Cited by

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

151 citing documents.

Graves v. Page 703 So. 2d 566 La. 1997
Grissette v. Thomas 704 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Oster v. Dept. of Transportation & Development, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
Goodliffe v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 702 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Myers v. State Farm Mutual Auto.
Townley v. City of Iowa 702 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Persilver at 1350 ; quoting Oster v. Department of Transportation and Development, State of Louisiana
Lee v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV. 701 So. 2d 676 La. 1997
Blanchard v. STATE, THROUGH PARKS & REC. COM'N 702 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Maxwell v. Board of Trustees for State Colleges and Universities, 96-1207 (La.App.
Blanchard v. State ex rel. Parks & Recreation Commission 702 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Maxwell v. Board of Trustees for State Colleges and Universities, 96-1207 (La.App.
Owens v. Concordia Elec. Co-Op., Inc. 699 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Lee v. Magnolia Garden Apartments 694 So. 2d 1142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Oster v. Department of Transportation and Development, State of Louisiana, Batiste, 634 So.2d at 896 .
Ebarb v. Guinn Bros. Inc. 691 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Maxwell v. Board of Trustees 692 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Migues v. City of Lake Charles 682 So. 2d 946 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Gray v. Economy Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. 682 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
& 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
Sallis v. City of Bossier City 680 So. 2d 1333 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Oster v. Dept. of Transportation and Development, State of Louisiana, Lutz v. City of Shreveport, 25,801 (La.App.
Summerville v. Louisiana Nursery Outlet, Inc. 676 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
-89 (La.1991); Batiste, 634 So.2d at 896 .
Mix v. Krewe of Petronius 675 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Jones v. Peyton Place, Inc. 675 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Oster v. Dept. of Transportation & Development, (footnote and citations omitted).
Shephard ex rel. Shephard v. Scheeler 674 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Gibson v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. 674 So. 2d 996 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Oster v. Dept. of Transp., & Dev.
Gibson v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 674 So. 2d 996 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Oster v. Dept. of Transp., & Dev.
Miller v. STATE, DOTD 679 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Moncla v. Albertson's Inc. 670 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Tullis v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 670 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Hebert v. Southwest La. Elec. Mem. Corp. 667 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
and Development, (La.App.
Phipps v. Amtrak 666 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
White v. Louviere 664 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Green v. City of Thibodaux 671 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Ortego v. Jefferson Davis Parish School Bd. 657 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Morell v. City of Breaux Bridge 660 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
& Development, *884 (La.App.
Tillman v. Johnson 652 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Scantlin v. State Farm Ins. Co. 652 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Bessard v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development 645 So. 2d 1134 La. 1994
& Development, , *1138 1288 (La.1991); Myers v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins.
DeLaughter v. West Jefferson Levee District 646 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Townsend v. Westinghouse Elevator Corporation 641 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Theriot v. Lasseigne 640 So. 2d 1305 La. 1994
Oster v. Department of Transportation & Development, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
Nicks v. Teche Elec. Co-Op. Inc. 640 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
In concluding that Teche's actions were a cause-in-fact of plaintiffs' injuries and that Teche owed a duty to keep the "clear recovery area" free of obstructions, the trial court relied principally upon Oster v. State, DOTD
Lutz v. City of Shreveport 637 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
1288 n. 4 (La.1991); , 164 n. 10 (La.App.
Krebs v. Roemer 636 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
at 1349-50 (quoting Oster v. Department of Transportation and Development, State of Louisiana, ).
Fisher v. River Oaks, Ltd. 635 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Batiste v. Bevan 634 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
*896 Oster v. Department of Transportation and Development, State of Louisiana
Landry v. City of Abbeville 625 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Burton v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, Inc. 623 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
See generally, (in property owner liability eases, strict liability differs from negligence in not requiring that defendant knew or should have known of unreasonably dangerous condition).
Tillman v. Johnson 612 So. 2d 70 La. 1993
Tillman v. Johnson 610 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Oster v. Department of Transportation & Development
Chaisson v. J.J.D. Inc. 613 So. 2d 308 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Bergeron v. Southeastern Louisiana University 610 So. 2d 986 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
In discussing the difference between these two theories of negligence, stated: LEGAL PRINCIPLES Plaintiff brought this suit essentially under negligence and strict liability theories.
Pool v. City of Shreveport 607 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Uhrbach v. Lin 601 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Oster v. Department of Transportation and Development, State of Louisiana
Thomas v. Petrolane Gas Service Ltd. 588 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Putman v. Gulf States Utilities 588 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
When determining the existence or scope of a duty, a court “should consider a broad range of social, economic, and moral factors including the cost to the defendant of avoiding the risk and the social utility of the plaintiff’s conduct at the time of the accident.” Oster v. Department of Transportation and Development, State of Louisiana, (La.