DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

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.

  • Williams v. City of Monroe 658 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Co., the court held: We recognize that a standard for determining percentages of fault has not been provided by the Legislature, and we are therefore presented with an opportunity to offer guidelines as we apportion fault in this instance.
  • Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc. 657 So. 2d 975 La. 1995
    [1] The Legislature was also silent as to the factors to be considered in quantifying fault, but this court in Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., -74 (La.
  • Jefferson v. K-Mart Corp. 663 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Richard v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. 657 So. 2d 1087 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Donavan v. Jones 658 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Use v. Use 654 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Stark v. National Tea Co. 655 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • Ledbetter v. Concord General Corp. 651 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University 655 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    the supreme court set forth the following factors to be considered in allocating fault: (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 th
  • Martinez v. Schumpert Medical Center 655 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    Anderson v. Fowler Trucking, Inc., supra , Arceneaux v. Domingue, supra , Canter v. Koehring, supra .
  • Arceneaux v. Wallis 654 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    the Supreme Court delineated a number of factors to be considered when assigning fault to drivers of two vehicles involved in a collision, including the following: 1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or instead involved conscious awareness of danger, 2) how great of a risk of injury was create
  • Haydel v. Hercules Transport, Inc. 654 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, set forth the guidelines for apportioning fault under the doctrine of comparative negligence.
  • Clement v. Frey 653 So. 2d 1341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Usé v. Usé 654 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates, Ltd. 650 So. 2d 712 La. 1995
    Co., are well-suited for assisting in this comparison.
  • Lennix v. Labee 652 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
  • Smith v. State Dept. of Health & Hosp. 650 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • Hasha v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 651 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • Hoyt v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp. 651 So. 2d 1344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    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; *13
  • Hi-Tech Timber v. Valley Elec. Member. 649 So. 2d 1203 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    the supreme court stated: "[i]n 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 claimed."
  • Juge v. Judson 650 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    Co., the Supreme Court enumerated the following factors to be used in determining the degree of fault assigned: (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) t
  • Campbell v. DEPTARTMENT OF TRANSP. & DEV. 648 So. 2d 898 La. 1995
  • Guidroz v. STATE, THROUGH DOTD 648 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Aime v. Seaboard System Railroad 648 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Co., the court assigned forty (40%) percent fault to Robert Aime and sixty (60%) percent fault to the City.
  • Brown v. Beauregard Elec. Co-Op., Inc. 647 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Brooks v. Henson Fashion Floors, Inc. 647 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Cornish v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOP. & DEV. 647 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Maeder v. Williams 652 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Maynor v. Vosburg 648 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., Beckham v. St.
  • Sebastien v. McKay 649 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Thibodeaux v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 647 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, set forth guidelines for apportioning fault under the doctrine of comparative negligence.
  • Barlow v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 645 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Faulkner v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. 645 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    In apportioning comparative fault, : (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 migh
  • Rivere v. Union Pacific R. Co. 647 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Kramer v. Continental Cas. Co. 641 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: "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
  • Stephens v. Town of Jonesboro 642 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    In apportioning comparative fault, : (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 migh
  • Rich v. Tench Elec. Motor Works, Inc. 642 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the following factors to aide in allocating fault: (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 t
  • Lewis v. State 642 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Nigreville v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Co. 642 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    Co., the initial inquiry in apportioning fault is the degree of causation.
  • Gilchrist v. Ozone Spring Water Co. 639 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    citing the Uniform Comparative Fault Act, 2(b).
  • Sledge v. Continental Cas. Co. 639 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Mayo v. Nissan Motor Corp. 639 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Redford v. Boutte 638 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    the supreme court stated: “[i]n 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 claimed.” Id.
  • Francis v. Mowad 639 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
    Co., wherein the Supreme Court of Louisiana stated at page 972: “When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s finding, on review the appellate court should not disturb this factual finding in the a
  • Menard v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 640 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Reid v. State Through DOTD 637 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Richard v. Teague 636 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    wherein the court stated as follows: 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
  • Jones v. Trailor 636 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    In his written reasons for judgment on this issue, the trial judge stated as follows: To determine whether any fault should be attributed to Mrs. Rome, the Court has followed the guidelines set out in Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.
  • Durant v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 636 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Co., : “A pure comparative fault system was adopted in Louisiana in 1979 ...
  • Durant v. STATE, THROUGH DOTD 636 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Co., : "A pure comparative fault system was adopted in Louisiana in 1979 ...