Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Delisle v. Bourriague, 105 La. 77.

28 citing documents.

Pepper v. Triplet 864 So. 2d 181 La. 2004
Parker v. Hanks 345 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Holland v. Buckley 305 So. 2d 113 La. 1974
The first three decisions to discuss the basis of an owner's liability for the harm done by his animal, all happened to concern damage done by a dog known to be vicious: , 29 So.
Adkins v. Fireman's Fund Insurance 296 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
urt of appeal, the result is correct.” In concurring in the denial of the writs, Justice Tate stated: “La.Civil Code Art. 23 [2] 1, according to its original intent, provides strict liability for the keepers of animals which injure humans, with the burden upon him to exculpate himself from the presumption of fault by showing fortuitous event or the imprudence of the victim, , 29 So.
Reech v. Bodin 286 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
"Authority: Delisle v. Bouriague [Bourriague], , 29 So.
Cox v. Reliance Insurance Company 284 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
Art. 2321 [1] and the interpretation given to that *371 , 29 So.
Chatman v. Martin 245 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1971
Rolen v. Maryland Casualty Company 240 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1970
Rolen v. Maryland Casualty Company 241 So. 2d 252 La. 1970
La.Civil Code Art. 231, according to its original intent, provides strict liability for the keepers of animals which injure humans, with the burden upon him to exculpate himself from the presumption of fault by showing fortuitous event or the imprudence of the victim, , 29 So.
Cabaness v. Mascarella 203 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
trayed more than a day, he may discharge himself from this responsibility, by abandoning him to the person who has sustained the injury; except where the master has turned loose a dangerous or noxious animal, for then he must pay for all the harm done, without being allowed to make the abandonment.” In interpretation of the above quoted article, we find in the case of Delisle v. Bourriaque (1901) , 29 So.
Tamburello v. Jaeger 184 So. 2d 544 La. 1966
e for the damage he has caused; but if the animal had been lost, or had strayed more than a day, he may discharge himself from this responsibility, by abandoning him to the person who has sustained the injury; except where the master has turned loose a dangerous or noxious animal, for then he must pay for all the harm done, without being allowed to make the abandonment.” , 29 So.
Marsh v. Snyder 113 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
[4] DeLisle v. Bourriague, 1901, , 29 So.
Willis v. Schuster 28 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
The complement of this general rule was also stated by the Court, that the slightest fault or negligence on the part of the owner of the animal is sufficient to impose liability for its misconduct, , 29 So.
Thornton v. Peak 191 So. 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Tripani v. Meraux 165 So. 453 La. 1936
Woulfe v. D'Antoni 158 So. 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Johnson v. Butterworth 157 So. 121 La. 1934
White v. Sens 127 So. 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
De Lisle vs. Bourriague, , 29 So.
Livaudais v. Black 127 So. 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
290 ; Delisle vs. Bourriague, , 29 So.
Perez-Sandi v. Berges 125 So. 185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
In Delisle vs. Bourriague, , 29 So.
Matthews v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. 120 So. 907 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Manuel v. Young 119 So. 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
The Court held that such was the rule in Delisle vs. Bourriague, , 29 So.
Moulin v. Monteleone 115 So. 447 La. 1927
Mercer v. Marston 3 La. App. 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
Delisle vs. Bourriague, , 22 South.
Kerner v. Trans-Mississippi Terminal R. Co. 104 So. 740 La. 1925
Clarke v. Natal 71 So. 149 La. 1916
Flash v. Louisiana Western R. 68 So. 636 La. 1915
Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, Light & Waterworks Co. 35 So. 731 La. 1903

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by