DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 358 So. 2d 926.

104 citing documents.

  • Levine v. Live Oak Masonic Housing, Inc. 491 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    See, Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., and Medic Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, 262 La.
  • LaFleur v. John Deere Co. 491 So. 2d 624 La. 1986
    See Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
  • Thompson v. Tuggle 486 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    1981); Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., "
  • Joseph v. Bohn Ford, Inc. 483 So. 2d 934 La. 1986
    599 at 603 , at 756 (1971)
  • Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. 484 So. 2d 110 La. 1986
    1980); Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins.
  • Marshall v. Beno Truck Equipment, Inc. 481 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    In Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court held that, "when the danger is known to the manufacturer and cannot justifiably be expected to be within the knowledge of users generally, the manufacturer must take reasonable steps to warn the user."
  • Varnado v. Sanders 477 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Co., Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Fritscher v. Chateau Golf & Country Club, (La.App.
  • Walker v. Maybelline Co. 477 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (La.
  • Lanclos v. Rockwell Intern. Corp. 470 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (La.
  • Picolo v. Flex-A-Bed, Inc. 466 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    Plaintiffs cite Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., in support of his position Kirschman was a professional vendor.
  • Holmes v. State Through Dept. of Highways 466 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
  • Winterrowd v. Travelers Indem. Co. 462 So. 2d 639 La. 1985
    Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
  • Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Industries 462 So. 2d 166 La. 1985
    1981); Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins.
  • Brumley v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. 459 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    In Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court held that, "when the danger is known to the manufacturer and cannot justifiably be expected to be within the knowledge of users generally, the manufacturer must take reasonable steps to warn the user."
  • Winterrowd v. Travelers Indem. Co. 452 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (La.App.
  • Magee v. Jefferson Rental 454 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Ducote v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 451 So. 2d 1211 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
  • Quattlebaum v. Hy-Reach Equipment Inc. 453 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    [3] However, it was held that a manufacturer's product liability duty (standard of care) was established by Title VII of the Louisiana Civil Code on sales (and particularly Chapter 6 thereof defining the obligation of the seller —La.C.C.
  • Horne v. Liberty Furniture Co. 452 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    27 , (1967); Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
  • Jones v. PK Smith Chevrolet-Olds, Inc. 444 So. 2d 1372 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Company
  • Williams v. Airport Appliance & Floor Covering, Inc. 445 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (La.
  • Andries v. General Motors Corp., Delco 444 So. 2d 1180 La. 1983
    At trial, counsel for plaintiff, citing Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., requested the following special instruction: "It is an established principle in the law of products liability that a manufacturer has a duty to give adequate warning of unreasonable danger involved in the normal use of its product, where the manufacturer knows or should know of such danger.
  • Lytell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 439 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (La.
  • Smith v. Formica Corp. 439 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    See Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck, Inc., Andries v. General Motors Corp., Delco Batteries, (La.
  • Jowers v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 435 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., supra; Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Company, (La.
  • Broussard v. Continental Oil Co. 433 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    1980); Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Company, (La.
  • Pawlak v. Brown 430 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., [ (La.
  • Benoit v. Ryan Chevrolet 428 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Cobb, supra .
  • Harris v. Atlanta Stove Works, Inc. 428 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Company, writ denied
  • O'BRIEN v. Delta Gas, Inc. 426 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
  • Jones v. St. Charles Steel Fabricators, Inc. 422 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Finally, we must reject plaintiff’s contention that this case should fall within the rule of Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., : a professional vendor, much like a manufacturer, is presumed to know of latent defects in the products it sells, and will be held strictly liable for the injury such defects cause to purchasers or third persons.
  • Butler v. Atwood 420 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Chappius v. Sears Roebuck, Inc., American Insurance Co. v. Duofast Dixie, Inc.
  • Duplechain v. Clausing MacHine Tools 420 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    4th Cir. 1979); Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
  • Braxton v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. 419 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    See also Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (La.
  • Andries v. General Motors Corp., Delco Batteries Division 417 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Plaintiff cites Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., as his basic authority.
  • Dye v. Kean's 412 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    (See Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck, & Co., ); (7) in the contemplation of Article 2317 was the "custody" of the leased uniform in the owner-lessor, Redstick, or in the lessee, American, or in the user, Steven Dye, or any combination thereof?
  • Noel v. Esgard, Inc. 411 So. 2d 1108 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    In Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., plaintiff was normally using a hammer when it shattered and a fragment got into his eye and in Weber v. The Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N. Y., 259 La.
  • DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins. Co. 403 So. 2d 26 La. 1981
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
  • Hebert v. Brazzel 403 So. 2d 1242 La. 1981
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Foster v. Marshall, supra ; Amco Underwriters of Audubon Ins.
  • Thomasson v. AK DURNIN CHRYSLER-PLY., INC. 399 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, , (La.
  • Smith v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 399 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Company
  • Dorry v. LaFleur 399 So. 2d 559 La. 1981
    To these should be added Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (La.
  • Philippe v. Browning Arms Co. 395 So. 2d 310 La. 1981
    See Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
  • Hudgens v. INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS, ETC. 393 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    is cited by plaintiff to support his claim that the battery contained an inadequate warning.
  • Cobb v. Insured Lloyds 387 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Company
  • Hunt v. City Stores, Inc. 387 So. 2d 585 La. 1980
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
  • Thornhill v. Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc. 385 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Appellee also contends that appellant owed a duty to warn of the danger involved
  • Reeves v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 370 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    [3] in which the seller of a defective hammer, Sears, was held to the same responsibility in products liability as the manufacturer of the hammer, Vaughan and Bushnell Manufacturing Company, partly because Sears held the hammer out to the public as its own.
  • Cain v. Handy City, Inc. 367 So. 2d 1217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    In the comparatively recent case of Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (1978), the Supreme Court applied the “unreasonably dangerous to normal use” test in a case involving an eye injury sustained from a hammer chip where evidence established that an earlier chipped hammer becomes unreasonably dangerous to normal use.
  • Tri-State Etc. v. Fid. & Cas. Ins. Etc. 364 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
    Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., holds that in order to recover, a plaintiff need not prove defective design or manufacture if he proves he was injured by a product unreasonably dangerous for normal use.