Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dorry v. LaFleur, 399 So. 2d 559.

78 citing documents.

Wheat v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 583 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Pelt v. City of DeRidder 553 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
the court observed that [W]here a plaintiff's negligence contributes to his own damage, there is no reason to ignore his fault in every case *1099 simply because the defendant's liability is based on some legal fault other than negligence.
Byrd v. Bossier Parish School Bd. 543 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
LeBleu v. Dynamic Indus. Constructors, Inc. 526 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc. 521 So. 2d 1123 La. 1988
See, -61 (La.1981); Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corp., 258 La.
Johnson v. Acadiana Medical Center, Inc. 524 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
: “ ‘The defense of assumption of risk presupposes (1) that the plaintiff had some knowledge of the danger; (2) that he understood and appreciated the risk therefrom, and (3) that he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk.
Ehlinger v. Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development 517 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Although the affirmative defense of assumption of the risk has traditionally been judged by a subjective standard, while contributory negligence has traditionally been judged by an objective “reasonable man” standard, the Supreme Court states This is not to say that the plaintiff’s disclaimer of knowledge or appreciation must be taken at face value.
Thibodeaux v. Morein 511 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Chinigo v. Geismar Marine, Inc. 512 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
adopted the expression of assumption of the risk contained in the Restatement, Second, Torts, Section 496 D: "`Except where he expressly so agrees, a plaintiff does not assume a risk of harm arising from the defendant's conduct unless he then knows of the existence of the risk and appreciates its unreas
Howard v. Allstate Ins. Co. 510 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
a case decided after the effective date of the comparative negligence *691 statute but arising from an accident which occurred before that datehence based upon the premise that contributory negligence was a total bar to the plaintiff's recovery.
Barbin on Behalf of Barbin v. State 506 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Townley v. Manuel 509 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Bourgeois v. Jones, supra.
Goutierrez v. R & J Quarterhorse Stables 509 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
adopted the expression of assumption of the risk contained in the Restatement, Second, Torts, Section 496 D: “ ‘Except where he expressly so agrees, a plaintiff does not assume a risk of harm arising from the defendant’s conduct unless he then knows of the existence of the risk and appreciates its unrea
Chatelain v. PROJECT SQUARE 505 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
our Supreme Court adopted the Restatement's explanation of assumption of risk in Section 496D, Comment b, which was directly quoted in Rozell, supra, at 278: The basis of assumption of risk is the plaintiff's consent to accept the risk and look out for himself.
Rollins v. Elks Place Professional Plaza 505 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Duvalle v. Lake Kenilworth, Inc. 503 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Gravois v. Succession of Trauth 498 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Bourgeois v. Jones, supra.
Dailey v. LebBlanc 497 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Rozell v. Louisiana Animal Breeders Cooperative, Inc., et al, (La.App.
Rozell v. Louisiana Animal Breeders Co-Op., Inc. 496 So. 2d 275 La. 1986
Landry v. State 495 So. 2d 1284 La. 1986
The trial court judge in this case, as a justice ad hoc
Deville v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Ins. Co. 492 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Snow v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 492 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Thompson v. Tuggle 486 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
LaJaunie v. METRO. PROPERTY & LIABILITY INS. CO. 481 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
The Louisiana Supreme Court, stated that the circumstances under which a plaintiff's contributory negligence should bar his recovery in a strict liability case should be developed on a case by case basis.
Bourgeois v. Jones 481 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Restatement of Torts Second, Section 463, 464 (1965); Straley v. Calongne Drayage & Storage, Inc., Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corp., supra; (La.App.
Varnado v. Sanders 477 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Co., Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Fritscher v. Chateau Golf & Country Club, (La.App.
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Southwestern Transportation Co. 476 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Aguillard v. Langlois 471 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Thus, we find that plaintiff assumed the risk of his injury under the traditional "Assumption of the Risk" -63 (La.1981).
Dawson v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc. 475 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Navarro v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co. 470 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Lanclos v. Rockwell Intern. Corp. 470 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Bourgeois v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 469 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Turner v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America 472 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
quotes, "`Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls below the standard to which he should conform for his own protection....
Wilcox v. Park Amusements, Inc. 468 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Hayes v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT 467 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
held that the question of whether contributory negligence should be allowed as a defense to strict liability is best decided on a case-by-case basis.
McDermott v. Jester 466 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
4th Cir.1982) this court said: held that the question of whether contributory negligence should be allowed as a defense to strict liability under Article 2317 is one best decided on a case-by-case basis.
Holmes v. State Through Dept. of Highways 466 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
In reaching its decision on the availability of contributory negligence as a defense in a 2317 case
Rollins v. Concordia Parish School Bd. 465 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Efferson v. State, Through Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 463 So. 2d 1342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
the court found that where the activity for which the defendant was strictly liable was neither ultrahazardous nor unnatural to the locality, and produced no income to the defendant, that there was no policy reason to deny the defendant the defense of contributory negligence.
Esco v. Smith 457 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Northern v. Department of Streets of New Orleans 455 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Recently, however, numerous eases have equated “victim fault” in a strict liability case with contributory negligence.
House v. Thompson 452 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Johnson v. Bellefonte Ins. Co. 449 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Exxon Pipeline Co. 449 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
: Where a plaintiff’s negligence contributes to his own damage, there is no reason to ignore his fault in every case simply because the defendant’s liability is based on some legal fault other than negligence.
Pope v. City of Baton Rouge 449 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Giarratano v. Krewe of Argus, Inc. 449 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
Restatement, Second, Torts, Sec.
Richoux v. Hebert 449 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
(3rd Cir.1980), reversed on other grounds, *496 (La.1981).
Lewis v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 436 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Lewis v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEVEL. 436 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Kluka v. Livingston Parish School Bd. 433 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
a plaintiff does not assume a risk of harm unless he knows of the existence of the risk and appreciates its unreasonable character.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by