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.

1000 citing documents.

  • Foley v. Entergy Louisiana, Inc. 925 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
  • Laborde v. St. James Place Apartments 928 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
  • Wanda Baker Smith v. the Municipality of Ferriday La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Smith v. Municipality of Ferriday 922 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • Raspanti v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 922 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
  • Nelson v. City of Shreveport 921 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • Nelson v. City of Shreveport 921 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • Galmiche v. State Farm Insurance Co. 923 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
  • Mary E. Cormier v. Robert Colston and Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Our determination in that regard is guided by the factors set forth in Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., : (1) [W]hether 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
  • Amanda Broussard v. Family Dollar Store La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    3 We have considered the evidence in light of factors outlined in Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., and find no error with the trial court’s assessment of fault.
  • Cormier v. Colston 918 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Our determination in that regard is guided by the factors set forth in Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., (La.
  • Broussard v. Family Dollar Store 918 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    We have considered the evidence in light of factors outlined in Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., and find no error with the trial court's assessment of fault.
  • Nelson v. Lakey 917 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
  • Joseph Moraus v. Jennifer Frederick La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    When apportioning fault, the factfinder should consider the five factors enunciated in Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., which include: “(1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of 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 circumsta
  • Tessica Spears v. City of Scott La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    In Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., the supreme court held that the trier-of-fact must consider both the nature of the conduct of all parties and the extent of the causal relationship between the conduct and the damages claimed when allocating fault.
  • Moraus v. Frederick 916 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    When apportioning fault, the factfinder should consider the five factors enunciated in Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., which include: "(1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of 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
  • Spears v. City of Scott 915 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    In Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., (La.
  • Creel v. Southern Natural Gas Co. 917 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
  • Harold Alex, Jr. v. Rayne Concrete Service La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    When apportioning fault, the factfinder should consider the five factors enunciated in Watson [v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Co., ], which include: “(1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of 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 ex
  • Alex v. Rayne Concrete Service 915 So. 2d 931 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    When apportioning fault, the factfinder should consider the five factors enunciated in Watson [v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Co., ], which include: "(1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of 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 m
  • M. Jayne Yellot v. Underwriters In. Co. and Sabine Pools, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Yellott v. Underwriters Ins. Co. 915 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Orleans Sheet Metal Works & Roofing, Inc. v. Rabito 916 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Co., Arceneaux, supra at 1333 .
  • Pujoe v. Stowe-Woodard 911 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
  • Rogers v. City of Baton Rouge 916 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    the assessment of relative fault as between the phantom vehicle's operator and Mr. Rogers made by the trial court (40% versus 20%) is clearly wrong.
  • Stephens v. Fuller 907 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
  • McElroy v. Wilhite 903 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Co., to apportion fault.
  • Joseph S. Provost, Jr. and Joanna D. Provost v. USA Truck, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    the court cited the Uniform Comparative Fault Act, Section 2(b), which provides: 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 condu
  • Provost v. USA Truck, Inc. 901 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    the court cited the Uniform Comparative Fault Act, Section 2(b), which provides: 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.
  • Eddie J. Williams, Jr. v. Finley, Inc. D/B/A Naomi Heights Nursing Home La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the factors which should be considered in assessing the conduct of the parties and allocating fault, stating: In assessing the nature of the conduct of the parties, various factors may influence the degree of fault assigned, including: (1) whether th
  • Williams v. Finley, Inc. 900 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the factors which should be considered in assessing the conduct of the parties and allocating 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 resul
  • Lam Ex Rel. Lam v. State Farm Auto. Ins. 901 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
  • Timothy Roberts v. Kevin F. Robicheaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Co., for apportioning fault, demonstrates that Mr. Robicheaux should have been apportioned with a greater percentage of the fault.
  • Roberts v. Robicheaux 896 So. 2d 1232 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Co., for apportioning fault, demonstrates that Mr. Robicheaux should have been apportioned with a greater percentage of the fault.
  • Wilson v. Transportation Consultants, Inc. 899 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
  • Collier v. Benedetto 897 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
  • Brown v. State 896 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the following guidelines for determining the percentage of fault to be allocated among tortfeasors: 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 inadve
  • Henry v. Williams 892 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    Watson v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
  • Daniel K. Murchison v. Lyndon Property Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    the supreme court established that both the nature of the conduct of each party at fault and the extent of the causal relation between the conduct and 4 damages claimed are to be considered in determining percentages of fault.
  • Murchison v. Lyndon Property Ins. Co. 896 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    the supreme court established that both the nature of the conduct of each party at fault and the extent of the causal relation between the conduct and damages claimed are to be considered in determining percentages of fault.
  • Julie Guidry v. Coregis Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Guidry v. Coregis Ins. Co. 896 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Thornton v. Louisiana Plastic Industries Inc. 889 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
  • Williams v. Maritime, Inc. 889 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
  • Himel v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 887 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court identified the factors to consider in weighing the degree of fault assigned by the jury.
  • Himel v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 887 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • Jessica Renee Doucet Bouley v. Dennis Guidry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Bouley v. Guidry 883 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • Dennison v. Incorporated WHC 885 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • McElveen v. City of New Orleans 888 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004