Cited by

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

136 citing documents.

Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. 630 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Accordingly, we look to products liability law prior to the act
Mathieu v. Imperial Toy Corp. 632 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
a product can be found unreasonably dangerous in design if: (1) A reasonable person would conclude that the danger-in-fact, whether foreseeable or not, outweighs the utility of the product....
Cooper v. Sams 628 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
rehearing denied, sets out the particular elements of the substantive law which plaintiffs have to prove in order to recover.
Laing v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 628 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
McCoy v. Otis Elevator Co., Inc., (La.App.
Goins v. Galion Mfg. Co. 626 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Hebert v. Brazzel, supra ; Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co., supra .
Johnston v. Hartford Ins. Co. 623 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Simeon v. Doe 618 So. 2d 848 La. 1993
Boh Bros. Const. Co., Inc. v. Luber-Finer, Inc. 612 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Halphen v. Johns Manville *276 Sales Corporation, (La.
Gauthier v. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. 608 So. 2d 1086 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Singletary v. Crown Zellerbach 607 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Distinguished Spott v. Otis Elevator Co. 601 So. 2d 1355 La. 1992
Cosse v. Allen-Bradley Co. 601 So. 2d 1349 La. 1992
Daigle v. Audi of America, Inc. 598 So. 2d 1304 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Daigle appeals this ruling arguing that foreseeability in a products liability case is determined by considering whether the injury could have reasonably been anticipated, and that his injury was foreseeable.
O'BRIEN v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. 601 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Sharkey v. Sterling Drug, Inc. 600 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Page v. Gilbert 598 So. 2d 1110 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
and Lavespere v. Niagara Machine and Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.1990), Nissan argues that to establish a claim for damages in these cases, a plaintiff must show that the vehicle was unreasonably dangerous in design, that the design defect caused or enhanced the injury, and that the gravity of t
Moore v. Chrysler Corp. 596 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
At the time this accident occurred
Putman v. Gulf States Utilities 588 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
The duty of Lastor 5 -115 (La.1986) as follows: A product is unreasonably dangerous per se if a reasonable person would conclude that the danger-in-fact of the product, whether foreseeable or not, outweighs the utility of the product....
Gilboy v. American Tobacco Co. 582 So. 2d 1263 La. 1991
Home Insurance Co. v. National Tea Co. 577 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Walker v. Babcock Industries, Inc. 582 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
The "unreasonably dangerous per se" (La.
Guidry v. Frank Guidry Oil Co. 579 So. 2d 947 La. 1991
Ivy v. Freeland 576 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
Arceneaux, 365 So.2d at 1335 ; Halphen v. *1121 Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
Green v. Industrial Helicopters, Inc. 576 So. 2d 1183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Gilboy v. American Tobacco Co. 572 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Russell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 572 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
(Citations omitted) The accident herein occurred on October 28, 1986, and, thus, rather than by the Louisiana Products Liability Act, Acts 1988, No. 64, effective September 1, 1988.
Cannon v. Cavalier Corp. 572 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Reilly v. Dynamic Exploration, Inc. 571 So. 2d 140 La. 1990
Berry v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 565 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
The instant accident of July 1984 obviously occurred before that effective date
Manuel v. Odeco, Inc. 563 So. 2d 1179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Shipley v. REC. & PARK COM'N FOR PARISH OF EBR 558 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Breeden v. Valencia, Inc. 557 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
[5] LeBleu v. Homelite Division of Textron, Inc., (La.App.
Traut v. Uniroyal, Inc. 555 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Duhon v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. 554 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Brown v. Landry 552 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Falgoust v. Richardson Industries, Inc. 552 So. 2d 1348 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Poirrier v. Trailmobile, Inc. 550 So. 2d 1349 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Foster v. Craig Equipment Co. 550 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
1985); Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company of New York, 259 La.
Lopez v. Chicago Bridge and Iron Co. 546 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Bernstine v. Textron, Inc. 546 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
The standard for determining liability in a : There is general agreement upon the most basic principles of strict tort products liability.
McCoy v. Otis Elevator Co., Inc. 546 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
1987); Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., *231 (La.1980).
Addison v. Williams 546 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Strickland further concluded: "In so determining [that plaintiffs do not state a cause of action under products liability principles], (La.
Levi v. SW La. Elec. Membership Co-Op. 542 So. 2d 1081 La. 1989
see Harper, James and Gray, supra, § 16.5.
Leday v. Aztec Corp. 544 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
the Louisiana Supreme Court summarized the basic principles of the plaintiff's cause of action under a theory of strict tort products liability as follows: "In order to recover from a manufacturer, the plaintiff must prove that the harm resulted from the condition of the product, that the condition made the
Frederick v. General Motors Corp. 544 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Surgi v. Otis Elevator Co. 541 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
the court added the requirement that the plaintiff must prove the dangerous condition of the product existed at the time the product left the manufacturer's control.
Weber v. Caterpillar MacHinery Corp. 542 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
at pages 114-115, in a strict products liability case there are three independent theories of recovery against the manufacturer of a product: "(1) A product is unreasonably dangerous per se if a reasonable person would conclude that the danger-in-fact of the product, whether foreseeable or not, outweighs the
Ard v. Kraft, Inc. 540 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Purvis v. American Motors Corp. 538 So. 2d 1015 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: A product may be unreasonably dangerous because of its design for any one of three reasons: (1) A reasonable person would conclude that the danger-in-fact, whether foreseeable or not, outweighs *1019 the utility of the product....(2) Although balancing under the risk-
Antley v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA 539 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
In determining whether a product is defective, our Supreme Court, stated in pertinent part as follows, at pages 113-115: *700 "There is general agreement upon the most basic principles of strict tort products liability.