DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

515 citing documents.

  • Deville v. CALCASIEU GRAVITY, ETC. 422 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Barras v. Touzet's Inc. 423 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    the plaintiff must prove the vice (i.e. the unreasonable risk of injury to another) in the person or thing whose act causes the damage, and that the damage resulted from the vice.
  • Aetna Insurance Co. v. Fritscher 422 So. 2d 1306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Lastly, we turn to the words of this state’s , Rehearing Denied 1976, where the court states: Under Louisiana law, founded on articles 670 and 2322, the owner of a building is liable to a neighbor or passerby injured through the fall of his building due either to a vice in its original construction or to his neglect to repair it....
  • Hill v. Louisiana State Department of Highways 426 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    In so alleging, plaintiff invoked strict liability under Art. 2317 of the Louisiana Civil Code, and its progeny.
  • Demoruelle v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 423 So. 2d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    The court in Shipp , stated: “An injured party seeking damages under Art. 2317 need not prove negligence, that is, that any particular act or omission on the part of the defendant caused his injuries.
  • Wittenberg v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 422 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Fair ex rel. Fair v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co. 422 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    being based upon the breach of his legal obligation to keep his thing in such condition or in such control that it does no damage to others.” -48 (La.1975) (emphasis added).
  • Falgout v. Wardlaw 423 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    1067 , (1971); Dorry, supra; Carpenter v. State Farm Fire and Cas.
  • Guillot v. Fisherman's Paradise, Inc. 422 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    1st Cir.1980), writ denied
  • Tate v. Jacobs Engineering Co. 421 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Poole, Does Louisiana Really Have Strict Liability Under Civil Code Articles 2317, 2318, and 2321?
  • B. Olinde & Sons Co., Inc. v. STATE, ETC. 421 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM In the case sub judice, plaintiff claims liability both under La.Civ.Code art. 2315 *373 for defendants' failure to correct a hazardous condition of the road shoulder, and under La.Civ.Code art. 2317, for damages caused by a "defective" thing in the custody of the defendants.
  • Kimball v. St. Paul Ins. Co. 421 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Williams v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 421 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    However, the court held that victim fault was a defense to an action based on Art. 2317's strict liability.
  • Brown v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 417 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    In Jones v. City of Baton Rouge, Etc., the court said: " we found that article 2317 provides *46 for the same type of `strict' liability on the part of an owner or custodian, for damages caused by things in his custody, and we described the legal foundation for this liability in the following terms: `When harm results from the conduct or defect of a person o
  • Schaeffer v. Duvall 421 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Davis v. General Accident Insurance Co. 419 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
  • Meche v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 416 So. 2d 1316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    In discussing liability for damages caused by things, the court explained the distinction between negligence cases and strict liability cases as follows: “Because the term ‘thing’ encompasses a virtually unlimited range of subject matter, the Loescher [v. Parr, ] decision has since been cited by innumerable litigants seeking to avoid the necessity of proving personal negligence in tort cases.
  • Sumner v. Foremost Ins. Co. 417 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    3 Cir. 1981), writ denied, (La.App.
  • Verrett v. Cameron Telephone Co. 417 So. 2d 1319 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Nettles v. Bowlin 417 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    art. 2317, Tate, J. as organ of the Court, and its progeny, have no application to the instant case.
  • Hessifer v. Southern Equipment, Inc. 416 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Plaintiff contends the Department of Transportation and Development should be held liable either through a theory of negligence under La.Civ.Code art. 2315 or through concepts of strict liability under La.Civ.Code art. 2317
  • Durrett v. State 416 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Palermo v. Allstate Ins. Co. 415 So. 2d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    art. 2317, applied to governmental agencies, such as the Department of Transportation and Development.
  • Robertson v. Parish of East Baton Rouge 415 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    The Supreme Court, discussed the concept of strict liability and the legal basis for such liability 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 guardiansh
  • Duffy v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 415 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Toussant v. Guice 414 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Strict Liability under Art. 2317 The plaintiff's principal reliance is upon Art. 2317
  • Humeniuk v. Union Carbide Corp. 416 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Appellant refers us to the interpretation of Article 2317 and the recent interpretation of Article 2322
  • Brown v. Soupenne 416 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    The heirs of Marie Brown perfected this appeal urging the following errors: *172 a) (La.
  • Roark v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 415 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 418 So. 2d 493 La. 1982
    this court interpreted Art. 2317 as imposing liability on the owner of a diseased tree which fell onto a neighbor's automobile, although the diseased condition of the tree was not apparent and the owner therefore could not be deemed negligent for failing to discover and correct the condition *497 or to
  • Greenhouse v. Great Southwest Fire Ins. Co. 413 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    citing Loescher v. Parr, supra [ ] at 446.
  • Entrevia v. Hood 413 So. 2d 954 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Haney v. General Host Corp. 413 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    It found plaintiff could not recover under article 2317 because he failed to prove the existence of a defect, and its progeny.
  • Bullard v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 413 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    art. 2317, [3] the State must be held liable.
  • Swain v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans 413 So. 2d 233 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Bialy v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV. 414 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    The argument is basically that the wrongful death action is a statutory creation found in Civil Code article 2315, and is not available in an action based on Article 2317 that Civil Code article 2317 embodies a cause of action separate and distinct from that found in Article 2315.
  • Flair v. Bd. of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Bd. 411 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Hingle v. General Motors Corp. 411 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Rosevally v. T. L. James & Co. 411 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Bell v. Marriott Hotels, Inc. 411 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    as the authority by which this Court should grant him recovery.
  • Carpenter v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 411 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    In defining the nature of "fault" which Art. 2317 seeks to remedy, stated: "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 *1209 guardianship of the person or thing may be liable for the damage thus caused, despite
  • McNeal v. DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, ETC. 412 So. 2d 1123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Dye v. Kean's 412 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Haynes v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 411 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Seals v. Morris 410 So. 2d 715 La. 1982
    [2] We do not decide the case on a strict liability basis, in which liability was imposed under C.C.
  • Faciane v. Argonaut-Southwest Insurance Co. 410 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    art. 2315 and remanded the matter to this court for the purpose of fixing quantum.
  • LaBorde v. Eagle Trucking Co. 409 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Stewart v. Sam Wallace Indus. Co. 409 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    (1975), liability under Article 2317 vests when the plaintiff shows that the thing which caused the damage was in the custody of the defendant, that the thing had a vice or defect, and the defect or vice occasioned the damage.
  • Jolivette v. City of Lafayette 408 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Goudchaux v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 407 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981