DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Jones v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co., 189 So. 169.

25 citing documents.

  • Morales v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 246 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Co., states the following rule, which we must consider here: * * * [I]f there was nothing about the plaintiff’s position or physical condition to indicate that he was in danger, it is immaterial whether defendant saw him or not.
  • Robertson v. DiGerolamo 224 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Co., La-App., , wherein the court rejected a plea of last clear chance, and exonerated the driver of an automobile who struck a drunken pedestrian.
  • Glynn v. Duvernay 217 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • McCartney v. Allstate Insurance Co. 197 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    (Orl.1939—writ denied), specifically gave its approval wherein it stated: “ * * <3our^ 0f Appeal correctly stated that ‘ * * * if there was nothing about the plaintiff’s position or physical condition to indicate that he was in danger, it is immaterial whether defendant saw him or not.
  • Phares v. Biggs 135 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    Co., La.App., ); to which statement we add: in time to act in a way to prevent the accident."
  • Fontenot v. Travelers Indemnity Company 134 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    Co., La.App.Orl., (Certiorari denied); Newton v. Pacillo, La.App.
  • Franicevich v. Lirette 129 So. 2d 740 La. 1961
    Co., La.App., , the Court of Appeal correctly stated that “ * * if there was nothing about the plaintiff’s position or physical condition to indicate that he was in danger, it is immaterial whether defendant saw him or not.
  • Newton v. Pacillo 111 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    Co., La.App., ; Flowers v. Morris, La.App., ; Moore v. Nola Cabs, Inc., La.App., ; McInnis v. Radecker, La.App., .
  • Delta Fire & Casualty Co. v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. 86 So. 2d 681 La. 1956
    Co., La.App., , certiorari denied July 14th 1939; Eggleston v. Louisiana & A. Ry.
  • Hawkins v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 74 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    lutely nothing to obstruct his view and when this fact was brought to his attention on cross examination with a statement from counsel for plaintiff to the effect that “if he was there you could have seen him,” he answered: “I wasn’t looking at the sides, I was looking at the front.” Counsel for defendants strongly relies upon the case of Jones v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., La.App., .
  • Kimble v. Airco Refrigeration Service, Inc. 57 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    195 , and discussed in Jones v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, La.App., , this negligence would not necessarily deprive him of his right to recover if defendant either saw him or should have seen him in sufficient time to avoid the accident.
  • Bechtel v. Oriol 52 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
  • Breaux v. Barichnivich 49 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    Defendant relies on Jones v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, La.App., .
  • Maher v. New Orleans Linen Supply Co. 41 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    App., , is applicable, and that where a pedestrian is already in the roadway and no longer has the ability to save himself, there is liability if the operator of a vehicle, who could avoid the pedestrian, fails to do so.
  • Mahne v. Steele 32 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    App., , 172: "We readily recognize that it is the duty of a motorist to be constantly vigilant and observe the presence of anything which is at or near the path of his travel."
  • Kemp v. Donnes 32 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    Co., La.App., ; his imprudence, or, to use a better term, his extreme recklessness would not necessarily deprive him of his right to recover if Donnes either saw him in time to avoid him or should have seen him.
  • Daly v. Employers Liability Assur. Corp. Ltd. 15 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    Co., La.App., , and Fontenot v. Freudenstein, La.App., 199 So.
  • Cuccia v. White Top Cabs 6 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    The contention that she left a place of safety and dashed out in front of traffic, sixty or sixty-five feet from the intersection, is not sustained by the testimony, consequently, the cases cited, Jones v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., La.App., ; Martinez v. Crusel, La.App., 148 So.
  • Butler v. Oswald 4 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    739 ; Jones v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, La.App., ; Roberts v. Duracher, La.App., 196 So.
  • Thompson v. Dyer 1 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    Co., La.App., , we are of the conclusion that the defendants are not liable.
  • Fontenot v. Freudenstein 199 So. 677 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    And, , we said: “In other words, if there was nothing about the plaintiff’s position or physical condition to indicate that he was in danger, it is immaterial whether ■ the defendant saw him or not.
  • Logrand v. Dugan 196 So. 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    Jones v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Company et al., 1939, and Rutter et al. v. Norman et al., 1939, 189 So.
  • Schexnaildre v. Bledsoe 194 So. 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    446 ; and Jones v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, La.App., .
  • Boissac v. Kleinpeter 191 So. 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    Co. et al., La.App., , on rehearing, has peculiar application to the present case.
  • Rutter v. Norman 189 So. 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    Co., , decided May 22/1939 and not yet reported [in State Reports], we said: “ * * * Should we accept the higher estimate (35 miles per hour) and presume that Ferguson was guilty of a slight infraction of the ordinance, we cannot perceive that his speed, had any causal connection with the accident.