Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So. 2d 1032.

308 citing documents.

Colgate v. Mughal Bros., Inc. 836 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
McGuire v. New Orleans City Park Imp. Ass'n 835 So. 2d 416 La. 2003
Co., 98-2208 (La.1999); ; Stroik v. Ponseti, 96-2897 (La.9/9/97); ; Mathieu v. Imperial Toy Corp., 94-0952 (La.11/30/94); ; Berry v. State Through Dep't of Health and Human Resources, 93-2748 (La.5/23/94)
Conner v. Stelly 830 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Dumas v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF CULT., REC. 828 So. 2d 530 La. 2002
Pillow v. Entergy Corp. 828 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Hebert v. ANCO Insulation, Inc. 835 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Cornish v. Doctors Care, LLC 819 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Louviere v. Louviere 839 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
In applying the limitation of liability issues and considering whether "too much else has intervenedtime, space, people, and bizareness," Perkins, 756 So.2d at 412-413 , (quoting Robertson, 34 La.L.Rev.
Haydin v. Crescent Guardian, Inc. 818 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
is perhaps the lead Supreme Court case setting forth negligence criteria and the “ease of association” theory: The standard negligence analysis we employ in determining whether to impose liability under Civil Code Article 2315 is the duty-risk analysis, which consists of the following four-prong inquiry: *10
Satterwhite v. Reilly 817 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 00-1372 (La.3/23/01), ; see also
Clark v. GB Cooley Service 813 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank & Trust Company 816 So. 2d 270 La. 2002
Thompson v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 812 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Hardy v. Foti 812 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Teel v. State, DOTD, 96-0592, pp. 9-10 (La.10/15/96), ; -42 (La.1991).
Joseph v. Entergy 811 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
-42 (La.1992), states the standard of negligence to impose liability under La.
Waters v. Coleman 803 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Pardue v. AT&T TELEPHONE CO. 799 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Arthur v. City of DeRidder 799 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
*592 “Every negligence case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances.” citing Foggin v. General Guaranty Ins.
Barr v. Jacobson 795 So. 2d 1244 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
(on rehearing), there is no “rule” for determining legal cause or the scope of the duty; this inquiry is fact sensitive and ultimately turns on a question of policy as to how far afield coverage should be extended.
Smith v. Roussel 809 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Myers v. Dronet 801 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Millet v. Treasure Chest Casino LLC 788 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
Louisiana Swabbing Ser. v. Enterprise Prod. Company 784 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Berg v. Zummo 786 So. 2d 708 La. 2001
King v. Danna 784 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Co., 33,026 (La.App.2d Cir.5/15/00)
Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern RR 786 So. 2d 682 La. 2001
Abadie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 784 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
Perkins v. Entergy Corp. 782 So. 2d 606 La. 2001
Short v. Plantation Management Corp. 781 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
CLECO CORP. v. Johnson 775 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
That test, it asserts, is whether there is an ease of association between the duty breached and the damages sustained, (La.
Darby v. Wal-Mart, Inc. 775 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Scott v. Pyles 770 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
LeBlanc v. Stevenson 770 So. 2d 766 La. 2000
a case that dealt heavily with the concept of legal cause, we find that the court of appeal did not err in finding Stevenson liable for LeBlanc's injury.
Nunez v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 774 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Roberts [v. Benoit, ,] 1056 [(La.
Westmoreland v. City of Natchitoches 771 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Mathieu v. Imperial Toy Corp., 94-952 (La.11/30/94), -322
Task v. Gates 770 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
[The plaintiff's] allegations that the [defendants] were negligent is subject to a duty-risk analysis
Bacas v. Falgoust 760 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Lawrence v. City of Kenner 761 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Sommer v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. DEVELOPMENT 758 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
analyzed legal cause in terms of "proximate cause" and "cause in fact" and concluded that Louisiana has merged the two into an "ease of association" test.
Holloway v. Midland Risk Ins. Co. 759 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Paul v. LOUISIANA STATE EMPLOYEES'GROUP 762 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Keller v. Odin Management, Inc. 762 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Perkins v. Entergy Corp. 756 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Sommer v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 758 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
analyzed legal cause in terms of “proximate cause” and “cause in fact” and concluded that Louisiana has merged the two into an “ease of association” test.
LeBlanc v. Stevenson 756 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Precht v. Case Corp. 756 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
-45 (La.1991), the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed at length the concept of scope of protection, stating: [T]he scope of duty inquiry is ultimately a question of policy as to whether the particular risk falls within the scope of the duty....
Lichti v. Schumpert Medical Center 750 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Brasseaux v. Town of Mamou 752 So. 2d 815 La. 2000
Joseph v. Dickerson 754 So. 2d 912 La. 2000
Teel v. State, DOTD, 96-0592, pp. 9-10 (La.10/15/96), ; -42 (La.
Robertson v. State 747 So. 2d 1276 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999