Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad v. McEwen & Murray, Ltd., 22 So. 675.

22 citing documents.

Dixie Machine Welding & Metal Works, Inc. v. Illinois Central Railroad 285 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
1184, 1196 , , 38 L.R.A.
Larkin v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. 258 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
1184, 1196 , , 38 L.R.A.
Callender v. Wilson 162 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Spiers v. Consolidated Companies, Inc. 132 So. 2d 879 La. 1961
1184, 1196 , , 38 L.R.A.
Williams v. American Mutual Liability Insurance 121 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Hammons v. Illinois Central Railroad 119 So. 2d 846 La. 1960
Roca v. Prats 80 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Landry v. News-Star-World Pub. Corp. 46 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Anderson v. London Guarantee Accident Co. 36 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
Williams v. Pelican Creamery 30 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
R. Co., v. McEwen Murray, , 22 So.
Cassanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres 11 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Cottone v. Jones 7 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Riche v. Thompson 6 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
O'Neill v. Hemenway 3 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
1184, 1196 , , 33 L.R.A.
Cavaretta v. Universal Film Exchanges, Inc. 182 So. 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Holley v. Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. 165 So. 703 La. 1936
Drago v. Dorsey 126 So. 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
“Negligence consists in a failure to provide against the ordinary occurrences of life, and the fact that the provision made is insufficient as against an event such as may happen once in a lifetime, or perhaps twice in a century, does not, in my opinion, make out a case of negligence upon which an action in damages will lie.” N. O. & N. E. R. Co. vs. McEwen & Murray, , 22 So.
Lipscomb v. Standard Highway Co. 124 So. 156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
400 ; New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. vs. McEwen & Murray, p. 1196 , 22 So.
Smith v. City of Baton Rouge 119 So. 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
1184 , , 38 L. R. A. 134, we find a more formal and positive expression of the principle under discussion in the syllabus, which is as follows: *23 “A mere failure to guard against a certain result is not actionable negligence unless, under all the circumstances, it might have been reasonably foreseen by a man of ordinary in
Jones v. Jahncke Service, Inc. 3 La. App. 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
A mere failure to guard against a result which could not have been reasonably anticipated is not actionable negligence.” New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. vs. McEwen & Murray, , 22 South.
Shally v. N O. Public Service & Sewerage & Water Board 1 La. App. 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
Ann. 117 , the court said: “Negligence, in its common acceptation, is held to be the doing of something that a reasonable and prudent person would ordinarily not have done under the circumstances of the situation, or the omission to do something which a person of like character would have done under the- circumstances of the case.” This opinion was adopted in R. R. vs. Lumber Co., , 22 South.
Caillier v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co. 120 So. 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1921
New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. vs. McEwen & Murray, , 22 So.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by