DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Joynes v. Valloft Dreaux, 1 So. 2d 108.

39 citing documents.

  • Welch v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 645 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    815 , (1970), and Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, the courts held that where plaintiff proved a dangerous object caused him to slip and fall, the merchant had the burden of making a prima facie showing that it made reasonably careful and thorough inspections.
  • Kavlich v. Kramer 315 So. 2d 282 La. 1975
    3rd Cir. 1970) (concurring opinion of Tate, J.); Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, (La.App.
  • Natal v. Phoenix Assurance Co. of New York 305 So. 2d 438 La. 1974
    Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc.
  • McCauley v. Nicholas 297 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
  • Wiley v. J. Weingarten, Inc. 274 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    1941, .” (Emphasis supplied.)
  • Travis v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 269 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    1st Cir. 1956); Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, (La.App.Orl.
  • White v. J. Weingarten, Inc. 270 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    1941, .” [ ] The burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff-customer to show that the storekeeper had actual notice of the source of danger or that it had existed for a sufficient length of time to amount to constructive notice.
  • Fedrowisch v. Fidelity-Phenix Insurance Companies 265 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    1st Cir., 1956); Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Peters v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., (La.App.
  • Harper v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 257 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App.1941, .
  • Kinard v. Kroger Co. 255 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    The court did not specifically discuss burden of proof except by quoting with approval language in Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, to the effect that the burden of showing the length of time the dangerous substance was present is on the plaintiff, subject, however, to the requirement that defendant must first, in a preliminary way, show that in spite of reasonably careful and frequent inspections it was not discovered.
  • Berglund v. FW Woolworth Company 236 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
    2d Cir. 1954); Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, (La.App.
  • Lang v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 230 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • Barker v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 230 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App.1941, .
  • Frederic v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 227 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    This doctrine was urged in the case of Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App., , wherein the court held that the doctrine could only apply where it is shown that the accident would not have occurred in the ordinary course of events without intervention of negligence.
  • Chauvin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 223 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
    Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App.1941, ."
  • Lofton v. Travelers Insurance Company 208 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
    This doctrine was urged in the case of Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App., , wherein the court held that the doctrine could only apply where it is shown that the accident would not have occurred in the ordinary course of events without intervention of negligence.
  • Ardoin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 205 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    3rd Cir. 1961); Bishop v. F. W. Woolworth and Company, La.App., ; Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App., ; Benton v. Connecticut Fire Insurance Company, La.App., .
  • Fish v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 205 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App.1941, .
  • Burson v. Pak-A-Sak Service Stores, Inc. 169 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App.1941, .
  • Smith v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 166 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App.1941, .
  • Gibson v. J. C. Penney Co. 165 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App.1941, .
  • Dever v. GEORGE THERIOR'S INC. 159 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    2d 562 ; Boucher v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, La.App.Orl., , and cases therein cited; Joynes v. Valloft and Dreaux, Inc., La.App.Orl., .
  • Gammill v. J. C. Penny Co. 156 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App.1941, .
  • Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 148 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    * * * ” In the case of Joynes v Valloft & Dreaux, La.App., , where an empty coke bottle fell from the counter of the dispensing stand located in the lobby of the building, struck the floor and shattering fragments from the broken bottle cut the plaintiff’s foot, who, at that time, was engaged in exchanging a candy bar and wherein plaintiff alleged she did not know what had ca
  • Stillwell v. Winn-Dixie Hill, Inc. 146 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App.1941, .
  • Cannon v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company 146 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    App.Orl., ; Bishop v. F. W. Woolworth & Company, La.App.Orl., .
  • Knight v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 142 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    App.1941, .’ (Emphasis ours.)
  • Baker v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company 136 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    163 ; Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App., ; Relf v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., La.App., ."
  • Lejeune v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNTY CO. 136 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App.1941, .
  • Steadman v. American Fidelity & Casualty Company 113 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, La.App., ; Royal Ins.
  • Lindsey v. Travelers Indemnity Company 111 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    In connection with the appellant's contention that the decision of the lower court should be reversed, we have also been cited the following cases: Joynes v. Vallost & Dreaux, Inc., La.App., Orleans Cir., 1941, ; Bishop v. F. W. Woolworth & Company, La.App., Orleans Cir., 1942, ; Peters v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., supra.
  • Meyerer v. SH Kress and Co. 89 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App.1941, .
  • Alana v. Burnstein 86 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    163 ; Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App., ; Relf v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., La.App., .” We followed this with this statement: “In the case before us there is no proof that there was any grease, soap, water or other foreign substance on the floor at the spot where plaintiff fell.” There, as here, “several employees * * * testified that * *
  • Peters v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 72 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, Inc., La.App.1941, .
  • Monroe v. HG Hill Stores 51 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    The difference between such a situation and this was discussed by us in Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, La.App., .
  • Hays v. Maison Blanche Co. 30 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
    App., ; Relf v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., La.
  • Fitzgerald v. Big Chain Stores 22 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
  • Watkins v. Gulf Refining Co. 20 So. 2d 273 La. 1944
    Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, La.App., ; Royal Ins.
  • Bishop v. F.W. Woolworth Co. 8 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    There is no liability in a storekeeper for the result of such an accident unless it is caused by negligence — "For a storekeeper is not the insurer of the safety of his patrons", citing Joynes v. Valloft Dreaux, La.App., .