DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Rue v. State, Dept. of Highways, 372 So. 2d 1197.

130 citing documents.

  • Maxwell v. State, Department of Transportaiton & Development 499 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Rue vs. State, Department of Highways, Sinitiere vs. Lavergne
  • Broussard v. Northwest Insurance Co. 496 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Johnson v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV. 497 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Rue v. State, Dept. of Highways
  • Roberson v. Huggins 498 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    LeBlanc v. *35 State, Rue v. State, Department of Highways
  • Burge v. City of Hammond 489 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Compare Rue v. State, Department of Highways, with Motton v. Travelers Insurance Company, Ascension Parish Emergency Ambulance Service District and Ascension Parish Police Jury, (La.App.
  • Myers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 483 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    1982); Rue v. State, Department of Highways
  • Royle v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange 486 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    the State Supreme Court used the `but for' analysis to hold that the State of Louisiana was negligent in failing to maintain the shoulder of the road even in light of the substandard conduct of the Plaintiff in inadvertently allowing her vehicle to drift to the shoulder of the road.
  • Schilling v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co. 487 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Rue v. State, Dept. of Highways
  • Motton v. Travelers Ins. Co. 484 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    REDUCTION OF APPELLEES' DAMAGE AWARDS Appellees argue the conduct of Ms. Jackson in inadvertently leaving the paved roadway does not constitute negligence under Rue v. State, Dept. of Highways, and the subsequent jurisprudence dealing with highway "drop-off" cases.
  • Armand v. La. Power & Light Co. 482 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    In Rue v. State, Department of Highways, the Court extended the duty to protect persons who inadvertently drive onto the shoulder: A motorist has a right to assume that a highway shoulder, the function of which is to accommodate motor vehicles intentionally or unintentionally driven thereon, is maintained in a reasonably *806 safe condition.
  • Nunez v. Smith 480 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Rue v. State, Dept. of Highways
  • Jones v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Develop. 478 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    Rue v. State, Department of Highways
  • Murphy v. Hill 476 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    Rue v. State, Department of Highways
  • Murphy v. State 475 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Even assuming arguendo that the decedent was inattentive, applying the simple “but-for” analysis of our Supreme Court in Rue v. State, Department of Highways, we still conclude that it does not bar recovery.
  • Bennett v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 472 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Wise v. La. Dept. of Transp. & Development 470 So. 2d 954 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    Rue v. State, Dept. of Transportation and Development, Holmes v. State, et al, (La.App.
  • Holmes v. State Through Dept. of Highways 466 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    Sinitiere v. Lavergne, supra; Rue v. State, Dept. of Highways
  • Broussard v. Yellow Freight Lines, Inc. 464 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Rue v. State, Department of Highways
  • Quinn v. State, Through Dept. of Highways 464 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    The prevailing jurisprudence in Louisiana, Rue v. State, Dept. of Highways, holds that negligent driving on the part of a motorist who runs off the highway and encounters a defective shoulder caused by improper maintenance does not affect recovery.
  • Grappe v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 462 So. 2d 1337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    Rue v. State, Department of Highways
  • Long v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 463 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    * * * * * * There is no serious question that there was a defective shoulder according to the Rue {Rue v. State, Dept, of Highways, case.
  • Efferson v. State, Through Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 463 So. 2d 1342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Pitre v. Aetna Ins. Co., Inc. 456 So. 2d 626 La. 1984
    Compare Rue v. State, Dept. of Highways
  • Robinson v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. 454 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    1977); Payne v. Louisiana Dept. of Transp., Etc., (La.App.
  • Robinson v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 454 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    1st Cir.1976), writs denied, Payne v. Louisiana Dept. of Transp., Etc., (La.App.
  • Nicholson v. Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development 449 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Rue v. State, Department of Highways
  • Nicholson v. LA. DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEVELOP. 449 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    Rue v. State, Department of Highways
  • Lang v. Prince 447 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Rue v. State, Department of Highways, (La.
  • Thomas v. Jackson 442 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Rue v. State, Dept. of Highways, Smith v. State, through Dept. of Transp., Etc., (La.App.
  • McSweeney v. Dept. of Transp. & Development 442 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    In Rue v. State, Dept. of Highways, rehearing denied 1979, the Supreme Court held at page 1199: "[T]he Highway Department's duty to maintain a safe shoulder encompasses the foreseeable risk that for any number of reasons, including simple inadvertence, a motorist might find himself traveling on, or partially on, the shoulder."
  • Allison v. City of Baton Rouge 439 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    rehearing denied 1980; rehearing denied 1979.
  • Larson v. Huskey 440 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    The court stated: "The fundamental duty-risk analysis of Baumgartner , like that of Boyer v. Johnson, La.1978, , and of Rue v. State Dept. Hwys., La.1979, , is applicable here.
  • Dulaney v. Travelers Ins. Co. 434 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Rivet v. State, Through Dept. of Transp. 434 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Rue v. State, Dept. of Highways
  • Pitre v. Aetna Life and Cas. Co. 434 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Mrs. Pitre and her four children, Carroll Bruce Pitre, Joseph Karren Pitre, Charles Travis Pitre, and Brenda Pitre Rome, filed this action against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), pursuant to Rue v. State, Dept. of Highways, alleging that DOTD was negligent in failing to maintain the roadway and shoulder and in permitting the shoulder to be dangerously lower than the roadway.
  • Cullivan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 428 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    In the Supreme Court's opinion in Rue v. State of Louisiana, Department of Highways, the Court was confronted with the issue of whether or not a motorist who inadvertently drives off a highway onto its shoulder and then loses control upon striking a dangerous rut in the *1238 road is barred from recovery for her injuries due to her negligence in leaving the paved surface of the highway.
  • Scott v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 424 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    [(La.)], and [(La.App.)], is controlling and that as the Supreme Court therein stated: ‘a motorist who inadvertently drove off a highway and onto its shoulder and who lost control of her vehicle upon striking an admittedly dangerous rut in the shoulder was not barred from recovery for her injuries by her
  • Murphy v. LOUISIANA DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 424 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Rue v. State, Department of Highways
  • Payne v. LOUISIANA DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 424 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Rue v. State, Department of Highways
  • Everett v. LOUISIANA DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 424 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Rue v. State, Department of Highways
  • Thornhill v. LOUISIANA DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 424 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Rue v. State, Department of Highways
  • FRAIN AS TUTRIX OF BEASON v. State Farm Ins. Co. 421 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
  • B. Olinde & Sons Co., Inc. v. STATE, ETC. 421 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Because the road was under construction, wherein the Supreme Court held the Department of Highways liable for a deteriorating shoulder even though the driver was found to be contributorily negligent.
  • Booth v. POTASHNICK CONS. CO. 420 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Consistent with this reasoning, we conclude that Sinitiere v. Lavergne, supra , and Rue v. State, Dept. of Highways, in which cases the State was deemed liable for failing to maintain highway shoulders in a safe condition, are inapposite.
  • LeBlanc v. State 419 So. 2d 853 La. 1982
    and Rue v. State, Department of Highways
  • Guidry v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 416 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
    Rue v. State, Dept. of Highways, La., (1979).
  • Bradley v. Tripkovich 415 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
  • Merrell v. State, Through Dept. of Transp. 415 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    * * * * * * In Rue, [ ] supra, the rule was clarified to include persons who drove onto the shoulder inadvertently where there was neither knowledge nor reason to know of either a defective condition of the shoulder itself or any other condition that would make such action hazardous (such as a car on the shoulder of the road)."
  • 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
    Rue v. State, Department of Highways, Watson v. Morrison, supra ; Willis v. State, Louisiana Department of Highways, (La.App.