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.

  • Kedia v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 752 So. 2d 944 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Co., the trier of fact will compare the relative fault of the parties in the assessment of liability.
  • Wainwright v. Fontenot 750 So. 2d 1077 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • Sevario v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Transp. 752 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    sets forth various factors that may be considered when assessing the degree of fault to assign to each party.
  • Maddox v. City of Oakdale 746 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    sets forth five factors in determining the allocation of fault.
  • Kerrigan v. Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 748 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. 747 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court offered guidelines for use in the apportionment of fault stating: 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
  • Kerrigan v. IMPERIAL FIRE AND CAS. INS. 748 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • Barnes v. Reed 743 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    *941 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.
  • Courteaux v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Transp. 745 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • Matheny v. Ludwig 742 So. 2d 1029 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • Petrus v. Bain 742 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Co., the trier of fact will compare the relative fault of the parties in the assessment of liability.
  • Gladney v. Sneed 742 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Lewis v. Barnes, supra ; Devereux v. Allstate Ins.
  • Crane v. Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. 743 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • Patrick v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co. 745 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank 738 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 741 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • Gryder v. Jackson 739 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Co., set forth guidelines to assist the courts in determining the degree of negligence assessable to joint tortfeasors.
  • Guerra v. White 755 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • Morrison v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity 738 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Ramirez v. Ware, 28,879 (La.App.2d Cir. 09/25/96), .
  • Bernard v. City of Lafayette 735 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    the Louisiana Supreme Court set out guidelines to assist in the determination of 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 danger, (2)
  • Henderson v. Sutherland's Lumber Co. 733 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Since we find no error in that finding
  • Fergins Ex Rel. Fergins v. Caddo Parish 736 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Watson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty *945 Insurance
  • Manuel v. St. John the Baptist School Bd. 734 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    As to the apportionment of fault, the standard of review of this question is whether that apportionment was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong
  • Crews v. Babin 732 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • Edwards v. Daugherty 729 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    Co., Hi-Tech Timber Co., Inc. v. Valley *1136 Elec.
  • Howard v. Derokey 729 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    Co., the Supreme Court looked to the Uniform Comparative Fault Act, Section 2(b) and Comment (as revised in 1979) for guidelines in apportioning fault.
  • Olivier v. Alexander 737 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • Cazes v. Parish of West Baton Rouge 744 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Lewis v. Barnes 722 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • LeBlanc v. Steptore 723 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Clement v. Frey, 95-1119 (La.1/16/96); guided by the Watson [v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Co., (La.
  • Moore v. Kansas City Southern R. Co. 722 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • Wehbe v. Waguespack 720 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    Co., quoting from Section 2(b) of the Uniform Comparative Fault Act and the Comments thereto: 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 relation between the conduct and the damages claimed.
  • Turner v. Parish of Jefferson Through Dept. of Recreation 721 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    In summary, we find that Holidome is sixty percent (60%) at fault; that the Parish of Jefferson is 10% at fault; and Ms. Turner and Krystal are each fifteen percent (15%) at fault in these proceedings.
  • Griffin v. International Ins. Co. 727 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • Endsley v. Pennington 718 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • Smith v. Goetzman 720 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Morace v. Melvyn's Restaurant, Inc. 719 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • Wijngaarde v. Parents of Guy 720 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    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 soug
  • Gauthreaux v. Frank 718 So. 2d 985 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Co., the Supreme Court looked to the Uniform Comparative Fault Act, Section 2(b) and Comments (as revised in 1979) for guidelines in apportioning fault.
  • Declouet v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 715 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., Davis v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, 633 So.2d at 813-814 .
  • Cormier v. THE Ins. Co. 716 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Browning-Ferris Industries 714 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Sims v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. 714 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • Jones v. Hawkins 708 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • Quinones v. Barber Bros. Contracting 710 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, set forth guidelines for apportioning fault under the doctrine of comparative negligence.
  • Birdsall v. Regional Elec. & Const., Inc. 710 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, (La.
  • Desadier v. Safeway Ins. Co. 712 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Co., et al., the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth guidelines in assessing comparative fault among parties: *929 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
  • Babb v. Boney 710 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    2d Cir.1986), writs denied and 117 (La.1987), to reach the same result as our earlier "mitigation" jurisprudence, i.e., a reduction of the damages recoverable by a battery victim where the victim's behavior provoked the attack.
  • Netecke v. State ex rel. DOTD 715 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    In Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., -74 (La.1985), the supreme court explained the fact finder’s role in fault apportionment as follows: [W]e have looked to the Uniform Comparative Fault Act, 2(b) and Comment (as revised in 1979), which incorporates direction for the trier of fact.
  • Howard v. ICRR 709 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    Co., the court ruled that percentages of fault are factual determinations subject to the manifest error standard of review.