DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Johnson v. Ins. Co. of North America, 360 So. 2d 818.

21 citing documents.

  • Carl Jones, Sr. v. Centerpoint Energy Entex La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    foreign substances and objects on a store’s floor after an accident occurred was admissible to show that the store’s maintenance and inspection procedures were ineffective so long as there was evidence that the store’s floor maintenance and inspection procedures were the same at the time of the accident and the time of the subsequent investigations; wherein the supreme court concluded that photographs of protruding cans on a grocery store shelf taken a year after the accident at issue did not es
  • Jones v. Centerpoint Energy Entex 66 So. 3d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    e of foreign substances and objects on a store’s floor after an accident occurred was admissible to show that the store’s maintenance and inspection procedures were ineffective so long as there was evidence that the store’s floor maintenance and inspection procedures were the same at the time of the accident and the time of the subsequent investigations; wherein the supreme court concluded that photographs of protruding cans on a grocery store shelf taken a year after the accident at issue did n
  • Lopez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 700 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Co. of N. America, Matthews v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., (La.
  • Bennett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 696 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    where our supreme court held pictures taken a year after injury were insufficient to prove that the same conditions existed a year before; see also Brown v. State, Through Department of Transportation and Development, (La.App.
  • Cotton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 602 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Stockwell v. Great Atlantic & Pacific 583 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Co. of North America, (La.
  • Tobin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 575 So. 2d 946 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    Kimble v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Bell v. Bestyet Discount Foods No. 2, (La.
  • Matthews v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 555 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Jackson v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, (La.App.
  • Dickson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 535 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    Co. of North America, (La.
  • Fitzgerald v. Gulf Intern. Cinema Corp. 489 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • Rose v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 474 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    Defendant further argues that it did not have the burden of exculpating itself
  • Taylor v. Kroger Co. 449 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    Johnson v. Insurance Company of *1177 North America
  • Jackson v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 436 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • Kinchen v. JC Penney Co., Inc. 426 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Co. of North America, (La.
  • Armstrong v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 423 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Haney v. General Host Corp. 413 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Watson v. West Bros. of Ville Platte, Inc. 399 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Co. of North America, stated: "Our opinions in Kavlich [ v. Kramer, ] and Gonzales [ v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana Inc., ] shift the burden of proof to a store operator after a plaintiff has shown that a premise hazard caused his injury.
  • Dupor v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets, Inc. 400 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Co. of North America, the court held: “When a customer in a self-service store proves injury resulting from a premise hazard, the burden shifts to the store operator to exculpate himself from the presumption of fault thereby arising and to establish his own freedom from fault.
  • Calhoun v. Royal Globe Ins. Co. 398 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    Co. of North America, CC 667, 2322.
  • Patty v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 389 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    resee exposes his business visitors to an unreasonable risk, and who has no basis for believing that they will discover the condition or realize the risk involved, must exercise ordinary care either to make the condition reasonably safe for their use or to give warning adequate to enable them to avoid harm.” (pp 894, 895) A as a “condition of the premises or of the store operation that results in an unreasonable risk of harm to customers under the circumstances.” The court further noted: “When a
  • Bell v. Bestyet Discount Foods No. 2 372 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    Co. of North America, (2) whether the defendant storeowner was responsible for the condition of the vending machine and rack; and (3) whether the award was excessive.