Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Monroe v. Heard, 168 So. 519.

14 citing documents.

Farmer v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 368 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
) against a negligent third person by imputing to him the negligence of the driver of his car solely on the ground that he had a theoretical right of control over such driver.
Gaspard v. LeMaire 158 So. 2d 149 La. 1963
) against a negligent third person by imputing to him the negligence of the driver of his car solely on the ground that he had a theoretical right of control over such driver.
Bernard v. Hungerford 157 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
) against a negligent third person by imputing to him the negligence of the driver of his car solely on the ground that he had a theoretical right of control over such driver.
Gaspard v. Lemaire 146 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Similarly in the case of Monroe v. Heard, La.App., , the court stated: “The liability of the occupant of an automobile driven by another under his direction and control is stated in 42 Corpus Juris at Page 1123, as follows: ‘So likewise where the occupant, although he is not the ov¡n%er and is not driving the vehicle himself, is in actual control of its operation, or
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Marquette Casualty Co. 143 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
McAllister v. Jackson Brewing Co., La.App., ; Monroe v. Heard, La.App., ; Travelers Ins.
Coco v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 136 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Garland v. Audubon Insurance Company 119 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Counsel for the defendant relies principally upon three cases the first of which is Monroe v. Heard, La.App., , decided by this court, which involved the same question that is now before the court.
Brooks v. Delta Fire & Casualty Company 82 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
It is entirely probable that the daughter of the named insured (whom defendant admits had permission to operate the car) had such legal control of the car as to render her liable for the use also, Monroe v. Heard, La.App., 1 Cir., , especially since the accident occurred while both girls were jointly engaged in completion of one of the dual errands for which they had made the trip to New Orleans.
Boudreaux v. Cagle Motors 70 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
App., and the citation to Blashfield referred to therein which he contends is controlling here.
McDowell v. National Sur. Corp. 68 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
In Monroe v. Heard, La.App., , this Court held: "The liability of the occupant of an automobile driven by another under his direction and control is stated in 42 Corpus Juris at page 1123 as follows: `So likewise where the occupant, although he is not the owner and is not driving the vehicle himself, is in actual control of its operation, or
Longwell v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. 63 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
While, as mentioned previously, the precise point here presented does not appear to have been heretofore passed upon by our appellate courts, we find presented in the case of Monroe v. Heard, La.App., , a situation which closely parallels the present case.
Burke v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 28 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Clemons v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. 18 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
"The distinction in Louisiana between cases of the Thibodeaux type and cases such as the case of Monroe v. Heard [La.App.], , seems to depend on whether or not the party in control of the automobile with the permission of the named assured and who surrenders control to a third person, has what may be called general discretion, implied from continuous control and possession, or whether his relationship is that of a casual borrower such as M
Donovan v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana 197 So. 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
36 ; Monroe v. Heard et al., La.App., .