Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 484 So. 2d 110.

136 citing documents.

Davis v. Cheema, Inc. 171 So. 3d 984 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See, , in which the Supreme Court examined the methods of establishing liability for unreasonably dangerous products prior to the enactment of La.
Alberes v. Anco Insulations, Inc. 156 So. 3d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 714 F.2d 581 (5th Cir.1983), cert.
Wilbert Bates, Et Ux. v. E. D. Bullard Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
To the contrary, (1986).
Bates v. E.D. Bullard Co. 76 So. 3d 111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
To the contrary, (1986).
Lucas v. Hopeman Bros., Inc. 60 So. 3d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 714 F.2d 581 (5 th Cir.1983), cert.
Del Dean David, Et Ux. v. Velsicol Chemical Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Susan and Edward L. Wilhelm v. Mosaic Global Operations, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
David v. Velsicol Chem. Corp. 49 So. 3d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
-17 (La.1986) explained strict products liability in Louisiana: The principle of strict products liability is analogous to the principles of legal fault or strict liability underlying civil code articles 2317-22.
Ferguson v. LOEWER POWERSPORTS & EQUIPMENT 33 So. 3d 446 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., [ (1986)] supra, at p. 116-17.Although the manufacturer usually does |4not have custody of the product when the injury occurs, in order for strict liability to arise, the plaintiff must prove that the product’s unreasonably dangerous condition existed at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer, and tha
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc. 16 So. 3d 1065 La. 2009
Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 714 F.2d 581 (5th Cir.1983), cert.
Benard v. EAGLE, INC. 1 So. 3d 588 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
On appeal, Plaintiffs contend that the Fourth Circuit's writ disposition in did not address or dismiss their unreasonably dangerous, negligence, but rather, dismissed only the claims related to the duty to warn and that these claims remain to be litigated.
Cherie Benjamin v. First Horizon Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
1 regarding design defects.
Benjamin v. First Horizon Ins. Co. 978 So. 2d 1121 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
[1] regarding design defects.
Thibodeaux v. Asbestos Corp. 976 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 714 F.2d 581 (5th Cir.1983), cert.
Carrie Badon v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Ms. Badon’s which held that a plaintiff can recover against the manufacturer of a product if the product is “unreasonably dangerous per se, i.e., too dangerous to be placed on the market.” The elements of a liability claim based on the product’s “unreasonably dangerous per se” character require proof, first, t
Badon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 934 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Ms. Badon’s which held that a plaintiff can recover against the manufacturer of a product if the product is “unreasonably dangerous per se, i.e., too dangerous to be placed on the market.” The elements of a liability claim based on the product’s “unreasonably dangerous per se ” character require proof, first, that
State v. Williams 930 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
5th Cir.03/28/01), , a products liability case, [T]he Louisiana Supreme Court did not create new substantive law in Halphen [v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., ].
Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. 923 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Torrejon v. Mobil Oil Co. 876 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Hennegan, XXXX-XXXX at p. 5, 837 So.2d at 102 ().
Vodanovich v. AP Green Industries, Inc. 869 So. 2d 930 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 714 F.2d 581 (5th Cir.1983), cert.
Hennegan v. Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co. 837 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Scott v. American Tobacco 830 So. 2d 294 La. 2002
Further, which claims are presented in this case, a plaintiff's fault can be compared with a defendant's strict liability.
Warren v. Sabine Towing and Transp. Co. 831 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
The applicable elements of a as follows: In order to recover from a manufacturer, the plaintiff must prove that the *529 harm resulted from the condition of the product, that the condition made the product unreasonably dangerous to normal use, and that the condition existed at the time the product left the manufacturer's control.
Cowart v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 792 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
The LPLA placed a higher burden of proof on the injured plaintiff by abolishing the "unreasonably dangerous per se"
Abadie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 791 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
[2] [3] Dr. Millette used the same saw used by Hopeman at other shipyards when performing his tests.
Abadie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 784 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
(Unreasonably dangerous per se and sophisticated user and purchaser)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co. 772 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
McNeely v. Ford Motor Co., Inc. 763 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Nevertheless, under both the prior products liability jurisprudence ( See, ), and the provisions of the LPLA, a recognized cause of action is that a product can be unreasonably dangerous in its construction or composition.
Cortez v. Zurich Ins. Co. 752 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Simeon v. Doe, 618 So.2d at 851
Thomas v. Sport City, Inc. 738 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Johnson, supra, and Kennedy, A Primer on the Louisiana Products Liability Act, 49 La.
Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc. 726 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
APPLICABLE LAW In the first assignment of error, we consider the issue raised by Garlock, Inc. (Garlock), a Fight Two defendant, as controlling law in this products liability case.
Damond v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 718 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Detillier v. Sullivan 714 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Pitre v. GAF Corp. 705 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Johnson v. Black & Decker US, Inc. 701 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Cappo v. Savage Industries, Inc. 691 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Maher v. Costa Lines Cargo Services, Inc. 691 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
the trial court con-eluded that the chassis was not defective and plaintiffs alternative design was not feasible.
Trahan v. Savage Industries, Inc. 692 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
: 1) that the gun was defective per se, 2) that the three tests of the defective design theory had been established, and 3) that the defendant had failed to warn the plaintiff of the defect.
Clark v. JESUIT HIGH SCH. OF NEW ORLEANS 686 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
our Supreme Court recognized "failure to warn" as one theory of recovery in a products liability claim.
Mallery v. International Harvester Co. 690 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Hickman v. Exide, Inc. 679 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Action of the District Court The District Court initially noted that this accident occurred on August 23, 1988, only a week before the effective date of the Louisiana Products Liability Act, [1]
Mistich v. Volkswagen of Germany, Inc. 666 So. 2d 1073 La. 1996
Taylor v. American Laundry MacHinery, Inc. 658 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIM [1]
Drury v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 659 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. 648 So. 2d 331 La. 1994
Hopper v. Crown 646 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Quick v. Murphy Oil Co. 643 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 714 F.2d 581 (5th Cir.1983), cert.
Clement v. Griffin 634 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Traut v. Uniroyal, Inc., (La.App.
Luman v. Highlands Ins. Co. 632 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Longo v. EI DuPont De Nemours & Co. 632 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994