Baker v. Sewerage and Water Bd. 466 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Rollins v. Concordia Parish School Bd. 465 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
APPLICABILITY OF STRICT LIABILITY Plaintiff argues that strict liability should be applied and that, the School Board can only escape liability if it shows the accident was caused by victim fault, third party fault, or an irresistable force.
Heater v. Texas Gas & Exploration Corp. 466 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
-47 (1976), we summarized this principle recognized in favor of an injured person himself without fault: `When harm results from the conduct or defect of a person or thing which creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, a person legally responsible *508 under these code articles for the supervision, care, or
Lemon v. Fein 467 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
They argue that appellants are strictly liable under Article 2317
Goleman v. Kroger & Co. 462 So. 2d 1330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Industries 462 So. 2d 166 La. 1985