Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dill v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 545 So. 2d 994.

57 citing documents.

Carlo Carollo, Jr., and Frank Carollo, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Carlo Carollo, Sr. and … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
Elray and Brenda Lege v. Union Carbide Corporation La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
Johnson v. State Through Department of Transportation and Development 275 So. 3d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Tonya Lynn Boudreaux v. R. E. Heidt Construction Co., Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
See Dill v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Moss v. State 993 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Tassin v. Bendel 989 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Forbes v. Cockerham 985 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
and Development, 97-1967, 97-1938, p. 7 (La.4/24/98), , 66 and Dill v. State, DOTD
Himel v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 887 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
and Development, Schexnayder v. Hyundai, 00-177, p. 6 (La.App.9/14/00), (citing Dill .)
Himel v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 887 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
and Development, Schexnayder v. Hyundai, 00-177, p. 6 (La.App.9/14/00), (citing Dill.)
Woodbury v. DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOPMENT 848 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Capone v. Ormet Corp. 822 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Aucoin , 97-1938 at p. 7; 712 So.2d at 66 ()
Petre v. State Ex Rel. DOTD 817 So. 2d 1107 La. 2002
Aucoin, 712 So.2d at 66 ().
Rosen v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 809 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Dill v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Snearl v. Mercer 780 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Odom v. City of Lake Charles 790 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Dill v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Brow v. Allstate Indemnity Co. 771 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
& Dev., Pesson v. Reynolds, 97-0150 (La.App.
Schexnayder v. LeBlanc Hyundai 769 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Farbe v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange 765 So. 2d 994 La. 2000
Niven v. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. 751 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Although compliance with these standards, both as they existed at the time a road was constructed and at the time of the accident, is not determinative of the issue of *416 liability, it is a relevant factor for consideration, Dill v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Ditch v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 745 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
However, as noted in Dill v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, Myers does not stand for the proposition that the State can escape liability simply by showing that a highway met the existing standards when it was built.
Sevario v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Transp. 752 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Dill v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Farbe v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange 746 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
“Design standards both at the time of the original construction and at the time of the accident may be relevant factors for consideration in deciding this issue, but are not determinative.” Hunter v. State, Through DOTD, Dill v. State, Through DOTD
Netecke v. State Ex Rel. DOTD 747 So. 2d 489 La. 1999
Cormier v. Comeaux 748 So. 2d 1123 La. 1999
Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc. 726 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
1 Cir. 9/10/96) , ; see also Dill v. State Department of Transportation *959 and Development
Pesson v. Reynolds 727 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Dill v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Griggs v. Riverland Medical Center 722 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
and Dev., Taylor v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Ins.
Deville v. Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development 719 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Cormier v. Comeaux 714 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Rosato v. La. Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 714 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Furthermore, in Dill v. State of Louisiana, Department of Transporation and Development, the Supreme Court recognized that DOTD cannot escape liability simply by showing that a highway met existing standards when it was built.
Aucoin v. State Through Dept. of Transp. and Dev. 712 So. 2d 62 La. 1998
Satterly v. Louisiana Indem. Co. 704 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
The crux of his argument is that the trial court incorrectly concluded that the standards were not relevant and failed to follow the supreme court's ruling in Dill v. State, Department of Transportation & Development
Bellard v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co. 702 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Dunne v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 679 So. 2d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Thornhill v. STATE DEPT. OF TRANSP. 676 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Dill v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Foster v. ConAgra Poultry Co. 670 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Ventress v. Union Pacific RR Co. 666 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Hebert v. Southwest La. Elec. Mem. Corp. 667 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
The Louisiana Supreme Court in Dill v. State, Dept. of Transportation and Development, stated that while "[d]esign standards both at the time of original construction and at the time of the accident may be relevant factors for consideration" on the issue of liability, they are not determinative because the critical inquiry remains whether something presents an unreasonable risk of harm.
Harper v. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORR. 664 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Lawrence v. Department of Transportation & Development 665 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Co., ], supra, to the facts in this case.
Oxley v. Sabine River Authority 663 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Buckbee v. Aweco, Inc., Dill v. State, DOTD
Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc. 657 So. 2d 975 La. 1995
Simon v. Fasig-Tipton Co. 652 So. 2d 1351 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Buckbee v. Aweco, Inc., Dill v. State, DOTD
Steptoe v. Lallie Kemp Hosp. 634 So. 2d 331 La. 1994
and Dev., Taylor v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Ins.
Begnaud v. Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 631 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
DOTD argues that the trial court incorrectly applied the holdings of Myers, supra, (La.
Wiedeman v. Dixie Elec. Membership Corp. 627 So. 2d 170 La. 1993
Lee v. Missouri Pacific R.R.
Taylor v. US Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co. 630 So. 2d 237 La. 1993
and Dev., Buckbee v. Aweco, Inc.
Hunter v. Dept. of Transp. and Dev. 620 So. 2d 1149 La. 1993
Dill v. State, Department of Transportation and Development
Buckbee v. Aweco, Inc. 614 So. 2d 1233 La. 1993
See Dill v. State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, (La.
Hunter v. Department of Transportation & Development 612 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by