DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc., 507 So. 2d 809.

28 citing documents.

  • Victoria Roach v. State of Louisiana, Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
    ered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, authority, knowledge, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, or for attacking credibility.” /d. 12 “In general, remedial measures taken after an incident of negligent conduct are not admissible in evidence because such evidence would discourage people from taking steps to prevent future harm.” Toups v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc.
  • Hanover Insurance Company v. Riceland Aviation, Inc. Consolidated With United States Aircraft Insurance Group v. Global Tower, LLC. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    Subsequent Remedial Measures “In general, remedial measures taken after an incident of negligent conduct are not admissible in evidence because such evidence would discourage people from taking steps to prevent future harm.” Toups v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc.
  • Hanover Ins. Co. v. Riceland Aviation, Inc. 269 So. 3d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    Toups v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc. , , 816 (La.1987).
  • Maldonado v. Kiewit Louisiana Co. 152 So. 3d 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    In Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: In general, remedial measures taken after an incident of negligent conduct are not admissible in evidence because such evidence would discourage people from taking steps to prevent future harm.
  • Chauvin v. Sisters of Mercy Health System, St. Louis, Inc. 818 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    The Shortess court also cited Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc., (La.
  • Hesse v. CHAMP SERVICE LINE 758 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Toups v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
  • Daye v. General Motors Corp. 712 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Toups v. Sears Roebuck & Co., (La.
  • Maher v. Costa Lines Cargo Services, Inc. 691 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Hefner v. Wilson Inn, Inc. 665 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Inc.
  • Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. 648 So. 2d 331 La. 1994
    [1] Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is admissible to prove knowledge, feasibility of precautionary measures, etc. under Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Inc., (La.
  • Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc. 630 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    [1] Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is admissible to prove knowledge, feasibility of precautionary measures, etc. under Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Inc., (La.
  • Rivnor Properties v. Herbert O'Donnell, Inc. 633 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
    Rivnor/O'Donnell cites Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc., and the exception to the general rule found in Article 407 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence in support of its argument that the 1987 manual should have been admitted to show the feasibility of precautionary measures.
  • Sharkey v. Sterling Drug, Inc. 600 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    See Toups v. Sears Roebuck & Company, Inc.
  • Morris v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. 582 So. 2d 1349 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Inc.
  • Shaw v. Fidelity & Cas. Ins. Co. 582 So. 2d 919 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    Art. 407; Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Inc.
  • Northern Assur. Co. v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 580 So. 2d 351 La. 1991
    More recently, this court in Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., restated the rule that "[i]n general, remedial measures taken after an incident of negligent conduct are not admissible in evidence because such evidence would discourage people from taking steps to prevent future harm", but noted that in product liability cases this evidence is admissible insofar as it is "
  • Reilly v. Dynamic Exploration, Inc. 571 So. 2d 140 La. 1990
    Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc., Hebert, supra ; Chappuis, supra ; Bloxom, supra ; Ingram, supra .
  • Manuel v. Odeco, Inc. 563 So. 2d 1179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    See Toups v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc.
  • Distinguished Falgoust v. Richardson Industries, Inc. 552 So. 2d 1348 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    Plaintiff urged at trial, and reurges here, that this was error, citing Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc.
  • McCrossen v. Renovate, Inc. 548 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
  • Pitre v. Opelousas General Hosp. 530 So. 2d 1151 La. 1988
    See, e.g., Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Brown v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., (Accident occurred 69 years after manufacture of the machine.).
  • Burk v. Illinois Cent. Gulf RR Co. 529 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Furthermore, in Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc., the Supreme Court concluded that the policy considerations which exclude evidence of remedial measures in negligence cases are not applicable where strict liability is involved.
  • Beauhall v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 526 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Toups v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 819 (La.1987)
  • Shortess v. Touro Infirmary 520 So. 2d 389 La. 1988
    Weber is contrary to DeBattista, supra; Toups v. Sears Roebuck and Co., Inc., and Chappuis v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
  • Carpenter v. Besco Corp. 521 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    4th Cir.1986), rev’d, assumes that a learned treatise exception to the hearsay rule exists in Louisiana.
  • Toups v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 519 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Blakes v. Blakes 517 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    In Toups v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., an expert witness testified that while the reasonable man is aware that flammable materials catch fire easily, he may not be aware that the fumes and vapors of gasoline make it unreasonably dangerous in confined areas.
  • Gines v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 516 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    Toups v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc., (La.