Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cangelosi v. OUR LADY OF LAKE REG. MED. CTR., 564 So. 2d 654.

173 citing documents.

Lindner v. Hoffman 894 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Lawson v. MITSUBISHI MOTOR SALES 896 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Kevin Lawson v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Honeycutt v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 890 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
a medical malpractice case.
Benjamin v. Housing Auth. of New Orleans 893 So. 2d 1 La. 2004
for an analysis of that doctrine.
Fred Lee Perkins v. Wurster Oil Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER 2 on rehearing, our supreme court examined the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Perkins v. Wurster Oil Corp. 886 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER 2 on rehearing, our supreme court examined the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Wallace 882 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Crenshaw v. Bayou Land & Marine Contractors, Inc. 868 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Ullrich v. Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District No. 2 867 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Ullrich v. JEFFERSON PARISH HOSP. SERVICE 867 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Poplar v. Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. 864 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Hinson v. the Glen Oak Retirement System 853 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Gibson, supra ; In re Triss, supra .
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Harrington 854 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Wood v. Spillers 843 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Ctr., Boudreaux v. American Ins.
Buller v. AMERICAN NAT. PROPERTY & CAS. COS. 838 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Seaman v. Howard 834 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Taylor v. Clement 832 So. 2d 1089 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
The standard of care that a physician is to render to a (La.
Delaney v. Humana Hosp. 830 So. 2d 1072 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Granger v. Guillory 819 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Satterwhite v. Reilly 817 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Smith v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., 98-2085 (La.11/30/99) ; -65 (La.1989).
Fournet v. Roule-Graham 783 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
Short v. Plantation Management Corp. 781 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Williamson v. ST. FRANCIS CABRINI HOSP. 763 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Leal v. Dubois 756 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Allen v. Blanchard 763 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
As the supreme court noted in Cangelosi v. Our *709 Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center, the principle of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of circumstantial evidence that infers negligence on the part of defendants because the facts of the case indicate that the negligence of the defendant is the probable cause of the accident, in the absence of other equally probable explanations offered by cr
Fusilier v. Dauterive 759 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Gautreaux v. WW ROWLAND TRUCKING CO. 757 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Gautreaux v. W.W. Rowland Trucking Co. 757 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Smith v. Toys" R" US, Inc. 754 So. 2d 209 La. 1999
-65 (La.1989), this court discussed the application of the preponderance of the evidence standard in cases involving circumstantial evidence, as follows: In an action to recover damages for injuries allegedly caused by another's negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proving negligence on the part of the defe
Bradbury v. Thomas 757 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Thus, the plaintiffs assert that the trial court was under a duty, to charge the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
McDowell v. Don Bohn Ford, Inc. 739 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Smith 738 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
These facts are clearly sufficient to establish as more probable than not the reasonable inference that Smith or someone authorized by him was driving the car at the time of the accident, see
Baxter v. Sonat Offshore Drilling, Inc. 734 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Griffin v. HCA Highland Hosp., Inc. 732 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Ctr., and that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the applicable doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur.
King v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF HEALTH 728 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Gibson v. Bossier City General Hosp., supra ; Pommier v. ABC Ins., Co., 97-1342 (La.App.
Pryor v. UNITED SERVICES AUTO. ASSOC. 729 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Pugh v. Beach 722 So. 2d 442 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Pommier v. ABC Ins. Co. 715 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Ctr., -66 (La.1989), on rehearing, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: In order to utilize the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur the plaintiff must establish a foundation of facts on which the doctrine may be applied.
Landry v. Clement 711 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Doctor's Standard of Care The standard of care owed to a patient by a
Smith v. Walker 708 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Lugar v. BATON ROUGE GEN. MED. CENTER 696 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Denton v. Critikon, Inc. 674 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
-666 (La.1989) (on rehearing).
Filasek v. Doctor's Hospital of Jefferson 673 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
A hospital must exercise “that amount of care required by a particular patient, and must protect that patient from external circumstances peculiarly within the hospital’s control.”
Rice v. ABC Ins. Co. 672 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Broussard v. Maki 664 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Compare Cangelosi v. Our Lady of the |2qLake Regional Medical Center, on rehearing
Smith v. Bundrick 663 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Goodliffe v. Parish Anesthesia Associates 663 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Ragas v. Dewey 663 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
the court held: That is, he must show by a preponderance of the evidence, or more probably than not, that he suffered the injury because of defendant’s conduct.
McCoy v. Calamia 653 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
“-66 (La.1989), on rehearing, the court discussed the requisite for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur: ‘In order to utilize the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur the plaintiff must establish a foundation of facts on which the doctrine may be applied.