DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

173 citing documents.

  • Richard v. Wijayasuriya 645 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Clark v. Lockhart 638 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Leyva v. IBERIA GENERAL HOSP. 634 So. 2d 1297 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    667 n. 11 (La.1989), explained the plaintiff's burden under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as follows: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in medical malpractice actions under the same conditions as in other negligence actions, with the same elements needed to establish the foundation facts for invoking the
  • Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. AMI-Electrical & Hoist Service 637 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Cay v. STATE, DOTD 631 So. 2d 393 La. 1994
    (on rehearing); W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 39 (5th ed. 1984).
  • State Farm v. Wrap-On Co. 626 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Boudreaux v. American Insurance Company, 262 La.
  • Orgeron v. Lafourche Parish Hospital District No. 1 625 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    -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.
  • Orgeron v. LAFOURCHE PARISH HOSP. DIST. 625 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    -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.
  • Cherry v. Herques 623 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Ctr., (on rehearing), -66 (La.1989), discussed the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in medical malpractice cases.
  • Bourgeois v. McDonald 622 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    Cangelosi v. Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical *689 Center, is inapposite.
  • LaCombe v. Dr. Walter Olin Moss Reg. Hosp. 617 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Ctr., -666 (La.1989) outlined the proper application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a medical malpractice case: Negligence on the part of the defendant may be proved by circumstantial evidence alone when that evidence establishes, more probably than not, that the injury was of a kind which ordinarily does not o
  • Lantier v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 614 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • Godeaux v. Rayne Branch Hospital 606 So. 2d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Martin v. East Jefferson General Hosp., supra [ (La.App.
  • Arant v. St. Francis Medical Center, Inc. 605 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • Spott v. Otis Elevator Co. 601 So. 2d 1355 La. 1992
  • Gatti v. City of Shreveport 599 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • Gibson v. Bossier City General Hosp. 594 So. 2d 1332 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Miller v. Leonard 588 So. 2d 79 La. 1991
    on rehearing; Jordan v. Travelers Ins.
  • Leger v. Citron Ford, Inc. 589 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • Explained Martin v. East Jefferson General Hosp. 582 So. 2d 1272 La. 1991
    In holding that the plaintiff failed to prove causation
  • Moore v. Healthcare Elmwood, Inc. 582 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
    Martin v. East Jefferson General Hosp., supra.
  • Martin v. East Jefferson General Hospital 571 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    (on rehearing) the court noted that in any negligence action, regardless of the circumstances of the case, “the plaintiff must still sustain the burden of proving that his injuries were more likely than not the result of the defendant’s negligence” (at 665).
  • Seals v. Gosey 565 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    Because the instant case involved the use of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, [1] we find the following discussion from the recent decision of Cangelosi v. Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center, on rehearing, particularly instructive in regard to the plaintiff's burden of proof, the application of res ipsa loquitur and the permissible inferences which may be drawn from the evidence.