Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Buildings, 113 So. 3d 175.

125 citing documents.

Vernon Martin v. City of Crowley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Martin v. City of Crowley 269 So. 3d 1105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Primeaux v. Best W. Plus Houma Inn 274 So. 3d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
4/5/13), , 184 ; Pitre v. Louisiana Tech Univ., 95-1466 (La.
Russell v. City of Baton Rouge 271 So. 3d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Degree v. Galliano Truck Plaza, LLP 271 So. 3d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Taylor v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. 263 So. 3d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Russell v. Forest Isle, Inc. 261 So. 3d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
4/5/13), , 182-83 ; Garrison v. Old Man River Esplanade, L.L.C. , 2013-0869, p. 5 (La.
Woods v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, L.L.C. 255 So. 3d 567 La. 2018
Riley Leblanc v. City of Abbeville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
LeBlanc v. City of Abbeville 259 So. 3d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Buggage v. Buggage ex rel. Mother 257 So. 3d 755 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Woods v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, L.L.C. 251 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2018
4/5/13), , 183 ; Falcon v. Surcouf , 17-212, pp. 14-15 (La.
Landry v. Leson Chevrolet Co. 250 So. 3d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Lincoln v. Acadian Plumbing & Drain, LLC 247 So. 3d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Murphy v. Savannah 246 So. 3d 785 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
4/5/13), , the supreme court discussed the analysis to determine the presence of an unreasonable risk of harm: We have described the question of whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm as "a disputed issue of *793 mixed fact and law or policy that is peculiarly a question for the jury or trier of the facts."
Allen B. Minix and Kendra Minix, Etc. v. City of Rayne La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Bowen v. State ex rel. Sec'y of Health & Hosps. 247 So. 3d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Eskine v. City of Gretna 240 So. 3d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
4/5/13), , 188, in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that in order to be open and obvious, the risk of harm should be apparent to all who encounter the dangerous condition.
Boutall v. Christakis, P.M., Co. 236 So. 3d 1268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
4/05/13), , 182-83 ; Tramuta v. Lakeside Plaza, L.L.C. , 14-410 (La.
Falcon v. Surcouf 236 So. 3d 716 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2017
4/5/13), , 182-83 ; Tramuta v. Lakeside Plaza, L.L.C. , 14-410 (La.
Cox v. Baker Distrib. Co. 244 So. 3d 681 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
Williams v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 217 So. 3d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
4/5/13), ; Pitre v. Louisiana Tech Univ., 95-1466 (La.
Cheramie v. Port Fourchon Marina, Inc. 211 So. 3d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Rodrigue v. Baton Rouge River Center 209 So. 3d 93 La. 2017
Williams v. ABC Insurance Co. 209 So. 3d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Bertaut v. Corral Gulfsouth, Inc. 209 So. 3d 352 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4/5/13), ; Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, Council No. 5747, 03-1533 (La.
Thomas v. Hunting Ingalls, Inc. 210 So. 3d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
04/05/13), ; Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, Council No. 5747, 03-1533 (La.
Wilson J. Trahan v. Acadiana Mall of Delaware, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Trahan v. Acadiana Mall of Delaware, L.L.C. 209 So. 3d 820 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Kadlec v. Louisiana Tech University 208 So. 3d 992 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
4/5/13), .” Upon reconsideration, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, applying the risk-utility balancing test from Bufkin to conclude that Louisiana Tech was under no duty to protect or warn of the condition.
Barnett v. City of Baton Rouge 206 So. 3d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Gauthier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. 208 So. 3d 503 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Jones v. Stewart 203 So. 3d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4/5/13), , 9 indicated that “the issue of whether a condition constitutes an open and obvious hazard is properly raised in connection with the risk-utility analysis employed, in deciding whether an owner of a thing is | ^responsible for injuries caused by a hazardous condition or defective component.” Scarberry, 13-0214 at p.
Nugent v. Car Town of Monroe, Inc. 206 So. 3d 369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Schexnayder v. St. Charles Parish 202 So. 3d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Willig v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. 202 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Marshall v. Jazz Casino Co. 197 So. 3d 316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Office of State Bldgs., 12-1238, p. 10 (La.4/5/13), ; Hooper , 15-0339, p. 8, 171 So.3d at 1000-01.
Flipping v. JWH Properties, LLC 196 So. 3d 149 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Office of State Bldgs., 12-1238 (La.4/5/13), ; Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc., 08-0528 (La.12/2/08), ; Dowdy v. City of Monroe , 46,693 (La.App.2d Cir.11/2/11), .
Ethan Rose, Et Ux. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Rose v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 192 So. 3d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
in its deviation from Broussard v. State of Louisiana, Office of State Buildings, 12-1238 (La.4/5/13), .
Town of Arcadia v. Arcadia Chamber of Commerce 195 So. 3d 23 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
art. 465; Broussard v. State, 2012-1238 (La.4/5/13), .
Virgil McCoy v. Town of Rosepine La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
4/5/13), -89, and in doing so, stated the following: To be sure, we have consistently echoed one central theme throughout our open and obvious jurisprudence: If the complained-of condition should be obvious to all, then it may not be unreasonably dangerous.
McCoy v. Town of Rosepine 187 So. 3d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Office of State Buildings, 12-1238, pp. 17-18 (La.4/5/13), -89 , and in doing so, stated the following: To be sure, we have consistently echoed one central theme throughout our opén and obvious jurisprudence: If the complained-of condition should be obvious to all, then it may not be únreason-ably dangerous.'
Bridgewater v. New Orleans Regional Transit Authority 190 So. 3d 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Office of State Bldgs., 12-1238, p. 10 (La.4/5/13), .
Todd v. Angel 185 So. 3d 871 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Office of State Bldgs., 12-1238 (La.4/5/13), .
Helwig v. H.P.B. Inc. 182 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Office of State Bldg., 12-1238 (La.04/05/13), ; Caserta v. Wal-Mart Stores., Inc., 12-0853 (La.06/22/12), (per curiam); Dauzat, 995 So.2d at 1186 (per curiam); Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, 03-1533 (La.02/20/04), ; Pitre v. Louisiana Tech Univ., 95-1466 (La.05/10/96), .
Moore v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 186 So. 3d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Office of State Bldgs., 2012-1238 (La.4/5/13), .
Marcushawn L. Smith v. Ville Platte Housing Authority La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Walker v. Hingle 179 So. 3d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Broussard v. State, 12-1238, p. 12 (La.4/5/13), (explaining that whether a duty is owed is a question of law for the trial judge to decide contrasted with a question of fact — i.e. whether a duty was breached — which is for the trier of fact to decide).
Tomaso v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. 174 So. 3d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Office of State Bldgs., 12-1238 (La.4/5/13), .