Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Entrevia v. Hood, 427 So. 2d 1146.

299 citing documents.

Ducote v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. 488 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., supra; Sumner v. Foremost Ins.
Spencer v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 488 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Myers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 483 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
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
Thompson v. Tuggle 486 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
the Supreme Court stated: `The unreasonable risk of harm criterion, however, is not a simple rule of law which may be applied mechanically to the facts of a case.
Swint v. Progressive Insurance Co. 485 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Art. 2317; Smith v. Department of Transportation and Development, supra; (La.App.
Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. 484 So. 2d 110 La. 1986
[2] Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., (La.
Morvant v. Kent's Nursery, Inc. 487 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Art. 2322 provides that: “The owner of a building is answerable for the damage occasioned by its ruin, when this is caused by neglect to repair it, or when it is the result of a vice in its original construction.” the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the application of Articles 2317 and 2322 as they relate to a building owner’s liability.
Landry v. State 483 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Specifically, they contend first, that the presence of the hole did not cause Landry’s injury because he did not actually step into it, and second the hole did not present an unreasonable risk of harm, and Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
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.
Varnado v. Sanders 477 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Matt v. Cox 478 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
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
Foab v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 471 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Lanclos v. Rockwell Intern. Corp. 470 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
the Supreme Court stated: "The unreasonable risk of harm criterion, however, is not a simple rule of law which may be applied mechanically to the facts of a case.
Golden v. Madden Contracting Co., Inc. 469 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
wherein the court explained that: The judicial process involved in deciding whether a risk is unreasonable under Article 2317 is similar to that employed in determining whether a risk is unreasonable *1044 in a traditional negligence problem.
Turner v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America 472 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
[4] implicitly notes the similarity of the judicial process to be employed to discern whether causation is present in both strict liability and the traditional negligence problem.
Rose v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 468 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Rigao v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans 467 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Thomas v. Missouri Pacific RR Co. 466 So. 2d 1280 La. 1985
Illinois Cent. Gulf RR Co. v. Texaco, Inc. 467 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Rollins v. Concordia Parish School Bd. 465 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Heater v. Texas Gas & Exploration Corp. 466 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
The principle of legal fault underlying both Articles 2317 and 2322 (La.
Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Industries 462 So. 2d 166 La. 1985
Louisiana State Law Institute 1954); Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process (1921); Cueto-Rua, Judicial Methods of Interpretation of the Law, 80-81 (footnotes omitted), copyright by the Paul M. Hebert Law Center Publications Institute (1981); (La.
Lewis v. Oubre 461 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
the Supreme Court stated: "The requirement that an injured person in order to recover under Article 2317 or 2322 must prove that the risk from which his damage resulted posed an unreasonable risk of harm places a limitation on a building owner's strict liability.
McCart v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 460 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Collins v. First Baptist Church of Kenner 458 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
defined the elements of proof required to impose strict liability on a building owner.
Thompson v. Ewin 457 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Bizette v. State Farm Insurance Co. 454 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
our Supreme Court considered the question of the liability of a property owner for damage occasioned by another due to some defect found on the property owner’s premises.
Johnson v. Bellefonte Ins. Co. 449 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
the question was whether the owner of a remote, unoccupied farm house, which was surrounded by a fence and posted with "No Trespassing" signs, was strictly liable for damages occasioned when a trespasser was injured by the collapse of the building's rear steps.
Dealey v. State 448 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
This is not because strict liability under Article 2317 is equivalent to liability for negligence, but because in both delictual areas the judge is called upon to decide questions of social utility that require him to consider the particular case in terms of moral, social and economic considera-tions_”
Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 448 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Inseco v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 447 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
PPG Industries, Inc. v. Bean Dredging 447 So. 2d 1058 La. 1984
McGee v. McClure 442 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Smith v. Formica Corp. 439 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 418 So.2d at 498, n. 6 ; ( as a traditional negligence case).
Lewis v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 436 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
y 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- It is well settled that under Article 2317 the plaintiff must prove that a dangerous condition existed and that this condition was such that it “posed an unreasonable risk of injury to others and that his damage occurred through this risk.”
Lewis v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEVEL. 436 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Rozell v. LOUISIANA ANIMAL BREEDERS CO-OP. 434 So. 2d 404 La. 1983
Jowers v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 435 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
Jacoby v. State 434 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Robinson v. Gulf Ins. Co. 434 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Maltzahn v. City of New Orleans 433 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Broussard v. Continental Oil Co. 433 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins.
Pitre v. Aetna Life and Cas. Co. 434 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Smith v. Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development 430 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Farr v. Montgomery Ward and Co., Inc. 430 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
1st Cir. 1982), writ denied (decided 1983).