DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., 387 So. 2d 585.

130 citing documents.

  • Dealey v. State 448 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    In determining whether the Department was at fault under either negligence theory or strict liability, our analysis is, initially, substantially the same: “The judicial process involved in deciding whether a risk is unreasonable under Article 2317 is similar to that employed in determining whether a risk is unreasonable in a traditional negligence problem, Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., and in deciding the scope of duty or legal cause under the duty/risk analysis.
  • Landry v. Bill Garrett Chevrolet, Inc. 443 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Liability of General Motors Louisiana law on products liability is best expressed by our Supreme Court in Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., (La.
  • McGee v. McClure 442 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    1983); Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Smith v. Formica Corp. 439 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 418 So.2d at 498, n. 6 ; ( as a traditional negligence case).
  • Jowers v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 435 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Landry v. Bill Garrett Chevrolet, Inc. 430 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Subsequent to Spillars , our Supreme Court in Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., reaffirmed a requirement of forseeability on the part of the manufacturer, by stating: "Thus, under Weber , the plaintiff in a products liability suit must only prove that the product was defective, i.e., unreasonably dangerous to normal use; that the product was in normal use at the time the injury occurre
  • Maltzahn v. City of New Orleans 433 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    The judicial process involved in deciding whether a risk is unreasonable under Article 2317 is similar to that employed in determining whether a risk is unreasonable in a traditional negligence problem, Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., and in deciding the scope of duty or legal cause under the duty risk analysis.
  • 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
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Farr v. Montgomery Ward and Co., Inc. 430 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., (La.
  • Narcise v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 427 So. 2d 1192 La. 1983
    However, in Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., this court held that the owner of a department store was not entitled to indemnity (as opposed to contribution) from the manufacturer of an escalator, on which the claimant was injured when his foot became stuck in an opening, because the owner did not show "some greater fault" on the part of the manufactur
  • Entrevia v. Hood 427 So. 2d 1146 La. 1983
    The judicial process involved in deciding whether a risk is unreasonable under Article 2317 is similar to that employed in determining whether a risk is unreasonable in a traditional negligence problem, and in deciding the scope of duty or legal cause under the duty risk analysis.
  • Harris v. Atlanta Stove Works, Inc. 428 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., rehearing denied, September 12, 1980.
  • Rollins v. Ford Motor Co. 424 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    See Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., Sepulvado v. State, Through Dept. of Hwys., (La.App.
  • Lovell v. Earl Grissmer Co., Inc. 422 So. 2d 1344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., Weber, supra.
  • B. Olinde & Sons Co., Inc. v. STATE, ETC. 421 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Verrett v. Cameron Telephone Co. 417 So. 2d 1319 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Hessifer v. Southern Equipment, Inc. 416 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    In Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court states at page 588: "Although `unreasonableness' is a traditional standard for the determination of negligence, it is also fundamental to a finding of strict liability under LSA-C.C.
  • Alexander v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 415 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    ...” Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Nevle v. National Presto Industries 416 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    599 , (1971) and followed and quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Noel v. Esgard, Inc. 411 So. 2d 1108 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Next, plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to recover on the theory that Safe-T-Kote was "unreasonably dangerous to normal use" as discussed in Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Bacile v. Parish of Jefferson 411 So. 2d 1088 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    Insofar as defendants are concerned between themselves it might arguably make a difference if the design or manufacturing defect were not so evident that either party should have noted the other's error; but neither establishes that the injury was attributable exclusively to the other, and thus each is entitled not to indemnity from the other but only to contribution of half
  • Lacombe v. Greathouse 407 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    1976); rehearing denied September 12, 1980.
  • Goodlow v. City of Alexandria 407 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    In Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., a 12-year-old boy sustained injuries when his shoe caught in the space between the moving tread of an escalator and the side wall.
  • Broussard v. PA. MILLERS MUT. INS. CO. 406 So. 2d 574 La. 1981
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., held that an escalator with a propensity for trapping small tennis shoes was defective; the custodian and manufacturer were liable because they were aware of the risk of harm but failed to warn the public.
  • Williams v. Aetna Ins. Co. 402 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Plaintiffs maintain that this is a strict liability situation under Civil Code Article 2317 and the recent Supreme Court cases construing that article, especially Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., (La.
  • Smith v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 399 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    See also Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Sanders v. Stutes 400 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    The Louisiana Supreme Court recently explained the doctrine of strict liability under that article in Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
  • Ferguson v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 398 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    the custodian of an escalator was held strictly liable for injuries to a youth.
  • Stablier v. City of Baton Rouge 393 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    4th Cir., 1979), writ granted (1979), amended and affirmed La., (1980) involving a twelve year old boy who was injured when his tennis shoe was caught in the space between the moving tread and the side panel of an escalator, the Supreme Court discussed this issue citing Loescher.