Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, Light & Waterworks Co., 35 So. 731.

22 citing documents.

Tassin v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 191 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
An early case applying the doctrine to electric power lines is Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, Light & Waterworks Company, , 35 So.
Thomas v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 128 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
880 , ; Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, *326 Light and Waterworks Company, 1903, , 35 So.
Stansbury v. Mayor and Councilmen of Morgan City 84 So. 2d 445 La. 1955
This conclusion was rejected by this Court in the cases of Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, Light & Waterworks Co., , 35 So.
Leigh v. Johnson-Evans Motors 75 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
977 ; Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, etc., Co., , 35 So.
Calton v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 56 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1952
103 ; Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, Light & Waterworks Company, Ltd., , 35 So.
Spillars v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 49 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
In the case of Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, Light & Waterworks Co., 111 La, 522, , 64 L.R.A.
Olivedell Planting Co. v. Town of Lake Providence 47 So. 2d 23 La. 1950
826, 827 , we stated: “Where one is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of an inherently dangerous agency, he is charged with the duty of exercising the utmost degree of caution, to the end that harm may not come to others.” In Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, Light & Waterworks Co., , 35 So.
Pacific Fire Ins. v. Eunice Motor Car Co. 46 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
977 ; Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, Light & Waterworks Co., , 35 So.
Short v. Central Louisiana Electric Co. 36 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
In Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, Light Waterworks Co., Ltd., , 35 So.
Scott v. Claiborne Electric Cooperative 13 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
It is also followed in Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, Light Water Works Company, Ltd., -531, 35 So.
Gershner v. Gulf Refining Co. 171 So. 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
892 ; Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, etc., Co., , 35 So.
Jones v. Shell Petroleum Corporation 171 So. 447 La. 1936
977 ; Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice etc., Co., , 35 So.
Freibert v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 159 So. 767 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
In Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, Light & Waterworks Co., , 35 So.
Kendall v. People's Gas & Fuel Co. 158 So. 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
347 ; Hebert v. Lake Charles I., L. & W. Company, , 35 So.
Ledet v. Lockport Power & Light Co. 132 So. 272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
In Hebert v. Lake Charles Ice, Light & Waterworks Co., Ltd., , 35 So.
Livaudais v. Black 127 So. 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
731 , 54 L. R. A. 420; Hebert vs. Lake Charles Ice, Light & Waterworks Co., , 35 So.
Haight v. New Orleans Public Service Inc. 2 La. App. 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
103 ; Herbert vs. Lake Charles Ice Light and Waterworks Co., , 35 South.
Babin v. Sewerage & Water Board 2 La. App. 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
703 ; Herbert vs. Lake Charles, , 35 South.
Bellocq v. Hotel De Soto Co. 6 Pelt. 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1919
Herbert vs Lake Charles Ice, Light & Water Works Co., .
Elias v. Mayor of New Iberia 69 So. 141 La. 1915
Moren v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co. 52 So. 106 La. 1910
w that wires for the telephone service were continually being strung, and, since there was joint occupancy of the street by the two companies with their poles and wires and servants, it was all the more incumbent upon that one of the companies whose wires carried the deadly current to see to it that its transmission was effected with safety to all concerned.” In Hebert v. Lake Charles, etc., Co., , 35 South.
Simmons v. Shreveport Gas, Electric Light & Power Co. 41 So. 248 La. 1906

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by