DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

136 citing documents.

  • Ingram v. Caterpillar MacHinery Corp. 535 So. 2d 723 La. 1988
  • Strain v. Mitchell Mfg. Co. 534 So. 2d 1385 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    By its first assignment of error
  • Wallace v. Upjohn Co. 535 So. 2d 1110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    In addressing the issue of the manufacturer's duty to warn in this case, : A manufacturer is required to provide an adequate warning of any danger inherent in the normal use of its product which is not within the knowledge of or obvious to the ordinary user....
  • Arnold v. Fremin 538 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Duncan v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 532 So. 2d 968 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • Boubel v. Gilardi 532 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • Nevils v. Singer Co. 533 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    Once this is proved, the defendant can escape liability only if he shows that the harm was caused by the fault of the victim, or a third person, or by an irresistable force
  • Pitre v. Opelousas General Hosp. 530 So. 2d 1151 La. 1988
    See e.g., PPG Industries, *1157 (La.1985); Prosser & Keeton, supra at § 4.
  • Zumo v. RT Vanderbilt Co., Inc. 527 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Savoie v. Deere & Co. 528 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Prather v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Inc. 526 So. 2d 1325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the existence and availability of alternate products "to serve the same needs or desires with less risk of harm" can support a finding that a product may be unreasonably dangerous because of its design.
  • Brown v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 516 So. 2d 1154 La. 1988
  • Gines v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 516 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Felice v. Valleylab, Inc. 520 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins.
  • Safeco Ins. Co. v. Baker 515 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Halphen [ v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., ], supra; Weber [ v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins.
  • Brown v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 514 So. 2d 439 La. 1987
    I does not require the result reached by the court of appeal, and that escalators should not be classified as products which are unreasonably dangerous "per se."
  • Price v. CORPUS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES 515 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Bloxom v. Bloxom 512 So. 2d 839 La. 1987
    Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins.
  • Ingram v. Caterpillar Machinery Corp. 510 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc. 507 So. 2d 809 La. 1987
  • Brown v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 503 So. 2d 1122 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Whittle v. MILLER ELECTRICAL MFG. CO. 507 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    the Supreme Court set forth the basic principles *271 applicable in strict tort products liability as follows: "There is general agreement upon the most basic principles of strict tort products liability.
  • Davis v. Material Delivery Service, Inc. 506 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Jurovich v. Catalanotto 506 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    I. In arguing the first assignment of error, which set forth a new theory of recovery under products liability: a classification of products that are "unreasonably dangerous per se."
  • Allien v. Humphries Motors, Inc. 509 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Ind.
  • LeBleu v. Homelite Div. of Textron, Inc. 509 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    our Supreme Court made the following statements: "There is general agreement upon the most basic principles of strict tort products liability.
  • Rhoto v. Ribando 504 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    The scope of the manufacturers' duty to warn the consumer of risks or contraindications associated with use of a -115 (La.1986) as follows: "[7-9] Although a product is not unreasonably dangerous per se or flawed by a construction defect, it may still be an unreasonably dangerous product if the manufacturer fails to adequately warn about a danger related to the way the product is designed.
  • Bailey v. Oliver 504 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    the Louisiana Supreme Court outlined the standards to be applied in products liability cases.
  • Ross v. La Coste De Monterville 502 So. 2d 1026 La. 1987
  • Whitacre v. Halo Optical Products, Inc. 501 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Short v. Otis Elevator Co. 502 So. 2d 1100 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    mandated the use of the Hunt danger-utility balancing test and specified four theories for products liability recovery: (1) unreasonably dangerous per se; (2) unreasonably dangerous in construction and composition; (3) unreasonably dangerous because of failure to adequately warn about a danger inherent in th
  • Bloxom v. Bloxom 494 So. 2d 1297 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Strickland v. Fowler 499 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • Ducote v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. 488 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed recovery under a theory of strict liability by stating: "A. Codal principle of legal fault or strict liability A principle of legal fault or strict liability underlies articles 2317-22 of the Civil Code: When harm results from the conduct of a person or defect of a thin
  • Thompson v. Tuggle 486 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    DEFECT IN DESIGN The Louisiana Supreme Court has made a
  • Joseph v. Bohn Ford, Inc. 483 So. 2d 934 La. 1986
    (1986); W. Prosser & P. Keeton, On Torts, p. 695 (5th ed. 1984); Wade, Strict Tort Liability of Manufacturers, 19 Sw.L.J.