Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Westerfield v. Levis Bros., 43 La. Ann. 63.

24 citing documents.

Kahn v. Shreveport Railways Co. 161 So. 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Wise v. Eubanks 159 So. 161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
A child of the age of deceased is prima facie incapable of contributory negligence ( , 9 So.
Johnson v. Butterworth 157 So. 121 La. 1934
O'Pry v. Berdon 149 So. 287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
In going extensively over that subject in that ease, , 9 So.
Marquette v. Cangelosi 148 So. 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
It is conceded by counsel for plaintiffs, if we have a proper appreciation of their brief, , 9 So.
Pigott v. Bates 143 So. 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Whether a child may be guilty of contributory negligence “depends upon the particular circumstances of each case and must be determined in connection with his age and ability to judge of the conditions.” , 9 So.
Tabary v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 142 So. 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Bridwell v. Butler 139 So. 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Ledet v. Lockport Power & Light Co. 132 So. 272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
472 , the court held: “While a boy of twelve years of age may be guilty of contributory negligence which bars recovery, he is not to be held to the same degree of care, prudence' and circumspection that a full grown person is.” , 9 So.
Drago v. Dorsey 126 So. 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
“A child of the age of five years and seven months is prima facie incapable of contributory negligence.” Westerfield vs. Levis, , 9 So.
Embry v. Reserve Natural Gas Co. 12 La. App. 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
It was said in Westerfield vs. Levis, , 9 South.
Hunt v. Rundle 120 So. 696 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
106; Westerfield vs. Levis, , 9 So.
Ford v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 8 La. App. 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
(1) The basis of this position is, that the evidence establishing that Charlie Ford was thirteen years of age and intelligent, he was capable of being guilty of negligence; citing Westerfield vs. Levis, , 9 South.
Smith v. City of Baton Rouge 119 So. 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
992 ; Westerfield vs. Lewis Bros., , 9 So.
Shally v. N O. Public Service & Sewerage & Water Board 1 La. App. 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
Westerfield vs. Levis Bros., , 9 South.
Williams v. Missouri Pac. R. 99 So. 286 La. 1924
Hebert v. Baton Rouge Electric Co. 91 So. 406 La. 1922
Palermo v. Orleans Ice Mfg. Co. 58 So. 589 La. 1912
As to a dangerous machine, , 9 South.
Cook v. Louisiana & N. W. R. 58 So. 767 La. 1912
Danna v. City of Monroe 55 So. 741 La. 1911
Davidson v. Illinois Cent. R. 49 So. 1015 La. 1909
Cusimano v. City of New Orleans 49 So. 195 La. 1909
As relates to the responsibility of children for their acts, , 9 South.
Karstendiek v. Jackson Brewing Co. 48 So. 958 La. 1909
Rice v. Crescent City Railroad 24 So. 791 La. 1899