92-C-2079 Precedential Processed

Dye v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc.

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed November 20, 1992 · 607 So. 2d 564

Also decided on this docket: La., December 21, 1992 609 So. 2d 248; La., December 21, 1992 609 So. 2d 248

Cited by

State v. Waldrop 93 So. 3d 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Gage 965 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Taylor 880 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Fuller 759 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Finch 733 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Roger v. Dufrene 718 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Courtney 714 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Hattaway 674 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Kiefer v. Yellon 646 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Bosse v. Westinghouse Elec., Inc. 637 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Carmen v. Gonzalez 637 So. 2d 1108 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Vicknair v. Dimitryadis 640 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994

all 17 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Dye v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc. 599 So. 2d 412
Harris v. Pizza Hut of Louisiana, Inc. 455 So. 2d 1364
Picou v. Ferrara 483 So. 2d 915
Smith v. Travelers Ins. Co. 430 So. 2d 55
Gonzales v. Xerox Corp. 320 So. 2d 163

Opinion text

607 So.2d 564 (1992) Robert DYE, Robert Dye, III and Lowell Dye v. SCHWEGMANN GIANT SUPER MARKETS, INC. No. 92-C-2079. Supreme Court of Louisiana. November 20, 1992. Rehearing Denied December 21, 1992. *565 PER CURIAM. Judgment of the court of appeal, 599 So.2d 412 , is vacated and set aside. The jury instruction was an incorrect statement of the law under Harris v. Pizza Hut of Louisiana, Inc., 455 So.2d 1364 (La.1984). Since the jury was erroneously instructed and this error probably contributed to the verdict, the verdict must be set aside on appeal. Picou v. Ferrara, 483 So.2d 915 (La.1986); Smith v. Travelers Ins. Co., 430 So.2d 55 (La.1983). Such a finding "prohibits the reviewing court's use of the manifest error rule when the jury's factual findings favorable to the prevailing party have been tainted." Picou, 483 So.2d at 918 . Accordingly, the court of appeal in the present case erred in applying the manifest error rule to the jury's finding. The case is remanded to the court of appeal to make an independent determination of the facts from the record without according any weight whatsoever to the factual findings of the erroneously instructed jury. Gonzales v. Xerox Corp., 320 So.2d 163 (La. 1975).