DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bentz v. Page, 39 So. 599.

36 citing documents.

  • Snyder v. Bergeron 501 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Holland v. Buckley 305 So. 2d 113 La. 1974
    (2) Those which held that the harm caused by the animal created a presumption of fault on the part of its owner, which placed a burden upon the owner to show that he was free to even the slightest fault: , 39 So.
  • Cabaness v. Mascarella 203 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    The plaintiff relies on the cases of Bentz v. Page (1905) , 39 So.
  • Mercadel v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Company 144 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    On the dog's friendly attitude toward neighborhood children and yet his different disposition toward strangers, 562 , 39 So.
  • Kennedy v. Frierson 142 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
    This principle has been enunciated in numerous cases, , 39 So.
  • Colomb v. McDonald 131 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
  • Parker v. Young 122 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    A fortiori, the burden of proof is on the owner to show that he was without the slightest fault and did all that was possible to prevent the injury, , 39 So.
  • Briley v. Mitchell 110 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    on this article, consistently, by this court, is that ' the owner of an animal is liable for damages done by the animal only in cases where the owner was guilty of some fault or negligence in his ownership or possession of the animal.’ A fortiori, the burden of proof is on the owner to show that he was without the slightest fault and did all that was possible to prevent the injury, , 39 So.
  • Harris v. Roy 108 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
  • Leigh v. Johnson-Evans Motors 75 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
  • Ansardi v. Potter 71 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1954
    upon this article, consistently, by this court, is that the owner of an animal is liable for damages done by the animal only in cases where the owner was guilty of some fault or negligence in his ownership or possession of the animal.’ A fortiori, the burden of proof is on the owner to show that he was without the slightest fault and did all that was possible to prevent the injury, , 39 So.
  • Alfred v. Lee 71 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
  • Stinson v. Robinson 68 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    That article prescribes that ‘the owner of an animal is answerable for the damage he has caused.’ In construing that provision the Supreme Court has on two occasions, at least, emphasized this liability in placing the burden on ■ the owner of the animal ‘to show that he was without the slightest fault and did all that was possible to prevent the injury.’ ” , 39 So.
  • Raziano v. TJ James & Co. 57 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    A fortiori, the burden of proof is on the owner to show that he was without the slightest fault and did all that was possible to prevent the injury, , 39 So.
  • Pacific Fire Ins. v. Eunice Motor Car Co. 46 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
  • Blanchard v. Thibodeaux 44 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
  • Willis v. Schuster 28 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
  • Moore v. Smith 6 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
  • Boudreau v. Louviere 178 So. 173 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1938
    That article prescribes that “the owner of an animal is answerable for the damage he' has caused.” In construing that provision the Supreme Court-has on two occasions, at least, emphasized this liability in placing the burden on the owner of the animal “to show that he was without the slightest fault and did all that was possible to prevent the injury.” , 39 So.
  • Matthews v. Gremillion 174 So. 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
  • Gershner v. Gulf Refining Co. 171 So. 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
    Some of the cases in this state m which the doctrine has been adopted are the following: , 39 So.
  • Jones v. Shell Petroleum Corporation 171 So. 447 La. 1936
  • Tripani v. Meraux 165 So. 453 La. 1936
  • Woulfe v. D'Antoni 158 So. 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    731 [54 L. R. A. 420], the court said that there is no responsibility when there is no fault.” , 39 So.
  • Johnson v. Butterworth 157 So. 121 La. 1934
    731 , 54 L. R. A. 420; , 39 So.
  • Young v. Blaum 146 So. 168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
  • Demarco v. Gober 140 So. 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
    Code, art. 2321); and the presumption is that the owner of the animal is in fault, and the burden is on him to show that he was without the slightest fault and did all that was possible to prevent the injury.” , 39 So.
  • Cloverland Dairy Products Co. v. Leach 134 So. 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
  • Peyronnin v. Riley 132 So. 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
  • Perez-Sandi v. Berges 125 So. 185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    306 ; Bentz vs. Page, , 39 Sou.
  • Hatcher v. Burlett 119 So. 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    Bentz vs. Page, , 39 So.
  • Manuel v. Young 119 So. 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    1 of the Civil Code * * * is founded upon the presumption that the fault is chargeable to.the owner of the animal that caused the damage, or to the person in whose use or under whose care it was at the time of the accident, and that presumption can be made to give way only in the presence of proof either of an unforeseen event, or by the imprudence of the one injured.” The case of Bentz vs. Page, , 39 So.
  • Gillespie v. Blaise 3 La. App. 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    The Martinez case was cited in Bentz vs. Page, , 39 South.
  • Serio v. American Brewing Co. 74 So. 998 La. 1917
  • Ladrix v. Di Maggio 8 Teiss. 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1911
    (See Bentz vs. Page, , where the dog although in the possession of defendant, was shown to he the property of la friend, yet defendant was held to be liable.)
  • Damonte v. Patton 48 So. 153 La. 1907