Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite King v. Louviere, 543 So. 2d 1327.

75 citing documents.

Touchet v. Estate of Bass 653 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
-29 (La.1989); n. 5 (La.1982).
Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 650 So. 2d 742 La. 1995
Baudoin v. McDermott, Inc. 644 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
DeRouen v. Audirsch 639 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Myers v. Burger King Corp. 638 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Faul v. Bank of Sunset & Trust Co. 635 So. 2d 573 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Stapleton v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp. 627 So. 2d 1358 La. 1993
Thomas v. Richard 624 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
3d Cir.1988), affirmed in part, reversed in part, to support their position that both the owner of the house, Onshore & Marine, Inc. and its transporters, Mr. Richard and Ace Transportation, are strictly liable for the damages caused by the defect in the house.
Bertini v. Britton 620 So. 2d 1197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
art. 2317, -29 (La.1989).
Francis v. American Well Serv. & Drilling, Inc. 617 So. 2d 1329 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Stapleton v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp. 616 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Smiciklas v. Groendyke Transport, Inc., writ denied
Thumfart v. Lombard 613 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Bertini v. Turncliff 607 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
-29 (La.1989), the Supreme Court outlined the following guidelines for determining who has custody (garde) of a thing.
Smith v. State Through Dept. of Public Safety 620 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
-1329 (La.1989), the court set forth the following rules for determining who had the custody (garde) of a thing: Under La.
Smith v. Two" R" Drilling Co., Inc. 606 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Followed Spott v. Otis Elevator Co. 601 So. 2d 1355 La. 1992
Rivet v. LeBlanc 600 So. 2d 1358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
-1329 (La.1989), the court set forth the following rules for determining who had the custody (garde) of a thing: Under La.Civil Code article 2317 the person who has the garde of a thing is he who has the legal duty to prevent its vice or defect from harming another.
Scamardo v. New Orleans Stevedoring Co. 595 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Hale v. Aetna Life and Cas. Ins. Co. 580 So. 2d 1053 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
3rd Cir.1988), writs granted, affirmed
Ivy v. Freeland 576 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
the Supreme Court articulated the heavy burden of proof for a presumably negligent defendant claiming a latent brake defect defense: [I]n order for latent defects to constitute a valid defense, the proof must be so strong that it excludes any other reasonable hypothesis with reference to the cause of the ac
Green v. Industrial Helicopters, Inc. 576 So. 2d 1183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Doughty v. Insured Lloyds Ins. Co. 576 So. 2d 461 La. 1991
Hopkins v. Travasos 569 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Sistler v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 558 So. 2d 1106 La. 1990
Duhon v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. 554 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989