Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Shipp v. City of Alexandria, 395 So. 2d 727.

102 citing documents.

Mansour v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 510 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Jeansonne v. Reyes 508 So. 2d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Duffy v. State, Dept. of Transp., etc., supra
Mouton v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co. 509 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Kent v. Gulf *483 State Utilities Co. [sic], (La.
Savic v. Assurance Co. of America 509 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Hines v. Dept. of Transp. & Development 503 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Lognion v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 503 So. 2d 1092 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Guillotte v. Dept. of Transp. & Development 503 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Vanderwater v. Washington 502 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Art. 2317 provides in pertinent part that: ‘We are responsible, not only for the damage occasioned by our own act, but for that which is caused by the act of persons for whom we are answerable or of the things which we have in our custody.’ With reference to this article, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Shipp v. City of *194 Alexandria, stated: ‘An injured party seeking damages under Art. 2317 need not prove negligence, that is, that any particular act or omission on the part of the defendant cau
Burguieres v. City of New Orleans 497 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Jurisprudence subsequent to these two cases have held that a custodian will not be held responsible for every injury resulting from any risk, but only those injuries caused by an unreasonable risk of harm, and that proof of a defect is not achieved by the mere showing that an accident or injury occurred.
Bradford v. CONSOLIDATED AMERICAN INS. CO. 493 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Shafouk Nor El Din Hamza v. Bourgeois 493 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
App. 5th Cir.1983), writs denied
McCormick v. Insured Lloyds Ins. Co. 488 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
Achord v. K-Mart Corp. 479 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
*426 in which the facts are to some extent similar to the present case in that the plaintiff in Shipp fell after tripping on a one and a half to two inch crack in the pavement on a street, it was held that an injured party seeking damages under strict liability (LSA C.C.
Varnado v. Sanders 477 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Stephens v. Stephens Truck Lines, Inc. 478 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Jones v. City of Baton Rouge, supra
Koppie v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 478 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Johnson v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 476 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Rubel v. West Jefferson General Hospital 477 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
areas of llk- to 2-inch differences in elevation were held not to be unreasonable.
Tischler v. City of Alexandria 471 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Navarro v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co. 470 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Carter v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Louisiana St. Univ. 459 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Ponder v. Groendyke Transport, Inc. 454 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Colleps v. State Farm General Ins. Co. 446 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Distinguished Tipton v. Bossier Parish School Bd. 441 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
upon which the trial judge relied, is factually distinguishable because there the unsuccessful injured party stumbled and fell when she stepped off a sidewalk into a streetas opposed to this case in which Mrs. Tipton was traversing an exclusively pedestrian area.
Holt v. Singletary 441 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Chiasson v. Whitney, supra
Maltzahn v. City of New Orleans 433 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Miller v. Broussard 430 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
the Supreme Court explained the legal requirements for imposing liability under 2317 as follows: "...
Farr v. Montgomery Ward and Co., Inc. 430 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Sarphie v. Comeaux 428 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Duffy v. State, Dept. of Transp., etc., supra
Hingle v. Audubon Ins. Co. 427 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
We note, however, where the Louisiana Supreme Court held a 2 ½" hole or indentation in a city street was not such a defect.
McKinnie v. Dept. of Transp. & Development 426 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Chiasson v. Whitney 427 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Moazzami v. Board of Supervisors 424 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
the court said: “We have described the legal foundation for imposing liability under art. 2317 in the following terms: ‘When harm results from the conduct or defect of a person or thing which creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, a person legally responsible under these code articles for the super
Barras v. Touzet's Inc. 423 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Demoruelle v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 423 So. 2d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Appellants rely on the Supreme Court’s as setting forth the elements of proof in an Art. 2317 claim.
Cloud v. State 420 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Kimball v. St. Paul Ins. Co. 421 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Duffy v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 415 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Greenhouse v. Great Southwest Fire Ins. Co. 413 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
described the legal foundation for imposing liability under article 2317 in the following terms: "When harm results from the conduct or defect of a person or thing which creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, a person legally responsible under these code articles for the supervision, care, or guardi
Haney v. General Host Corp. 413 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
where the Supreme Court reversed a finding that a small pothole in a street created an unreasonable risk of harm.
Bialy v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV. 414 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
to support its contention that the bridge, even if found to be defective, did not present an unreasonable risk of harm to a driver exercising ordinary care and reasonable prudence.
Walker v. James W. Salley, Inc. 412 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Head v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 408 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
explained at pages 728 and 729 that: "An injured party seeking damages under art. 2317 need not prove negligence, that is, that any particular act or omission on the part of the defendant caused his injuries.
Goudchaux v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 407 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Loescher v. Parr, supra; Morgan v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company
Tappel v. Vidros 407 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Herrington v. Jury 404 So. 2d 1322 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
recently summarized the law imposing strict liability.
Hardy v. State, Through Dept. of Highways 404 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
and Garrison v. State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways, supra.
Usry v. Louisiana Department of Highways 402 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Garrison v. State, Through Dept. of Highways 401 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Wilson v. Avis Rent-A-Car 400 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981