Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Boyer v. Seal, 553 So. 2d 827.

37 citing documents.

Kasem v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 212 So. 3d 6 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Ducote v. Boleware 216 So. 3d 934 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
(); see also Cheryl M. Bailey, Annot., Liabilities for Injuries Caused by Cat, 68 A.L.R.4th 823 (1989).
Theresa St. Julien v. Julie Walters Landry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
1975)] and Boyer [v. Seal, (La.
Julien v. Landry 94 So. 3d 976 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
on still applies for the measure of strict liability for dog-related injuries, the court observed: Given that Article 2317 and the first clause of former Article 2321, now the first sentence of revised Article 2321, seemingly impose liability without fault in all cases upon the owner or guardian of the defective thing or animal, the Loescher [v. Parr, ] and Boyer [v. Seal, ] cases effectively *982 represented an attempt to limit the owner or guardian’s strict liability under the rationale that t
Williams v. Galofaro 79 So. 3d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In a later case, the court backed away from the almost absolute liability of Holland by applying the unreasonable risk of harm principle to animals, which posits that the damage must have been caused by a vice or aspect of the thing that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, citing the strict liability provis
Smegal v. Gettys 48 So. 3d 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In a later case, the court backed away from the almost absolute liability of Holland by applying the unreasonable risk of harm principle to animals, which posits that the damage must have been caused by a vice or aspect of the thing that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, citing the strict liability provis
Everett v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 37 So. 3d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Subsequent to Loescher , applied the unreasonable risk of harm principle to animals, reasoning as follows: There are various policies supporting the unreasonable risk principle: As Loescher observes, the person who has the guardianship and usually the enjoyment of the person or thing should bear the cost of damage caused by ri
Holland v. Teague 996 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
1975)] and Boyer [v. Seal, ] cases effectively represented an attempt to limit the owner or guardian's strict liability under the rationale that the owner should not be required to insure against all injury however small the risk might be.
McBride v. XYZ Insurance 935 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Bonner v. Martino 927 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
Pat Swido and Tommie Swido v. Lafayette Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
In Boyer v. Seal, [], the plaintiff was injured when a house cat brushed against her leg and caused her to fall.
Swido v. Lafayette Ins. Co. 916 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
In Boyer v. Seal, [ ], the plaintiff was injured when a house cat brushed against her leg and caused her to fall.
Lafayette Parish School Board v. Darlene M. Cormier, on Behalf of Her Minor Child, Jade Cormier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Lafayette Parish School Bd. v. Cormier 901 So. 2d 1197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Andrus v. LAD CORP. 875 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
In Pepper , the Court noted: we stated that the criterion for determining whether a defendant has created or maintained an unreasonable risk of harm is a balancing of claims and interest, a weighing of the risk and gravity of harm, and a consideration of individual and societal rights and obligations.
Pepper v. Triplet 864 So. 2d 181 La. 2004
[1] The two seminal cases addressing liability under former Article 2321
Allen v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 828 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Jones v. Cobb 793 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Clark v. White 758 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Bowen v. Skillman, 28,217 (La.App.2d Cir.4/3/96), .
Robertson v. State 747 So. 2d 1276 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
In discussing the judicial process for the determination of unreasonable risk of harm posed by a thing, the supreme court, -835 (La.1989), observed: As Loescher observes, the person who has the guardianship and usually the enjoyment of the person or thing should bear the cost of damage caused by risks they create rather than the innocent victim.
Bradford v. Kaster 732 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Dubois v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co. 715 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
further explained the elements for recovery under art. 2321 as requiring the plaintiff to prove that the defendant owned the animal causing harm, that the animal created an unreasonable risk of harm and that the damage occurred through this risk.
Burnaman v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Insurance Co. 714 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
the supreme court summarized the plaintiffs burden of proof under Article 2321 as follows: In order to recover under Civil Code article 2321, the plaintiff is required to prove that the domestic animal causing her damage was owned by the defendant, that the animal created an unreasonable risk of harm
Florice v. Brown 679 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Bowen v. Skillman 671 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
that in order "to recover under Civil Code Article 2321, the plaintiff is required to prove that the domestic animal causing her injury was owned by the defendant, that the animal created an unreasonable risk of harm, and that the damage occurred through this risk."
Mahl v. Himel 657 So. 2d 1386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the criterion for determining whether a defendant has created or maintained an unreasonable risk of harm is a balancing of claims and interests, a weighing of the risks and gravity of harm, and a consideration of individual and societal rights and obligations.
Boone v. Ricks 645 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Bell v. State Farm Fire & Casualty 643 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
La.Civ.Code art. 2321 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he owner of an animal is answerable for the damage he has caused....” the Louisiana Supreme Court held that in order to establish liability on the part 12of a pet owner, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant owned the domestic animal causing damage; (2) the animal created an unreasonable risk of harm; and (3) the plaintiff’s damage occurred through this risk.
Marchand v. York 624 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
in which the Court stated: “...
Goza v. Cornwell 622 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
-5 (La.1989): There is no better reason in principle or policy than in history to expand responsibility for animals into a rule of superstrict liability.
Lynch v. Hanover Ins. Co. 611 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
art. 2321 provides in pertinent part that "The owner of an animal is answerable for the damage he has caused[.]" the Supreme Court held that in order to recover under C.C.
Smith v. Roan 605 So. 2d 10 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Grady v. Allstate Insurance Co. 602 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
La.Civ.Code art. 2321 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he owner of an animal is answerable for the damage he has caused_” the Louisiana Supreme Court held that in order to establish liability under this article, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the domestic animal causing damage was owned by the defendant; (2) the animal created an unreasonable risk of harm; and (3) the plaintiffs damage occurred through this risk.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Simon 598 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Smith v. American Indem. Ins. Co. 598 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Burton v. Landry 602 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
We find that the *1014 (La.
Andrade v. Shiers 564 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Compare, however, that an elderly plaintiff who tripped and fell when a house cat either rubbed against or ran through her legs cannot recover for her injury because she did not prove that the cat "created an unreasonable risk of harm."