DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Gauthier v. O'BRIEN, 618 So. 2d 825.

45 citing documents.

  • Daryel Ledet v. Jo-De Equipment Rental Co., Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    “A statutorily immune employer is free to enter into an indemnification agreement with persons who are potential third party tortfeasors.” Gauthier v. O’Brien, fn 9 (La.1993); Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 94-569 (La.
  • Ledet v. JO-DE EQUIPMENT RENTAL CO., INC. 34 So. 3d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    “A statutorily immune employer is free to enter into an indemnification agreement with persons who are potential third party tortfeasors.” Gauthier v. O’Brien, fn.
  • Ricks v. City of Shreveport 968 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    NOTES [1] Overruled on other grounds in Gauthier v. O'Brien, 92-2921 (La.5/24/93), ; superseded by 1996 amendment to La.
  • Rathey v. Priority EMS, Inc. 894 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    and third, they assert that the jury erred in failing to award Mrs. Rathey any loss of consortium damages.
  • Bujol v. Entergy Services, Inc. 833 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    At the time of the accident in the instant case, the ratio approach of Gauthier v. O'Brien , was mandated.
  • Trahan v. Asphalt Associates, Inc. 800 So. 2d 18 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • Castay v. ADM Growmark River Systems, Inc. 785 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    This question has been squarely addressed in Gauthier v. O’Brien
  • Fleniken v. Entergy Corp. 780 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Thereafter, the court overruled Guidry and determined that LSA-C.C.
  • Snearl v. Mercer 780 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    -29 (La.1993), the Supreme Court held that employer fault must be assessed in order to appropriately assess the fault of the third party tortfeasors, even though the employer would be statutorily immune from liability.
  • Jackson v. America's Favorite Chicken Co. 778 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • Grayson v. RB Ammon and Associates, Inc. 778 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Shortly thereafter, the Court overruled Guidry and determined that LSA-C.C.
  • Johnson v. Rogers & Phillips, Inc. 753 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING KIRBY, J. Plaintiff, Leonard Johnson, applies for a rehearing asserting that in our original opinion we failed to disregard the proportion of fault assessed to Plaintiffs statutorily immune co-employee and real-lot fault of all other blameworthy parties
  • Wingfield v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 716 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Gauthier v. O’Brien, overruled by Cavalier v. Cain’s Hydrostatic Testing, Inc., 94-1496 (La.6/30/95)
  • Glover v. Shiflett Transport Services, Inc. 718 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
  • Overruled Keith v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co. 694 So. 2d 180 La. 1997
    Shortly thereafter, we overruled Guidry and Melton , and determined that La.
  • Moore v. Safeway, Inc. 700 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Thornhill v. STATE DEPT. OF TRANSP. 676 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    [14] In reaching this conclusion, that quantification of employer fault either is suggested by LSA-C.C.P.
  • Green v. Claiborne Elec. Co-Op., Inc. 677 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    6/30/95), which had held that quantification of employer fault is suggested by LSA-C.C.P.
  • Clay v. International Harvester Co. 674 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Defendants also point out that the Cavalier case, holding which required the quantification of immune employer fault in third-party tort cases, was decided by the supreme court approximately three and one-half months after the trial of this matter.
  • LeBlanc v. Continental Grain Co., Inc. 672 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    infra, the trial judge apportioned liability thusly: LeBlanc-----------------------------8.4% Continental------------------------71.8% Port Commission---------------------9.8% Mitsui/Reserve/La Place-------------9.8% Dreyfus-------------------------------0% Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff and ag
  • Stockstill v. CF Industries, Inc. 665 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    The trial court then reapportioned NDT's fault between plaintiff and C.F., and concluded that C.F.'s reapportioned fault was 48.8%.
  • Duplantis v. Danos 664 So. 2d 1383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    [8] In reaching this conclusion, that quantification of employer fault either is suggested by LSA-C.C.P.
  • Lawrence v. Department of Transportation & Development 665 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    * * * * * * We reconsider and reject the holding in Gauthier [v. O’Brien, ] relative to mandatory quantification of employer fault.
  • Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc. 657 So. 2d 975 La. 1995
    The court of appeal, disregarded the employer's fault and reallocated fault solely to the only other tortfeasor.
  • Nealy v. LeBlanc 654 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    The trial court relied on our supreme court’s decision in Gauthier v. O’Brien, which held the jury is required to apportion fault between all persons, parties or not, who contributed to plaintiffs loss.
  • Ehrman v. Holiday Inns, Inc. 653 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates, Ltd. 650 So. 2d 712 La. 1995
  • Hoyt v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp. 651 So. 2d 1344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of BR 646 So. 2d 905 La. 1994
  • Hopper v. Crown 646 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Delery v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America 643 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    the trial judge reallocated the employer's fault between plaintiff and Ayrshire.
  • Nigreville v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Co. 642 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Wright v. State 639 So. 2d 258 La. 1994
    that the philosophical basis for worker's compensation schemes is grounded in the need for employers to provide in advance by means of insurance for the human injury involved in production.
  • Ball v. Bossier Rural Electric Membership Corp. 640 So. 2d 1382 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Myers v. Burger King Corp. 638 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testing, Inc. 637 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    In support of this contention, (La.
  • Landry ex rel. Landry v. Union Pacific Railroad 631 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    In Gauthier v. O’Brien, (La.
  • David v. Cajun Painting, Inc. 631 So. 2d 1176 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
  • Crane v. Exxon Corp., U.S.A. 633 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    This case is before us on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court “to reconsider the reduction of plaintiffs recovery in the light of Gauthier v. O’Brien,”
  • Lambert v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co. 629 So. 2d 328 La. 1993
    We are called on to decide whether the 1987 amendment to Civil Code article 2324 results in a change in this court's holding in Weber v. Charity Hospital of La.
  • Hoyt v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp. 625 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    See Vicky Gauthier v. William O'Brien, Jr., et al.
  • Lambert v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Ass'n 623 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    In Gauthier v. O’Brien, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that fault must be allocated to all who may be culpable because “[t]rue apportionment cannot be achieved unless that apportionment includes all tort[-]feasors guilty of causal negligence either causing or contributing to the occurrence in question, whether or not they
  • Crane v. Exxon Corp., U.S.A. 620 So. 2d 858 La. 1993
    The application is granted in part, and the case is remanded to the court of appeal to reconsider the reduction of plaintiffs recovery in the light of Gauthier v. O’Brien
  • Crane v. Exxon Corp., U.S.A. 620 So. 2d 858 La. 1993
    The application is granted in part, and the case is remanded to the court of appeal to reconsider the reduction of plaintiffs recovery in the light of Gauthier v. O’Brien
  • Crane v. Exxon Corp., U.S.A. 620 So. 2d 858 La. 1993
    *859 The application is granted in part, and the case is remanded to the court of appeal to reconsider the reduction of plaintiffs recovery in the light of Gauthier v. O’Brien