Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Guilbeau v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 338 So. 2d 600.

30 citing documents.

Roberson v. Gordon 24 So. 3d 1031 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
App. 1 Cir. 1975), affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds, (La.
Harper v. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORR. 664 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Latiolais v. BFI of Louisiana, Inc. 567 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
App. 1st Cir.1975), writ granted, three cases, affirmed in part, reversed in part, on remand, (La.App.
Shroyer v. Grush 555 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Guidry v. Sam Grimmett, Inc. 557 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Co., on remand, (La.App.
Pratt v. Lifemark Corp. 531 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Gales v. Gold Bond Bldg. Products 493 So. 2d 611 La. 1986
Freeman v. Varnado 480 So. 2d 980 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Co., Baumgartner v. State Farm Mut.
Cell-O-Mar, Inc. v. Gros 479 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Turner v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 471 So. 2d 709 La. 1985
Sosa v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 454 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Guillot v. Fisherman's Paradise, Inc. 437 So. 2d 840 La. 1983
Larson v. Huskey 440 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Brown v. Lykes Bros. SS Co., Inc. 422 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Bradley v. Tripkovich 415 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Co., Baumgartner v. State Farm Ins.
Mills v. Ganucheau 416 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Dye v. Kean's 412 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Oliver v. Capitano 405 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
1976, , is equally applicable whenever the menacing momentum of a massive automotive vehicle intrudes upon the nonmenacing presence of a person not also operating an automotive vehicle.
Cenac v. Zurich Insurance Co. 397 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Widcamp v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 381 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Co., where we said: "Under Louisiana jurisprudence, an operator of a vehicle or heavy equipment who observes, or who should by the exercise of reasonable care have observed, a pedestrian in a position of peril of which the latter is apparently unaware, is responsible for injuries caused when his vehicle strikes
Dufrene v. Dixie Auto Ins. Co. 373 So. 2d 162 La. 1979
Co., Belshe v. Gant, 235 La.
Bass v. Aetna Ins. Co. 370 So. 2d 511 La. 1979
Devore v. Hobart Mfg. Co. 367 So. 2d 836 La. 1979
(citations omitted): "Actionable negligence results from the creation or maintenance of an unreasonable risk of injury to others.
McLaughlin v. HOME INDEMNITY INS. CO. 361 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
the court stated: *1230 "Actionable negligence results from the creation or maintenance of an unreasonable risk of injury to others.
Baumgartner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 356 So. 2d 400 La. 1978
Marine Services, Inc. v. A-1 INDUSTRIES 355 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
App. 1st Cir. 1975), affirmed (1976), "[w]hether or not an agreement to cooperate in the execution of a particular work project constitutes a `joint venture' in the legal significance of that term is determined by the circumstances and all aspects of the agreement of the parties and not by any label which the parties themselves may place upon thei
Dupas v. City of New Orleans 354 So. 2d 1311 La. 1978
McGregor v. United Film Corp. 351 So. 2d 1224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
1st Cir. 1975) affirmed on this point in
Guilbeau v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 345 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
On remand from the Supreme Court, Guilbeau et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, La., (1976), this matter involves: (1) the tort claims of a *80 widow on behalf of herself and minor children, for the death of their husband-father decedent, who was killed when struck by a dump truck while at work; (2) the alleged coverage of the truck driver under policies covering corporate members of a joint venture t
Pierre v. Landry 341 So. 2d 891 La. 1977
: "Under Louisiana jurisprudence, an operator of a vehicle or heavy equipment who observes, or who should by the exercise of reasonable care have observed, a pedestrian in a position of peril of which the latter is apparently unaware, is responsible for injuries caused when his vehicle strikes the pedestrian