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.

  • Alford v. Woods 614 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.
  • Cay v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 614 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    And, of course, as evidenced by concepts such as last clear chance, the relationship between the fault/negligent conduct and the harm to the plaintiff are considerations in determining the relative fault of the parties.” at 974 (La.
  • Cockerham v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 615 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    the Supreme Court adopted section 2(b) of the Uniform Comparative Fault Act which states: "[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 clai
  • Beckham v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 614 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • Nejame v. Hamiter 614 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • Graham v. Edwards 614 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • Faucheaux v. Terrebonne Consol. Government 615 So. 2d 289 La. 1993
  • Blair v. Tynes 610 So. 2d 956 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    The court indicated that this formula was to be used along with the factors taken from the Uniform Comparative Fault Act
  • Suire v. VERMILLION PARISH SCHOOL BD. 614 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • Crane v. Exxon Corp., USA 613 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Co., has set forth five factors to be considered in 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 capacities of the actor, wheth
  • Liner v. TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOL. GOV. 612 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Johnston v. Fontana 610 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Co., (citing Uniform Comparative Fault Act § 2(b)).
  • Gunn v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co. 611 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    In determining the degree of fault, we have considered the guidelines set forth by the court in Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.
  • Thomas v. City of St. Martinville 611 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Co., we apportion the fault in this case to assign 95 percent to the City and 5 percent to Mrs. Thomas.
  • Budget Rent-A-Car v. Gradnigo 611 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • Jackson v. AL & W. MOORE TRUCKING 609 So. 2d 1064 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • Perez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 608 So. 2d 1006 La. 1992
    Co., this Court amended the judgment to cast Donald Kimble with 25% fault.
  • Mistich v. Pipelines, Inc. 609 So. 2d 921 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Bacle v. Wade 607 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Co., the Supreme Court set forth the following factors in comparing the fault of plaintiffs and defendants: (1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the danger, (2) how great a danger was created by the conduct, (3) the significance of what was sought by the conduct, (4) the
  • Bacle v. Wade 607 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Co., the Supreme Court set forth the following factors in comparing the fault of plaintiffs and defendants: (1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the danger, (2) how great a danger was created by the conduct, (3) the significance of what was sought by the conduct, (4) the
  • Girard v. Price 606 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    * * * * * * Our Supreme Court, at 974 (La.1985), gave us guidelines to assist in the determination of percentages of fault.
  • Smith v. State Through Dept. of Public Safety 620 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Epps v. City of Baton Rouge 604 So. 2d 1336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Williams v. JEFFERSON PARISH HOSP. SERV. DIST. 604 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
    Co., the court set forth a *1050 number of factors to be considered when apportioning fault under the comparative fault system.
  • Williams v. Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District 2 604 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Co., the court set forth a *1050 number of factors to be considered when apportioning fault under the comparative fault system.
  • Capterville v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty 602 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Co., as authority for their respective positions.
  • Boudreaux v. Farmer 604 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Estate of Thomas v. STATE, DOTD 604 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • Jolivette v. Iberia Parish School Bd. 601 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • Roberts v. Benoit 605 So. 2d 1032 La. 1992
    Co., in which a father gave his twelve-year-old a weapon without adequately schooling him in its use.
  • Cosse v. Allen-Bradley Co. 601 So. 2d 1349 La. 1992
  • Billeaud v. Poledore 603 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    See Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.
  • Smith v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. 603 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • Guilbeau v. St. Landry Parish Police Jury 600 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • Williams v. Allstate Ins. Co. 599 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • Suhre v. Jefferson Parish School Board 601 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Miles v. Perroncel 598 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • Murphy v. KD Auger Trucking, Inc. 598 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • Page v. Gilbert 598 So. 2d 1110 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Scamardo v. New Orleans Stevedoring Co. 595 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Moore v. Chrysler Corp. 596 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Co., the Supreme Court suggested the following factors in comparing the fault of plaintiffs and defendants: (1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the danger, (2) how great a danger was created by the conduct, (3) the significance of what was sought by the conduct, (4) the
  • Willis v. LeTulle 597 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    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, (3) the significance of wh
  • Landry v. Doe 597 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Co., : 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, [quoting the Uniform Comparative Fault Act, § 2(b)] In assessing the nature of the conduct o
  • Dugas v. Frederick 594 So. 2d 1372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Francis v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 594 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • Clark v. Ark-La-Tex Auction, Inc. 593 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • Monceaux v. Jennings Rice Drier, Inc. 590 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    Our Supreme Court, at 974 (La.1985), gave us guidelines to assist in the determination of percentages of fault.
  • Simmons v. City of Monroe 588 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Tanner v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies 589 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    (S.Ct.1985), this Court considers the evidence that Donald Tanner had driven safely for twenty-five years, Hebert, his opthalmologist [sic], and Dr. Seay, the *517 expert in sensory perception, Donald Tanner had no reason to believe that he could not drive safely.
  • Bly v. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CAS. INS. 589 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991