Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Trahan v. McManus, 728 So. 2d 1273.

41 citing documents.

Byron R. Poydras and Alicia R. Poydras, Individually and on Behalf of Their Son, Myles Christopher Poydras, Mason … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
Byron R. Poydras and Alicia R. Poydras, Individually and on Behalf of Their Son, Myles Christopher Poydras, Mason … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
Raven Boyance, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Child Rashawn Boyance v. United Fire & Casualty Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
3/2/99), (footnote omitted), the supreme court opined bystander damages are “to compensate for the immediate shock of witnessing a traumatic event which caused the direct victim immediate harm that is severe and apparent, but not to compensate for the anguish and distress that normally accompany an injury to a loved
Shaquana Harvey, Individually and in Her Capacity as the Natural Tutrix of Jaden Harvey v. Eric Wayne Hamby, … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
3/2/99), -80, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: The Legislature apparently intended to allow recovery of bystander damages to compensate for the immediate shock of witnessing a traumatic event which caused the direct victim immediate harm that is severe and apparent, but not to compensate for t
Richard and Patricia Pannell v. the City of Scott La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
Khiry Cosey on Behalf of Her Minor Children, Corbin Hilliard and Alyssa Hilliard Individually and on Behalf of … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
3/2/99), -80, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: The Legislature apparently intended to allow recovery of bystander damages to compensate for the immediate shock of witnessing a traumatic event which caused the direct victim immediate harm that is severe and apparent, but not to compensate for th
Dwayne Stanton v. Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Sigur Construction, LLC, Ausi Builders & Construction, LLC, Hotel Investors, LLC, and … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
an event causing injury to the injured person or have come upon the scene of the event soon thereafter; 3) the harm to the injured person must have been severe enough that one could reasonably expect the observer to suffer serious mental distress; and 4) the claimant must suffer emotional distress that is “severe, debilitating, and foreseeable.” Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224, p. 8, n. 6 (La.3/2/99), n. 6 7 Recognizing that La.
Koertge v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company 266 So. 3d 441 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
3/02/99, ; Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hosp.
Louise Theresa Doty v. Goauto Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
3/2/99), -80 (footnotes omitted).
Doty v. Goauto Ins. Co. 251 So. 3d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
3/2/99), , 1279-80 (footnotes omitted).
Cooper v. Patra 215 So. 3d 889 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
Perry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 209 So. 3d 308 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
3/2/99), , the Louisiana Supreme Court found the LMMA governed non-patient claims for mental anguish caused by negligence in the treatment of the patient.
Thalia Renfro v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rr La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3/2/99), (emphasis added), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that the requirements of a bystander claim under La.Civ.Code art. 2315.6: [S]uggest a need for temporal proximity between the tortious event, the victim’s observable harm, and the plaintiff’s mental distress arising from an awareness of t
Renfro v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. 193 So. 3d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Therefore, recovery will not be permitted for emotional distress when the plaintiff is merely informed of the matter after the accident....” Similarly, in Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224, pp. 11-12 (La.3/2/99), (emphasis added), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that the requirements of a bystander claim under La.Civ.Code art. 2315.6: [S]uggest a need for temporal proximity between the tortious event, the victim’s observable harm, and the plaintiff’s mental distress arising from an awareness of the
Latoya Castille, Individually v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Castille v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Ins. Co. 150 So. 3d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224 (La.3/2/99), .
Jenkins v. Washington & Wells, L.L.C. 86 So. 3d 666 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
As noted by the Supreme Court in Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224 (La.03/02/99), , 1279: The requirements of Article 2315.6, when read together, suggest a need for temporal proximity between the tortious event, the victim’s observable harm, and the plaintiffs mental distress arising from an awareness of the harm caused by the event.
Mickey Atkinson v. Lammico Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
3/2/99), although finding that the plaintiffs in that case could not recover bystander damages, the supreme court stated that claims for mental anguish could fall under the purview of the MMA, provided that the claims arose from the injury to or death of a patient.
Atkinson v. Lammico Insurance Co. 63 So. 3d 1176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224 (La.3/2/99), , although finding that the plaintiffs in that case could not recover bystander damages, the supreme court stated that claims for mental anguish could fall under the purview of the MMA, provided that the claims arose from the injury to or death of a patient.
Veroline v. Priority One EMS 18 So. 3d 1273 La. 2009
Reed v. St. Charles General Hospital 11 So. 3d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
See Tranhan v. McManus, 97-1224 (La.3/2/99), .
Robert Veroline, Jr. v. Priority One Ems La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
The trial court -1- reasoned that under the Supreme Court’s (La.
Jenkins v. WILLIS KNIGHTON MEDICAL CENTER 986 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Lejeune, supra; Trahan v. McManus, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/2/99), .
McGee v. AC AND S, INC. 933 So. 2d 770 La. 2006
Trahan v. McManus, et al., 97-1224 (La.3/2/99), at 1279 .
Royce Monk v. State of La., Dotd Consolidated With Dana Vezinat v. State of La., Dotd Consolidated With … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
t causing injury to the injured person or have come upon the scene of the event soon thereafter; 3) the harm to the injured person must have been severe enough that one could reasonably expect the observer to suffer serious mental distress; and 4) the claimant must suffer emotional distress that is “severe, debilitating, and foreseeable.” Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224, p. 8, n. 6 (La.3/2/99), n. 6.
Monk v. State Ex Rel. DOTD 908 So. 2d 688 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224, p. 8, n. 6 (La.3/2/99), n. 6 .
Guillot v. Doe 879 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
[25] Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224 (La.3/2/99), .
Melvin G. Guillot, Indiv. Etc v. John Doe, Indiv. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Held v. Aubert 845 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224, p. 8, n. 6 (La.3/2/99), n. 6 .
Higgins v. American National General Insurance 798 So. 2d 1078 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
P., art. 2315.6; Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224 (La.3/2/99), .
Louisiana Swabbing Ser. v. Enterprise Prod. Company 784 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
As pointed out by the supreme court in Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224, pp. 8-9 (La.3/2/99); , were we to apply the literal language of La.Civ.
Rauch v. Schiavi 772 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
In Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224 (La.3/2/99), , a medical malpractice case, the Supreme Court held that an award for mental anguish to bystanders is appropriate only in those cases, which satisfy the requirements of Civil Code Article 2315.6.
Bonar v. Bonar 768 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
[5] See Cutrer v. Mid-Continent Group, 99-1402 (La.7/2/99), (Lemmon, J., concurring in writ denial); Griggs v. Riverland Medical Center, 99-0385 (La.5/28/99), (Lemmon, J., concurring in writ denial); Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224 (La.3/2/99), , 1283 n. 4; In re Quirk, 97-1143 (La.12/12/97), , 182 n. 17; Tolis v. Board of Sup'rs of Louisiana State University, 95-1529 (La.10/16/95), ; Mohr v. Lloyds of London Ins.
Webb Construction, Inc. v. City of Shreveport 766 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
For the rejection of a similar theory, see Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224 (La.03/02/99), n. 4 .
Ruttley v. Lee 761 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
In Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224 (La.3/2/99), , the Supreme Court explained the requirements of recovering bystander damages, stating that: The requirements of Article 2315.6, when read together, suggest a need for temporal proximity between the tortious event, the victim's observable harm, and the plaintiffs mental distress arising from an awareness of the
Magee v. Pittman 761 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224, p. 8, n. 6 (La.3/2/99), n. 6 .
Ford v. STATE, EX REL. DOTD 760 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
3 Cir. 2/19/97) ; , reversed on factual grounds, 97-1224 (La.3/2/99); .
Higgins v. Fitzgerald 758 So. 2d 800 La. 2000
art. 2315.6; *801 Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224 (La.3/2/99), .
Precht v. Case Corp. 756 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Recovery of bystander damages was recently reviewed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224, p. 11 (La.3/2/99); (footnotes omitted), in which the Court observed: The requirements of Article 2315.6, when read together, suggest a need for temporal proximity between the tortious event, the victim's observable harm, and the plaintiff's mental distress arising from an awareness of the harm caused by the event.
Nelson v. RUSTON LONGLEAF NURSE CARE CTR. 751 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
See discussion in Trahan v. Mc-Manus, 97-1224 (La.03/02/99), ; and Lotz v. Ochsner Foundation *439 Hospital, (La.App.
Johns v. Agrawal 748 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Trahan v. Mc-Manus, 97-1224, p. 5 (La.3/2/99), .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by