Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Martinez v. Bernhard, 106 La. 368.

21 citing documents.

Pepper v. Triplet 864 So. 2d 181 La. 2004
Holland v. Buckley 305 So. 2d 113 La. 1974
Cabaness v. Mascarella 203 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Though, according to some of the French commentators, he is limited to this rebuttal to showing vis major or contributory negligence on the part of the party injured, it would seem that, according to Justice Breaux’s opinion in the Martinez case [ , 30 So.
Marsh v. Snyder 113 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
50 ; contra, Martinez v. Bernhard, 1901, , 30 So.
Blanchard v. Thibodeaux 44 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
“ ‘The owner of a domestic animal is not liable for any injury committed by it when he shows affirmatively that the animal was not previously vicious and that he had no knowledge that it was vicious.’ [ 30 So.
Willis v. Schuster 28 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Reverting to Louisiana Jurisprudence, , 30 So.
Moore v. Smith 6 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Matthews v. Gremillion 174 So. 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
There can be no escape from the conclusion that the driver was in fault in leaving the *707 horse loose in the street while he was chasing his hat.” , 30 So.
Tripani v. Meraux 165 So. 453 La. 1936
390 , it was held that the owner of a horse was not liable for damages done by the horse, where the owner was not guilty of any fault or negligence in the ownership or managment of the horse; and, , 30 So.
Smith v. Michel 158 So. 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Abraham v. Castille 158 So. 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
hough it relieved the owner of liability for damage caused by his mule that was roaming at large on the highway, recognized the rule, as laid down in several decisions of the Supreme Court, to the effect that the “owner of any animal is responsible for damage caused by it, if there is proof of any negligence, however slight.” , 30 So.
Woulfe v. D'Antoni 158 So. 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Johnson v. Butterworth 157 So. 121 La. 1934
Fine v. Hiller 146 So. 50 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Demarco v. Gober 140 So. 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
599, 600 , the court referred to the leading ease on this subject, , 30 So.
Perez-Sandi v. Berges 125 So. 185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
to hold the owner responsible.” Subsequent adjudications by our Supreme Court have not affected the views expressed in Delisle vs. Bourriague, supra Martinez vs. Bernhard, , 30 So.
Hatcher v. Burlett 119 So. 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
We are referred to Martinez et al. vs. Bernhard, , 30 So.
Manuel v. Young 119 So. 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
20, page *675, and Martinez vs. Bernhardt, , 30 So.
Mercer v. Marston 3 La. App. 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
Martinez vs. Bernhard, , 30 South.
Gillespie v. Blaise 3 La. App. 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
m done without being allowed to make the abandonment.” This Article ■ is taken from Article 1385 of the Code Napoleon, which reads as follows: “The owner of an animal, or the one using it, while he is using it, is responsible for the damage causea by the animal, whether the animal was under his care or whether it had strayed or escaped.” The leading case upon the subject is Martinez vs. Bernhard, , 30 South.
Bentz v. Page 39 So. 599 La. 1905
Defendant relies on the Martinez Case, , 30 South.