Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 418 So. 2d 493.

296 citing documents.

Myers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 493 So. 2d 1170 La. 1986
Bradford v. CONSOLIDATED AMERICAN INS. CO. 493 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
-498 (La.1982); (La.App.
Gadman v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 493 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
where knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition is found there is no need to presume knowledge and the imposition of strict liability serves no useful purpose.
Gadman v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. 493 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Keith v. Bearden 488 So. 2d 1071 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Haspel v. Rollins Protective Service, Inc. 490 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Shafouk Nor El Din Hamza v. Bourgeois 493 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Snow v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 492 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
by finding "no ease of association between the risk presented by the utilities' conduct under the overall circumstances and the resulting injuries," as was present in Hebert .
Burge v. City of Hammond 489 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Rougeou v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 488 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Kent v. Gulf States Utilities [ ], supra.
McCormick v. Insured Lloyds Ins. Co. 488 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Geisler v. Allstate Insurance Co. 489 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Chandler v. Bunge Corp. 489 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Spencer v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 488 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
art. 2315 provides in pertinent part: “Every act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it ...” our supreme court stated: In a typical negligence case against the owner of a thing (such as a tree) which is actively involved in the causation of injury, the claimant must prove that something about the thing created an unreasonable risk of injury that resulted in the damage, that the owner knew or should
Myers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 483 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Aucoin v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 490 So. 2d 1088 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Parker v. Audubon Park Commission 487 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Kent v. Gulf States Utilities, Co., (La.App.
May v. Lafayette Parish Police Jury 487 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Wood v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 486 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
1983); Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
Myers v. Ford Motor Co. 486 So. 2d 1030 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. 484 So. 2d 110 La. 1986
See, e.g., Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, supra ; Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., supra ; Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., supra ; Entrevia v. Hood, supra .
Forest v. State ex rel. Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development 483 So. 2d 1313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Marshall v. Beno Truck Equipment, Inc. 481 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
(citing Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., as a traditional negligence case); (La.App.
LaJaunie v. METRO. PROPERTY & LIABILITY INS. CO. 481 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., (La.
Sampay v. Morton Salt Co. 482 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Snider v. Pagragan 480 So. 2d 1053 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Our appreciation of the duty-risk analysis in tort actions is that the only distinction to be made between article 2315 cases and those arising under articles 2317 and 2322, is that in the latter *1054 the defendant's knowledge of the defect creating an unreasonable risk of harm is presumed
Explained Bennett v. Bardwell 480 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Art. 2317).” the only difference between the two theories is that in a strict liability case, based on LSA-C.C.
Achord v. K-Mart Corp. 479 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
it was held that the only difference between a case involving strict liability and a case involving negligence was that in a strict liability case, the claimant is relieved of proving the owner knew or should have known of the defect.
Scott v. Terrebonne Lumber Co. 479 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
the court held that in a typical negligence case, "the claimant must prove that something about the thing created an unreasonable risk of injury that resulted in the damage, that the owner knew or should have known of that risk, and that the owner nevertheless failed to render the thing safe or to take
Guidry v. Whitmore 477 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
1st Cir.1984), writ denied
Jacobs v. Spinnakers 474 So. 2d 1019 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Farr v. Montgomery Ward and Co. Inc. (La.App.
Rose v. Louisiana Power and Light Co. 474 So. 2d 1006 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Brown v. Harlan 468 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Vicknair v. Hibernia Bldg. Corp. 468 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Soverign Ins. Co. v. Texas Pipeline Co. 470 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
F. Stone, Tort Doctrine § 61 in 12 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise 85-89 (1977).
Thomas v. Northeast Louisiana Power Cooperative, Inc. 469 So. 2d 1054 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
: “In a typical negligence case against the owner of a thing (such as a tree) which is actively involved in the causation of injury, the claimant must prove that something about the thing created an unreasonable risk of injury that resulted in the damage, that the owner knew or- should have known of that
Holmes v. State Through Dept. of Highways 466 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Broussard v. Yellow Freight Lines, Inc. 464 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
1st Cir.1983): In Kent, supra [ v. Gulf States Utilities Co., ], the court observed that the only difference between the strict liability and negligence theories of recovery was the element of the defendant's scienter.
Inglett v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 464 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Goleman v. Kroger & Co. 462 So. 2d 1330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
McCaskill v. Welch 463 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Lewis v. Oubre 461 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Horton v. Valley Elec. Membership Corp. 461 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Efferson v. State, Through Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 463 So. 2d 1342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
1st Cir.1983): In Kent [v. Gulf States Utilities Co., ], the court observed that the only difference between the strict liability and negligence theories of recovery was the element of the defendant's scienter.
Carter v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Louisiana St. Univ. 459 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Dusenbery v. McMoRan Exploration Co. 458 So. 2d 102 La. 1984
Sibley v. Gifford-Hill & Co. 456 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
We first note a namely, LP & L is merely a supplier of electricity to the offending power line.
Robinson v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. 454 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Robinson v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 454 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Wesley v. City of Denham Springs 455 So. 2d 1183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
the Louisiana Supreme Court has noted, In a strict liability case against the same owner, the claimant is relieved only of proving that the owner knew or should have known of the risk involved.