Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sinitiere v. Lavergne, 391 So. 2d 821.

233 citing documents.

Murphy v. LOUISIANA DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 424 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
The Department's general duties toward motorists on the highway are set forth in *346 (La.
Payne v. LOUISIANA DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 424 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Everett v. LOUISIANA DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 424 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Thornhill v. LOUISIANA DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 424 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Gauthier v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 422 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
and the cases cited therein.
Mitchell v. Poullard 422 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Seals v. Morris 423 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Guillot v. Fisherman's Paradise, Inc. 422 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Booth v. POTASHNICK CONS. CO. 420 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Brandon v. State, through Dept. of Highways, (La.App.
LeBlanc v. State 419 So. 2d 853 La. 1982
and Rue v. State, Department of Highways
Hessifer v. Southern Equipment, Inc. 416 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
You can apply a "but for" test for negligence.
Guidry v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 416 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
As stated by our Supreme Court in the case of Sinitiere v. Lavergne, La., (1980), the Department is not the guarantor of the safety of travelers, but owes a duty to them to keep the highways and its shoulders reasonably safe for non-negligent motorists.
Merrell v. State, Through Dept. of Transp. 415 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
"[1] It has been repeatedly stated that the Department is not a guarantor of the safety of travelers but, rather, owes a duty to keep the highways and its shoulders reasonably safe for non-negligent motorists.
Alleman v. State, Dept. of Highways 416 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
was rendered on November 10, 1980, after Jones .
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
The negligence of DOTD in allowing such a and Rue v. State, Department of Highways, supra .
Duffy v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 415 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
the Supreme Court found that permitting a 3½- to 4-inch drop-off between the highway and the shoulder of the road to exist was a breach of the duty owed by the Highway Department to the plaintiff.
Ishee v. State, Through Dept. of Transp. 413 So. 2d 1362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
McLeod v. Parish of East Baton Rouge 414 So. 2d 1341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Smith v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 412 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
3d Cir. 1979), writ denied (La.App.
Smith v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 412 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
3d Cir. 1979), writ denied (La.
Toups v. L. H. Bossier, Inc. 410 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
3rd Cir. 1979), writ denied
Otzenberger v. Atlas Construction Co. 408 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
The negligence of the Department in allowing such a and Rue v. State, Department of Highways, supra.
O'Quinn v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 408 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
established the scope of the duty that the Department of Transportation and Development owes motorists in keeping the highways and shoulders safe.
LeBlanc v. STATE, LA. DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS 405 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Edwards v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Devel. 403 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
where the Supreme Court held as follows: "It has been repeatedly stated that the Department is not a guarantor of the safety of travelers but, rather, owes a duty to keep the highways and its shoulders reasonably safe for non-negligent motorists.
Acosta v. State, Department of Highways 399 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
In explaining Rue , (La.
Knotts v. State, Dept. of Highways 395 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
where the Supreme Court held as follows: "It has been repeatedly stated that the Department is not a guarantor of the safety of travelers but, rather, owes a duty to keep the highways and its shoulders reasonably safe for non-negligent motorists.
Bush v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF HWYS. 395 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
McDaniel v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 398 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Godwin v. Government Employees Ins. Co. 394 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed a fact situation not unlike the case at bar.
LeJeune v. Braswell 394 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Rue v. State, Department of Highways
Sibley v. Menard 398 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
[2] Also see Sinitiere v. Lavergne, consolidated with Lavergne v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Transportation and Development, (La.