DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Baumgartner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 356 So. 2d 400.

121 citing documents.

  • Bourgeois v. Jones 481 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    Co., our Supreme Court stated that in a motor vehicle/pedestrian accident contributory negligence is not available as a defense.
  • Libertine v. Aetna Ins. Co. 477 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • Thissel v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 476 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Elliott v. Eaves 476 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Finley v. North Assur. Co. of America 476 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    Co., considered the comparative risk in auto-pedestrian cases with the general duty of a motorist toward a negligent pedestrian and the specific duty of that motorist toward a negligent pedestrian in a city cross-walk.
  • Argus v. Scheppegrell 472 So. 2d 573 La. 1985
  • Turner v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 471 So. 2d 709 La. 1985
    was affected by the adoption of the doctrine of comparative negligence by the Louisiana legislature.
  • Nelson v. Evans 470 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    : A motorist who could have avoided injury to a pedestrian by the exercise of care which is reasonable under the circumstances is at fault, and is responsible.
  • Davis v. Marshall 467 So. 2d 1211 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Lobo v. Douglass 464 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Booker v. Calhoun 468 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Co., and its progeny as authority that these defenses are unavailable to defendants.
  • Sullivan v. Cyr 457 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Co., held that contributory negligence could not be used as a defense by a motorist in a suit by a pedestrian struck while crossing a cross-walk.
  • McKenzie v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 455 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    He stresses the heavy burden on the driver of a motor vehicle to watch out for the safety of pedestrians, especially children, : ...
  • Drum v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 454 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Guerra v. Karam 449 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Turner v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 449 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Greenup v. Maginnis 446 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • Williams v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. 444 So. 2d 1341 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    Co., supports the respective argument of the opposing litigants.
  • Rayford v. Saia Motor Freight Lines, Inc. 442 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Co., rehearing denied 1978, stands for the proposition the plaintiff's contributory negligence is no longer a bar in pedestrian-motorist cases, therefore any evidence attempting to establish Mr. Rayford's contributory negligence is inadmissible.
  • Perrodin v. Zander 441 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Rottman v. Beverly, 183 La.
  • Gladney v. Cutrer 440 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Co., which benefits pedestrians in crosswalks, should be extended to similarly benefit a child on a bicycle.
  • Larson v. Huskey 440 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    denying a defense of plaintiff's negligence in a motorist-pedestrian accident on a public road is not applicable to operations on public property nor to the particular circumstances of this case.
  • Starks v. Kelly 435 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Bays v. Lee 432 So. 2d 941 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    In his Reasons for Judgment, the trial court stated: "This case falls squarely within Baumgartner , .
  • Miller v. New Orleans Public Service 430 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • Bink v. Blackwell 429 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    On the first issue, to support her contention that appellee breached the heavy duty of a motorist to keep a sharp lookout and to see what he should have seen.
  • Chiasson v. Whitney 427 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    at 404, Justice Dixon of the Supreme Court said: "...
  • Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Nero 425 So. 2d 730 La. 1983
  • Valsin v. Bernard 422 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • London v. Bell 422 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • FRAIN AS TUTRIX OF BEASON v. State Farm Ins. Co. 421 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Lindstrom v. Arnold 421 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Co., Belshe v. Gant, 235 La.
  • Peveto v. Austin 421 So. 2d 1204 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Co., required Austin to immediately begin slowing down when he first saw Mrs. Peveto standing by her car on the road shoulder and to take emergency braking action when Mrs. Peveto first stepped onto the road hard surface.
  • Bird v. Black 420 So. 2d 1280 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Jenkins v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 422 So. 2d 1109 La. 1982
    Co., [La.1978] [La.1978]) represented an effort, during the time that contributory negligence prevailed as an absolute bar to recovery, to reach a just result when a comparison of the respective duties of two negligent parties (and of the risks created by breaches of those duties) revea
  • Smith v. Millers Mut. Ins. Co. 419 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • Thomas v. Lea 418 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Bradley v. Tripkovich 415 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Bourque v. Allstate Insurance 415 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Co., Patricia Bellaire was negligent for failing to see Louis Bourque in a position of peril when she should have seen him.
  • Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Nero 415 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    re-stated the long-held rule of Jackson v. Cook, 189 La.
  • Naterski v. McGrath 411 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Jolivette v. City of Lafayette 408 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Kaplan v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. 409 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Breen v. Eisworth-Talbert, Inc. 407 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Co., is inapplicable in this situation.
  • Powell v. Tac Amusement Co. 406 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    On this appeal, Powell assigns two errors: 1) That the verdict of the jury is *765 unsupported by the law and the evidence as to the proximate cause of Powell’s accident and 2) charging the jury that contributory negligence was a bar to recovery in this case was clearly erroneous
  • Meaux v. Alexander 405 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    While challenging the trial court’s finding of contributory negligence, the appellant contends the test of contributory negligence here should be that of a
  • Liedtke v. Allstate Ins. Co. 405 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Oliver v. Capitano 405 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    1978, , or at least on last clear chance as found in Baumgartner and Pence v. Ketchum, La.
  • Security Timber & Land Co. v. Reed 398 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Shank v. Government Employees Ins. Co. 390 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    did not do away with the requirement that a driver must be found negligent before he can be held liable to a pedestrian whom he injures.