Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 648 So. 2d 331.

34 citing documents.

Ivy Cavalier and Ashley Rene Carbo Versus St. James Parish, Star Pipe Products, Ltd., Star Pipe USA, LLC, … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
12/8/94), or as one who “possesses more than a general knowledge of the product and how it is used.” Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc., 96-525 (La.
Jimmy Williams, Sr. v. Placid Oil Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
12/8/94), or as one who “possesses more than a general knowledge of the product and how it is used.” Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc., 96-525, p. 44 (La.App.
Marable v. Empire Truck Sales of Louisiana, LLC 221 So. 3d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Sudderth v. Mariner Electric Co. 193 So. 3d 552 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Arms Co., 94-455 (La.12/8/94), ; Morris v. United Servs.
Falcon v. Ink's Firestone of Monroe 186 So. 3d 188 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
See, Caserta v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 12-0853 (La.06/22/12), 90 So.Sd 1042; Hines v. Remington Arms Cp., Inc., 94-0455 (La.12/08/94), ; Montgomery, supra; Sanders v. Posi-Seal International, 93-1007 (La.App.
Thomas Nearhood v. Fitness Partners of Pineville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
A sophisticated user is defined as one who is “familiar with the product,” Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 94-455, p. 10 (La.12/8/94), or as one who “possesses more than a general knowledge of the product and how it is used.” Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc., 96-525, p. 44 (La.App.
Triche v. McDonald's Corp. 164 So. 3d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Charles D. Isgitt v. State Farm Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Isgitt v. State Farm Ins. Co. 156 So. 3d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Co., Inc., 94-455 (La.12/8/94), .
Wilbert Bates, Et Ux. v. E. D. Bullard Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
12/8/94), or as one who “possesses more than a general knowledge of the product and how it is used.” Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc., 96-525, p. 44 (La.App.
Bates v. E.D. Bullard Co. 76 So. 3d 111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
A sophisticated user is defined as one who is “familiar with the product,” Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 94-455, p. 10 (La.12/8/94), , or as one who “possesses more than a general knowledge of the product and how it is used.” Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc., 96-525, p. 44 (La.App.
STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. IN. v. Ford Motor Co. 925 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 94-0455, p. 6 (La.12/08/94), .
Warren v. Sabine Towing and Transp. Co. 831 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 94-0455 (La.12/8/94), .
Cowart v. Avondale Industries, Inc. 792 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
4 Cir.1984), Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 94-0455 (La.12/8/94), .
Johnson v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport 792 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
3 Cir.1993), reversed on other grounds, 94-455 (La.12/8/94); .
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co. 772 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., 94-455, p. 6 (La.12/8/94); .
Morris v. United Services Auto. Ass'n 756 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., 94-0455 (La.12/8/94), ; Taylor v. American Laundry Mach., Inc., 27,121 (La.App.2d Cir. 6/23/95), , writ denied, 95-1877 (La.11/3/95), .
Arbon v. Charbonnet 761 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 94-0455 (La.12/8/94), .
Hooker v. Super Products Corp. 751 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 94-0455 (La.12/08/94), ; Taylor v. American Laundry Machinery, Inc. 27,121 (La.App.
Thomas v. Sport City, Inc. 738 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., 94-0455 (La.12/08/94), ; Johnson, supra ; Taylor v. American Laundry Machinery, Inc., 27,121 (La.
Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc. 726 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Johnston, supra, at 37; see also Hines v. Remington Arms Co. Inc., 94-0455 (La.12/8/94), .
Ballam v. Seibels Bruce Ins. Co. 712 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
E.g., Hines v. Remington Arms Company, Inc., 94-0455 (La.12/8/94), ; Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Dept. Ambulance Service, 93-3099, 93-3110, 93-3112 (La.7/5/94), .
Johnson v. Black & Decker US, Inc. 701 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Hines v. Remington Arms Co., 94-0455 (La.12/8/94), ; Taylor v. American Laundry Mach., Inc., 27,121 (La.App.2d Cir. 6/23/95), , writ denied 95-1877 (La.11/3/95), .
Nichols v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 698 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
In Hines v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 94-0455 (La.12/8/94); , the court stated that whether a product is unreasonably dangerous is a question of fact subject to the manifest error standard.
Medice v. Delchamps, Inc. 694 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
E.g., Hines v. Remington Arms Co. Inc., No. 94-C-0455 (La.12/8/94), .
Hataway v. Jeep Corp. 679 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
12/8/94), , the supreme court stated "Whether a product is unreasonably dangerous, and thereby is defective, is a question of fact to be made by the fact finder.
Osborne v. Vulcan Foundry, Inc. 675 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
12/8/94), , that a manufacturer has a duty to provide an adequate warning of dangers inherent in the normal use of its product not within the knowledge of or obvious to the ordinary user.
Downs v. RTS Sec., Inc. 670 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
12/8/94), [The manufacturer of gunpowder was not liable because the "gunpowder acted as expected" when the claimant accidently fired his rifle into a container full of gunpowder].
Hefner v. Wilson Inn, Inc. 665 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Taylor v. American Laundry MacHinery, Inc. 658 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Smith v. Morehouse General Hosp. 658 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Delphen v. Dept. of Transp. & Dev. 657 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Stark v. National Tea Co. 655 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Young v. Logue 660 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995