Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Industries, 462 So. 2d 166.

104 citing documents.

Mark Patout v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Rozell v. Louisiana Animal Breeders Co-op., Inc.
Del Dean David, Et Ux. v. Velsicol Chemical Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Susan and Edward L. Wilhelm v. Mosaic Global Operations, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
David v. Velsicol Chem. Corp. 49 So. 3d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins.
Haywood v. EI DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY 942 So. 2d 520 La. 2006
Pepper v. Triplet 864 So. 2d 181 La. 2004
553 So.2d at 834 -36 ( (La.
Scott v. American Tobacco 830 So. 2d 294 La. 2002
Green Indus., Inc., 97-3188 (La.7/8/98), , and Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates, Ltd., 93-2818 (La.11/30/94)
Dumas v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF CULT., REC. 828 So. 2d 530 La. 2002
Rozell v. Louisiana Animal Breeders Co-op., Inc., (La.
Darbonne v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 774 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind., (La.
Precht v. Case Corp. 756 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
It argues that the trial court's reliance upon the holding of Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Indus., to determine that comparative fault was not applicable to Molly's claims was improper.
Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc. 726 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries
Daye v. General Motors Corp. 712 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
See Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates, Ltd., 93-2818 (La.11/30/94)
Trahan v. Savage Industries, Inc. 692 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
The issue of whether comparative fault should be applied in strict liability cases was first addressed in Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Industries
Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates, Ltd. 650 So. 2d 712 La. 1995
Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind., La.C.C.
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. 648 So. 2d 331 La. 1994
Reilly v. Dynamic Exploration, *335 Inc., Halphen, 484 So.2d at 113
Randolph v. General Motors Corp. 646 So. 2d 1019 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind., Johnston v. Hartford Ins.
Delery v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America 643 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Boh Brothers Construction Company, Inc. v. Luber-Finer, Inc., (La.App.
Lewis v. State 642 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Mayo v. Nissan Motor Corp. 639 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Nicholas v. Homelite Corp., 780 F.2d 115D [1150] (5th Cir.1986); Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc., (3rd Cir.1985)
Clement v. Griffin 634 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Traut v. Uniroyal, Inc., (La.App.
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. 630 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
The Hineses urge that we should not apply comparative fault
Goins v. Galion Mfg. Co. 626 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Weber v. Fidelity Casualty Insurance Co. of New York, 259 La.
Goza v. Cornwell 622 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corp., 258 La.
Daigle v. Legendre 619 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
In many cases, the courts follow the reasoning of Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries, (La.
Simeon v. Doe 618 So. 2d 848 La. 1993
Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind.
Johnson v. Lowes of Louisiana, Inc. 627 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries
Boh Bros. Const. Co., Inc. v. Luber-Finer, Inc. 612 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Williams v. General Motors Corp. 607 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries
Cole v. Celotex Corp. 599 So. 2d 1058 La. 1992
See Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries, (La.
Champagne v. Celotex Corp. 599 So. 2d 1086 La. 1992
Cosse v. Allen-Bradley Co. 601 So. 2d 1349 La. 1992
Smith v. American Indem. Ins. Co. 598 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Moore v. Chrysler Corp. 596 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
However, the court found that comparative negligence should not be assessed against either Mrs. Moore or Liza Pinegar.
Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc. 595 So. 2d 1123 La. 1992
Cole v. Celotex Corp. 588 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Williams v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 590 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
Plaintiffs urge, to the contrary, no instruction should have been given as to possible negligence on their part.
Home Insurance Co. v. National Tea Co. 577 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins.
Guidry v. Frank Guidry Oil Co. 579 So. 2d 947 La. 1991
Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind.
Clair v. Paris Road Drugs, Inc. 573 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Reilly v. Dynamic Exploration, Inc. 571 So. 2d 140 La. 1990
DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins.
Dobson v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 567 So. 2d 569 La. 1990
Roberts v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 566 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Charles v. Bill Watson Hyundai, Inc. 559 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries
Daigle v. Melancon 558 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
The trial court’s reasons for denying recovery with regard to any defect in the gun were essentially that the plaintiff failed to meet the criteria for establishing a
Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hosp. 556 So. 2d 559 La. 1990
PPG Industries, Crowe, supra, at 906.
Traut v. Uniroyal, Inc. 555 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Lirette v. State Farm Insurance Co. 554 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries, Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, 259 La.
Pelt v. City of DeRidder 553 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Since Dorry , the Supreme Court has applied the comparative fault principles to the following strict liability cases: (strict products liability); (La.
Boyer v. Seal 553 So. 2d 827 La. 1989
Falgoust v. Richardson Industries, Inc. 552 So. 2d 1348 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
the third alleges that this finding was manifestly erroneous.