DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

104 citing documents.

  • Foster v. Craig Equipment Co. 550 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • Nary v. Budget Rent A Car 539 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    In Bell v. Jet Wheet Blast, Division of Ervin Industries, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that in order to recover from a manufacturer or supplier under a strict product liability theory, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that the injury or damage resulted from the condition of the product; (2) that the condition made the product unreasonably dangerous to normal use
  • Antley v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA 539 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins.
  • Strain v. Mitchell Mfg. Co. 534 So. 2d 1385 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    In Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries, the court commented on the application of comparative fault to strict products liability situations: "Where the threat of a reduction in recovery will provide consumers with an incentive to use a product carefully, without exacting an inordinate sacrifice of other interests, comparative principles should be
  • Peterson v. Western World Ins. Co. 536 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    In its reasons for judgment, the trial court cited Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries, as authority for the proposition that the application of comparative negligence in the instant case would be inappropriate in light of the goals of strict liability.
  • Boubel v. Gilardi 532 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    The Supreme Court, in Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind., held: Using the same approach [Restatement Second of the Law of Torts Section 402A] to formulate rules for defenses to *951 strict products liability, we conclude that the defense of contributory negligence as a complete bar to recovery should be rejected entirely, and that comparative fault may be app
  • Pitre v. Opelousas General Hosp. 530 So. 2d 1151 La. 1988
    See e.g., PPG Industries, *1157 (La.1985); Prosser & Keeton, supra at § 4.
  • Watson v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 529 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    See Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries, and its progeny.
  • Butler v. Baber 529 So. 2d 374 La. 1988
    See Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries, Geny, Methode d'Interpretation Et Sources En Droit Privé Positif §§ 155, 156 (Trans.La.
  • Prather v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Inc. 526 So. 2d 1325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins.
  • Howard v. Allstate Ins. Co. 520 So. 2d 715 La. 1988
    See Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries
  • Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc. 521 So. 2d 1123 La. 1988
    Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries, (discussing the similar absence of early civilian authority on comparative fault).
  • Howard v. Allstate Ins. Co. 510 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc. 507 So. 2d 809 La. 1987
  • Whittle v. MILLER ELECTRICAL MFG. CO. 507 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins.
  • Givens v. F.W. Woolworth Co. 508 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind.
  • Barbin on Behalf of Barbin v. State 506 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    In Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries, (La.
  • Allien v. Humphries Motors, Inc. 509 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind.
  • Goutierrez v. R & J Quarterhorse Stables 509 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    The liability would not be “strict.” Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries
  • LeBleu v. Homelite Div. of Textron, Inc. 509 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins.
  • Robinson v. Hardy 505 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    However, in the application of this article to Louisiana tort doctrine, and Turner v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., (La.
  • Chatelain v. PROJECT SQUARE 505 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    After Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Erwin Industries, a case by case approach is authorized.
  • Guillotte v. Dept. of Transp. & Development 503 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • Thomas v. Black & Decker (US), Inc. 502 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    The trial court ruled that the principle of comparative fault would not be applied in this case, because the factual basis of this case was indistinguishable from that of Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind., a case involving an industrial accident resulting in an injury to an employee's hand due to defective machinery and the employee's ordinary contributory negligence.
  • Toups v. Sears Roebuck and Co., Inc. 499 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • Whitacre v. Halo Optical Products, Inc. 501 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind.
  • Gallagher v. Favrot 499 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    Art. 2323; and see Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind[us]., "
  • Rozell v. Louisiana Animal Breeders Co-Op., Inc. 496 So. 2d 275 La. 1986
    Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries
  • Landry v. State 495 So. 2d 1284 La. 1986
    In Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries, (La.
  • Ponthier v. City of New Orleans 496 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    NOTES [1] See Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind., and its progeny.
  • Mercer v. Fruehauf Corp. 492 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries
  • Rozell v. LA. ANIMAL BREEDERS CO-OP., INC. 486 So. 2d 968 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    [2] Citing Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind., plaintiff also argues comparative negligence has always been the law in this State and, accordingly, should be applied in the present case.
  • Wood v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 486 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    Art. 2323; and see Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind.
  • Thompson v. Tuggle 486 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    In Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind., the Supreme Court rejected the defense of contributory negligence as a complete bar in products liability cases, and allowed a reduction of plaintiff's recovery in certain cases.
  • Joseph v. Bohn Ford, Inc. 483 So. 2d 934 La. 1986
    Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries
  • Motton v. Travelers Ins. Co. 484 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    See also, Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind.
  • Harper v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 484 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    See Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries
  • Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. 484 So. 2d 110 La. 1986
    DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins.
  • Marshall v. Beno Truck Equipment, Inc. 481 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    We recognize that the Louisiana Supreme Court in Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Indus., recently held that "contributory negligence does not apply in strict products liability cases and that the principle of comparative fault may be applied in some products cases according to precepts formulated by analogy from the principles of Civil Code article 2323 and former article 2323, and other r
  • LaJaunie v. METRO. PROPERTY & LIABILITY INS. CO. 481 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    It is remarkable that the legal conclusions of the trial judge, who was without the benefit of the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind., are so consistent with this most recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court.
  • Dotson v. Matthews 480 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    See Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind.
  • Varnado v. Sanders 477 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Cf. Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind.
  • Lanclos v. Rockwell Intern. Corp. 477 So. 2d 87 La. 1985
    MARCUS, J., would grant to reconsider Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind.
  • Walker v. Maybelline Co. 477 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries, (La.
  • Elliott v. Eaves 476 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    which extended comparative principles to *394 products liability cases, a field traditionally closed to plaintiff fault.
  • Aguillard v. Langlois 471 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    However, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that in strict products liability "the adoption of a system of comparative fault should, where it applies, entail the merger of the defenses of misuse and assumption of risk into the general scheme of assessment of liability in proportion to fault."
  • Turner v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 471 So. 2d 709 La. 1985
    Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries
  • Joseph v. Bohn Ford, Inc. 472 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Louisiana law on products liability is expressed recently by our Supreme Court in Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries, as follows: “...
  • Lanclos v. Rockwell Intern. Corp. 470 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    Restatement Second of Torts § 402A; Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind.
  • Turner v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America 472 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    See, Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Division of Ervin Industries, a recent supplement to our confusion.