Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Oster v. Dept. of Transp. & Development, 582 So. 2d 1285.

151 citing documents.

Hector Ordonez and Celini Alonzo Ordonez, Individually and as the Natural Tutor (Trix) of the Minors, Kiara Ordonez … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
& Dev., State of La., (La.
William S. Walker v. Anco Insulations, Inc. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
and Development, State of La., (La.
Craig R. Short v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. individually and d/b/a RaceTrac John Doe, DEF Insurance Company, John Doe, … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
and Development, State of La., La.
Fred Tuckerson Versus Amtrust Insurance Company and Avondale Container Yard, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
Victoria Roach v. State of Louisiana, Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
& Development, -91 (La.1991).
Lisa Hill Versus Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
Johnson v. State Through Department of Transportation and Development 275 So. 3d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Primeaux v. Best W. Plus Houma Inn 274 So. 3d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
& Dev., State of La., , 1288 (La.
Marilyn Clark v. State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
& Development, -91 (La.1991).
Sonnier v. State 249 So. 3d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
& Development , , 1289-91 (La.
Williams v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 217 So. 3d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
& Dev., State of La., (La.
Virgil McCoy v. Town of Rosepine La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
& Dev., State of La., (ditch on shoulder of road readily discernable from a considerable distance and thus not unreasonably dangerous).
Kelli Fuselier v. City of Oakdale La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
See Oster v. DOTD, State of La.
Fuselier v. City of Oakdale 130 So. 3d 984 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See Oster v. DOTD, State of La.
Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Buildings 113 So. 3d 175 La. 2013
& Dev., State of La., (ditch on shoulder of road readily discernable from a considerable distance and thus not unreasonably dangerous).
Jerry Ramos v. State of La, Thru the Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Ramos v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 112 So. 3d 991 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Alexander v. Parish of St. John Baptist 102 So. 3d 904 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
Handy v. City of Kenner 97 So. 3d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
1 Cir. 3/30/12) , 2012 WL 1079182 , citing Oster v. Department of Transportation and Development, State of Louisiana
Franatovich v. St. Bernard Parish Government 88 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
and Development, State of La., 91-195 (La.6/21/91), , St.
Brooks v. State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation & Development 74 So. 3d 187 La. 2011
Jimenez v. OMNI ROYAL ORLEANS HOTEL 66 So. 3d 528 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
And Dev., State of Louisiana, and Burns, 10-0277, p. 8, 45 So.3d at 1158 .
Burns v. CLK Investments V, L.L.C. 45 So. 3d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
and Dev., State of Louisiana, (“Plaintiff brought this suit essentially under negligence and strict liability theories.
Michael and Christine Dauzat v. State of La., Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
and Dev., State of La., the supreme court stated: As to the area off the shoulder of the road, but within the right of way, DOTD owes a duty to maintain the land in such a condition that it does not present an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists using the adjacent roadway or to others, such as ped
Dauzat v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 28 So. 3d 1236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
and Dev., State of La., the supreme court stated: As to the area off the shoulder of the road, but within the right of way, DOTD owes a duty to maintain the land in such a condition that it does not present an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists using the adjacent roadway or to others, such as pedestrians, who are using t
Murphy v. City of New Orleans 25 So. 3d 956 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
and Dev., State of La., La.
Washington v. Consolidated Water Works District No. 1 of the Parish of Jefferson 28 So. 3d 287 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2009
& Dev., State of La., La.
Forbes v. Cockerham 5 So. 3d 839 La. 2009
& Development, -91 (La.1991).
Ann Welch v. State of La., Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
The Cowboy Connection, Inc. v. State of La., Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
& Dev., State of La., and Clark v. Hartford Acc.
Carol Gauthier v. City of New Iberia La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Gauthier v. City of New Iberia 940 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Butkiewicz v. Evans 943 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
& Dev., State of La., La.
Leonard v. Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc. 939 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Carl Harris Hesse v. Champ Service Line La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Hesse v. CHAMP SERVICE LINE 933 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
& Development, the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the difference between negligence and strict liability: In essence, the only difference between the negligence theory of recovery and the strict liability theory of recovery is that the plaintiff need not prove the defendant was aware of the existence of the "defect" un
Granda v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. 935 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Brown, 707 So.2d at 1242 ; -91 (La.1991).
Clifford C. Baker, Et Ux. v. State of La, Dept. of Health and Human Resources La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Baker v. State, Dept. of Health & Human Resources 921 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Sevin v. Parish of Plaquemines 901 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
and Dev., (citing Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
De La Cruz v. Riley 895 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Johnson v. City of Monroe 870 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
& Dev., State of La.
Thomas v. SISTERS OF CHARITY OF INCAR. WORD 870 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Goll v. Bugsy's Bar & Grill, Inc. 870 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
|sIn Oster v. Department of Transportation and Development, State of Louisiana, the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed as follows the *346 consideration to be given to the social utility of a thing in determining whether the thing creates an unusual risk of harm: Although courts, including this court, have described the unreasonable risk of harm criterion as requiring the court to balan
O'CONNOR v. Litchfield 864 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Temple v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 858 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
The criterion for a finding of unreasonable risk of harm “entails a myriad of considerations and cannot be applied mechanically.” Oster v. Department of Transportation and Development, State of Louisiana
Temple v. STATE EX REL. DOTD 858 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Oster v. Department of Transportation and Development, State of Louisiana
Wiley v. Sanders 850 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
& Dev., Ebarb v. Guinn Bros., Inc., 31,426 (La.App.2d Cir.1/20/99), .
Woodbury v. DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOPMENT 848 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Joseph v. City of New Orleans 842 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
& Dev., State of La., La.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by