DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Watson v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 469 So. 2d 967.

999 citing documents.

  • Knowles v. McCright's Pharmacy, Inc. 785 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Pursuant to Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., the trier of fact will compare the relative fault of the parties in assessing liability.
  • Schiro v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 808 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth five factors to be considered 114in apportioning fault: (1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the danger; (2) the extent of the risk created by the conduct; (3) the significance of what was sought by the conduct; (4) the cap
  • Daniels v. Burridge 785 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    Co., Arceneaux, supra at 1333 .
  • Schwartz v. Liberty Lloyds Insurance Co. 786 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Co., Arceneaux, supra at 1333 .
  • Fleniken v. Entergy Corp. 780 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Moore v. Safeway, Inc., 95-1552 (La.App.
  • Snearl v. Mercer 780 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Pontiff v. Pecot & Associates Rehabilitation & Physical Therapy Services, Inc. 780 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • Odom v. City of Lake Charles 790 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Co., the supreme court explained that, to determine the percentages of fault, the trier of fact shall consider both the nature of the conduct of each party at fault and the extent of the causal relationship between the conduct and the damages: In assessing the nature of the conduct of the parties, various f
  • Walters v. Kenner CiCi's 780 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • Melerine v. State 773 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • White v. City of New Orleans 806 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • Petre v. State Ex Rel. DOTD 775 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    In determining whether the trial court was clearly wrong in its apportionment of fault, reference should be made to the factors enunciated in Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., : In assessing the nature of the conduct of the parties, various factors may influence the degree of fault assigned, including: (1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the danger, (2) how great a risk was created by the conduct, (3) the significance of what was s
  • Thomas v. Allstate Insurance Co. 774 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Dennis v. the Finish Line, Inc. 781 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Co., Moore v. Safeway, Inc., 95-1552 (La.App.
  • Fromenthal v. Delta Wells Surveyors, Inc. 776 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    The factors to be considered by appellate courts to determine the allocation of fault to a plaintiff were established as follows in Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., : (1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the danger, (2) how great a risk was created by the conduct, (3) the significance of what was sought by the conduct, (4) the capacities of the actor, whether superior or inferior, and (5) any extenuating circumstances which might
  • Brown v. Glaxo, Inc. 790 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • George v. Guillory 776 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    1 Cir.1984), rev'd on other grounds
  • Thibodeaux v. Bernard 772 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • Roberts v. State 776 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the manner in which the trier of fact is to assess fault: In assessing the nature of the conduct of the parties, various factors may influence the degree of fault assigned, including: (1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the
  • Darbonne v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 774 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc. 772 So. 2d 94 La. 2000
  • Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. 773 So. 2d 670 La. 2000
  • LeBlanc v. Stevenson 770 So. 2d 766 La. 2000
    the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth five factors to be considered in apportioning fault, including: (1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the danger; (2) the extent of the risk created by the conduct; (3) the significance of what was sought by the conduct; (4)
  • Stewart v. Wilkerson 773 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Co., : (1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the danger; (2) how great a risk was created by the conduct; (3) the significance of what was sought by the conduct; (4) the capacities of the actor, whether superior or inferior, and, (5) any extenuating circumstances which
  • Nunez v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 774 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • Dupree v. City of New Orleans 765 So. 2d 1002 La. 2000
  • Craighead v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. 769 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Co., [1] and concluded that Martinez was somewhat negligent in that the yellow lights were illuminated on the bus and she should have been paying more attention.
  • Harvey ex rel. Bates v. T.H.E. Insurance 764 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Dickens v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 762 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Co., Gibson v. State, Through Dep't of Transp.
  • Plank v. Town of Rayville 764 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    : In assessing the nature of the conduct of the parties, various factors may influence the degree of fault assigned, including: (1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the danger, (2) how great a risk was created by the conduct, (3) the significance of what was sought by
  • Hinton v. Cox 764 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Co., the trier of fact will compare the relative fault of the parties in the assessment of liability.
  • Spiller v. Ekberg 762 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    Co., the trier of fact will compare the relative fault of the parties in the assessment of liability.
  • Ruttley v. Lee 761 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
  • Jones v. Allstate Insurance Co. 759 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the factors relevant to the initial determination of fault: In determining the percentages of fault, the trier of fact shall consider both the nature of the conduct of each party at fault and the extent of the causal relationship between the conduct and the damages clai
  • Irion v. State Ex Rel. DOTD 760 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth guidelines for apportioning fault under the doctrine of comparative negligence.
  • Martin v. Barnes 760 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Ford v. STATE, EX REL. DOTD 760 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • Leal v. Dubois 756 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • Saden v. Kirby 759 So. 2d 921 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • LeBlanc v. Stevenson 756 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    listed factors which establish a gauge by which fault is allocated: 1.
  • James v. Jones 759 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    Co., I conclude that, while each driver's fault was a serious and very threatening fault, and there appears no excuse for either, a greater percentage must be assigned to excessive, unwarned speed.
  • Strouse v. M & M PROPERTIES 753 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Because we find no error
  • Stewart v. Calcasieu Parish School Board 762 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Moore v. Rowland 753 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Co., the trier of fact will compare the relative fault of the parties in the assessment of liability.
  • Klaveness v. Massey 756 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    Co., Walker v. McCartney, 96-706 (La.App.
  • Chaney v. Masonry Specialist 752 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Co., When findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the manifest error — clearly wrong standard demands great deference to the trier of fact’s findings; for only the factfinder can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s un
  • McNeil v. Aronstein 750 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Co., the trier of fact will compare the relative fault of the parties in the *449 The law of com-assessment of liability, parative negligence is applicable to situations involving automobile accidents.
  • Cole v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 755 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • Cole v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 755 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • Whitehead v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. 758 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999