Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Guidry v. Hamlin, 188 So. 662.

19 citing documents.

Winchell v. Johnson Properties, Inc. 640 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
As noted in Davis, : “The article was said to have ‘no reference to any situation except that in which some part of the budding collapses, or breaks, or gives way.’ ...
Tillman v. Johnson 610 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
4th Cir.1965); (La.App.Orl.
Humphries v. TL James & Co. 468 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
(Orl.La.App.1939); (3rd Cir.1977).
Ryals v. Home Ins. Co. 410 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Parker v. Brawley 306 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
523 , (1970), wherein the court stated: "This is the attitude in the French law and it is a (La.App.Orl.
Smolinski v. Taulli 276 So. 2d 286 La. 1973
In holding to the contrary
Crawford v. Wheless 265 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
This is the attitude in the French law and it is a (La.
Weiland v. King 262 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
This is the attitude in the French law and it is a where the Article was said to have ‘no reference to any situation except that in which some part of the building collapses, or breaks, or gives way.’ .
Smolinski v. Taulli 259 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Jarvis v. Prout 247 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
the court stated at page 664: “ * * * Article 2322 does not apply to the situation for the reason that that article, like C.C.
Davis v. Royal-Globe Insurance Companies 242 So. 2d 839 La. 1970
This is the attitude in the French law and it is a (La.App.
Favalora v. Travelers Insurance Co. 223 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
860 , ; Guidry v. Hamlin, La.App., .
Sullivan v. Birmingham Fire Insurance Co. of Pa. 185 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
In Guidry v. Hamlin, La.App., , our predecessor Court, through Judge Janvier, denied recovery for injuries to a small child two years of age who fell from a balcony to the ground.
Pampas v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 169 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
(writs refused): "* * * There is nothing dangerous to the normal person in such a rail.
Hawkins v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 170 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
of the Louisiana Civil Code are controlling)', and injuries suffered on the premises that result from some other cause, such as defendant’s activities on the premises or his negligence (in which cases the relevant articles are 2315 and 2316).” That articles 670 and 2322 govern fact situations in which ruin of buildings proper is involved, is also noted by this court in Guidry v. Hamlin, La.App., .
Wilson v. Hearn 150 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Murphy v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York 138 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
Likewise and to the same effect is Guidry v. Hamlin, La.App., , 664 * * *."
Bergeron v. Houston-American Insurance Company 98 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Furthermore, a child of David's age, two and one-half years, is legally incapable of contributory negligence, Guidry v. Hamlin, La.App.Orl., , certiorari denied, Borman v. Lafargue, La.
Golden v. Katz 11 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
In the case of Guidry v. Hamlin, La.App., , in which a writ of review was denied by the Supreme Court on June 26, 1939, this court had occasion to consider and interpret the foregoing codal articles in connection with an accident somewhat similar to the one in the case at bar.