Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Miller v. City of New Orleans, 152 So. 141.

20 citing documents.

Scott v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOPMENT 392 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Garrett v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 235 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
App., ; Loubat v. City of New Orleans, La.App., ; Foster v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., Ltd., La.App., ; Bond v. City *166 of Baton Rouge, La.App., ; Miller v. City of New Orleans, La.App., ; James v. City of New Orleans, La.App., 121 So.
Hicks v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & Agricultural & Mechanical College 189 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
On the other hand, plaintiff’s counsel confidently depend upon our opinion in Miller v. City of New Orleans, supra [La.App., ], where we found that the plaintiff, in stepping from the curbing into the street at night and coming in contact with a broken metal strip or curbing binder, was not at fault in failing to observe the defect “Let us therefore compare the facts in the cited cases with those here presented.
Loubat v. City of New Orleans 185 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
425 , ; Miller v. City of New Orleans, La.App., ; Bond v. City of Baton Rouge, La.App., .)
Eble v. City of New Orleans 181 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
App., , we said: “* * * Pedestrians are not required to be constantly on the alert for possible dangers due to defective streets and need only see those dangers which are apparent and which would present themselves to the eye of a reasonably prudent person.
Mockosher v. City of Shreveport 155 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
that the patrolman testified that he knew of the condition of the pavement without proof, in fact in the face of a denial, that any communication to that effect had been made to the city authorities, will not be sufficient to establish notice of the condition of the pavement in the city so as to make them responsible for their failure to repair it.” And, in Miller v. City of New Orleans, La.App., (Orl.1934) the court remarked: “* * * Of course, the rule is that actual notice must be given to the
Williams v. City of New Orleans 146 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
879 ; Miller v. City of New Orleans, La.App., ; Kuntz v. City of New Orleans, La.App., .
Bond v. City of Baton Rouge 129 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
In this connection we note the following language appearing in Miller v. City of New Orleans, La.App., : "But, whatever views we may have entertained on the subject have been overwhelmed by study of the text-writers, who, without a discussion of the reasons which we have set forth and without a careful consideration of the possible reasons for distinguishing between the burden of proof in the case of constructive notic
Foster v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., Ltd. 129 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
286 ; Miller v. City of New Orleans, La.App., ; Landry v. New Orleans Public Service, La.App., 149 So.
Brown v. Parish of East Baton Rouge 126 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
566 ; and Miller v. City of New Orleans, La.App., .
Haindel v. Sewerage & Water Board 115 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Hogg v. Department of Highways of the State 80 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
This liability is reflected in Miller v. City of New Orleans, La.App.1934, , wherein it was held that to create such liability there must first exist a condition which is patently dangerous even to a reasonably careful and ordinarily prudent person, and in the second place even where the defect is obviously dangerous, the defendant must have actual or constructive notice thereof sufficiently
Hamilton v. City of Monroe 72 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
The case of Miller v. City of New Orleans, La.App., , also relied upon by plaintiffs, was discussed and distinguished from the aforesaid case of Ansley v. City of New Orleans cited by the defendant in the Parker v. City of New Orleans case.
Cobb v. Town of Winnsboro 49 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
566 ; and Miller v. City of New Orleans, La.App., .
Arceneaux v. Louisiana Highway Commission 5 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1941
In other words, the rule in suits against the State or against one of its political corporations, where immunity has been waived, is exactly the same as that which has been recognized in suits against municipalities, and that rule has been many times stated, notably in Miller v. City of New Orleans, La.App., , in which we said: "* * * Municipalities are liable only if the authorities have had actual or constructive knowledge * * *."
Parker v. City of New Orleans 1 So. 2d 123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
566 ; and Miller v. City of New Orleans, La.App., .
Carsey v. City of New Orleans 181 So. 819 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
It is definitely settled in the jurisprudence, , where all of the pertinent authorities on this subject are cited and discussed, that a municipal corporation is not responsible for the defective condition of its sidewalks “unless it has had actual notice of the existence of the defect sufficiently in advance of the accident to have had opportunity to make the
Ansley v. City of New Orleans 168 So. 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
in which the facts were remarkably similar to those which we find in this record, and in which we held the city of New Orleans liable, and in which we also held that Miller, the plaintiff, was not himself contributorily negligent.
Hebert v. City of New Orleans 163 So. 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Burns v. City of New Orleans 155 So. 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
1367, note 86, pp. 1384, 1388, and when the *62 city has actual or constructive knowledge of the defective condition.” , where the plaintiff sued for damages for personal injuries resulting from stumbling over the metal edging of a sidewalk curbing, this court said: “A municipality is, of course, not liable for the results of all defects in sidewalks, streets, or highways.