DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

296 citing documents.

  • Shook v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 451 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Loche v. Standard Associates Management & Consultants, Inc. 452 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    our supreme court explained: “In a strict liability case [as opposed to a typical negligence case]_the claimant is relieved only of proving that the owner knew or should have known of the risk involved.
  • Quattlebaum v. Hy-Reach Equipment Inc. 453 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    the court observed that the word "fault" in La.C.C.
  • Price v. State 451 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    Fontenot v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 227 La.
  • Lewis v. Exxon Corp. 451 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    The criteria for determining Exxon’s duty and the risk to Lewis, and ultimately its liability, as follows: 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 kno
  • Pope v. City of Baton Rouge 449 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Lang v. Prince 447 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • Schepp v. Olin Corp. 445 So. 2d 1280 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Tipton v. Bossier Parish School Bd. 441 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    our supreme court explained: "In a strict liability case [as opposed to a typical negligence case] ....
  • Smith v. Formica Corp. 439 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Tripkovich v. Gilbert Engineering Corp. 439 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    appellant contends that the defendants in her case owe the same duty as Gulf States Utilities did in those cases.
  • Jowers v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 435 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., supra; Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Company, (La.
  • Dulaney v. Travelers Ins. Co. 434 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Jacoby v. State 434 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Meche v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 436 So. 2d 538 La. 1983
    the court concluded that the jury's findings were not clearly wrong.
  • Robinson v. Gulf Ins. Co. 434 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Dusenbery v. McMoran Exploration Co. 433 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Brock v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 433 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • Smith v. Reliance Ins. Co. 431 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Miller v. Broussard 430 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    the Supreme Court stated: "Accordingly, in a strict liability case in which the claimant asserts that the owner's damage-causing thing presented an *334 unreasonable risk of harm, the standard for determining liability is to presume the owner's knowledge of the risk presented by the thing under his control
  • Farr v. Montgomery Ward and Co., Inc. 430 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    -498 (La.1982); (La.App.
  • F & S OFFSHORE v. Serv. MacH. & Shipbuilding 430 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    498 n. 6 (La.1982), the Louisiana Supreme Court observed as follows: "In products liability cases, the manufacturer is presumed to know the dangerous propensities of its product and is strictly liable for injuries resulting from the product's unreasonable risk of injury in normal use.
  • Jones v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 430 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a utility company is not absolutely liable for the electrocution of persons coming into contact with overhead electrical wires because: “...
  • LeBlanc v. Wall 430 So. 2d 1130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    the Supreme Court held that in overhead power line cases, no useful purpose is served by the application of a strict liability analysis under La.C.C.
  • Stone v. Trade-Mark Homes, Inc. 431 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    LIABILITY OF TRADE-MARK HOMES, a claimant under either La.Civ.Code Art. 2315 or 2317 must initially prove that the thing causing the damages presented an unreasonable risk of harm.
  • Statum v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation 429 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Kent v. Gulf States Utilities, et al., ” In this case, the Department of Highways’ knowledge of the shoulder conditions at the scene of the accident is not at issue.
  • Thibodeaux v. Central Louisiana Elec. Co. 428 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    the Louisiana Supreme Court considered the respective rights and duties of utility companies and those who are injured by making contact with their power lines.
  • Entrevia v. Hood 427 So. 2d 1146 La. 1983
  • Sarphie v. Comeaux 428 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Before directing our attention to the specific assignments of error by appellant, has clarified the applicability of LSA-C.C.
  • Kearns v. Republic Insurance Co. 428 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    the standard for determining liability is to presume the owner’s knowledge of the risk presented by the thing under his control and then to determine the reasonableness (according to traditional notions of blameworthiness) of the owner’s conduct, in the light of that presumed knowledge.” (emphasis added by the Supreme Court)
  • McKinnie v. Dept. of Transp. & Development 426 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Naylor v. Louisiana Dept. of Public Highways, et al., supra.
  • Hebert v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 426 So. 2d 111 La. 1983
    the need to review a case involving injuries to a worker who made contact with electrical transmission lines.
  • Lyons v. Parish of Jefferson 425 So. 2d 955 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    Fonseca, supra ; -47 (La.1975).
  • Buchanan v. Tangipahoa Parish Police Jury 426 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Price ex rel. Price v. Airco, Inc. 424 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Scott v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 424 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Lovell v. Earl Grissmer Co., Inc. 422 So. 2d 1344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    However, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Kent v. Gulf States Utilities, Company, recently noted that strict liability merely relieves a plaintiff from having to prove the defendant's actual or constructive knowledge of the unreasonable risk of harm which his conduct or the thing in his custody occasions; otherwise, the determination of liability is the same.
  • Deville v. CALCASIEU GRAVITY, ETC. 422 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    the Louisiana Supreme Court described several activities which, by the act of performing them alone, could subject the enterpriser to absolute liability.
  • Naylor v. La. Dept. of Public Highways 423 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    under traditional negligence concepts, actual or constructive knowledge of a risk of injury gives rise to the duty to take reasonable steps to protect against injurious consequences resulting from the risk.
  • B. Olinde & Sons Co., Inc. v. STATE, ETC. 421 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    388 So.2d at 739 Recently, , the Louisiana Supreme Court made the following observations on the relationship between negligence and strict liability in Louisiana law: "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
  • Williams v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 421 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Justice Dennis provided an insight into his thinking with this conclusion of his dissenting opinion: "....
  • Guillory v. Audubon Ins. Co. 417 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Justice Lemmon, in distinguishing liability based on LSA-C.C.
  • Burris v. Insured Lloyds 417 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    Kent v. Gulf States Utilities, et al, (La.
  • Sumner v. Foremost Ins. Co. 417 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    1 Cir. 1980), affirmed, noted, on page 569, that: "Jurisprudential standards for what constitutes victim fault sufficient to relieve *1334 a defendant of liability under Article 2317 are in a developmental stage.
  • Verrett v. Cameron Telephone Co. 417 So. 2d 1319 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    (La.1982), rendered April 30, 1982 [2] , in support of their respective arguments.
  • Hessifer v. Southern Equipment, Inc. 416 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    the Louisiana Supreme Court noted the distinction between negligence cases and strict liability cases has been largely misunderstood.