Cited by

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

125 citing documents.

Hooper v. Brown 171 So. 3d 995 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
our own act, but for that which is caused by the act of persons for whom we are answerable, or of the things which we have in our custody.” Article 2322 “specifically modifies liability under Article 2317 with respect to the owner of a ruinous building or defective component part of that building.” Broussard v. State of Louisiana, through the Office of State Buildings, 12-1238, p. 8 (La.4/5/13), .
Basil Fisher v. Catahoula Parish Police Jury La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Kadlec v. Louisiana Tech University 173 So. 3d 1165 La. 2015
The case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of relator’s motion for summary judgment in light of Bufkin v. Felipe’s Louisiana, LLC, 14-0288 (La.10/15/14), , 2014 WL 5394087 , which clarified our holding in Broussard v. State, 12-1238 (La.4/5/13), .
Moreland v. Gungor 163 So. 3d 825 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Broussard v. State, 2012-1238 (La.4/5/13), ; Rosell v. ESCO, supra.
Tramuta v. Lakeside Plaza, L.L.C. 168 So. 3d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
art. 2322; Broussard v. State, 12-1238 *780 (La.4/5/13), -183 .
Allen v. Lockwood 156 So. 3d 650 La. 2015
Office of State Buildings, 12-1238 (La.4/5/13), , when addressing motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether an alleged defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm.
Walters v. City of West Monroe 162 So. 3d 419 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Office of State Bldgs., 12-1238 (La.4/5/13), , 183 n. 4.
Beggs v. Harrah's New Orleans Casino 158 So. 3d 917 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Office of State Bldgs., 2012-1238, p. 11 (La.4/5/13), (citations omitted).
Dannie K. Davis, Et Ux. v. Burke's Outlet Stores, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Davis v. Burke's Outlet Stores, LLC 155 So. 3d 664 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Office of State Bldgs., 12-1238 (La.4/5/13), .
Williams v. Mathieu 155 So. 3d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Office of State Bldgs., 12-1238, p. 13 (La.4/5/13), (citing Stobart v. State through Dep’t of Transp.
Roy Bufkin, Jr. v. Felipe's Louisiana, LLC 171 So. 3d 851 La. 2014
Office of State Buildings, 12-1238 (La.4/5/13), ; Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc., 08-0528 (La.12/2/08), -87 (per curiam); Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, Council No. 5747, 03-1533 (La.2/20/04), ; Fiire v. Louisiana Tech University, 95-1466 (La.5/10/96), -93 .
Wilson J. Trahan v. Acadiana Mall of Delaware La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Trahan v. Acadiana Mall of Delaware 149 So. 3d 359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
If so, Acadiana Mall would have no duty to warn and could not be liable under La.Civ.Code art. 2317.1, as recently interpreted by our supreme court in Broussard v. State, through the Office of State Bldgs., 12-1238 (La.4/15/13), .
Odom v. Fair 147 So. 3d 1215 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Broussard v. State, 2012-1238 (La.4/5/13), , and citations therein.
Irma Faye Granger, Et Ux. v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
4/5/13), -86, explained that the determination of an unreasonable risk of harm is a question of fact, as follows: Because the determination of whether a defective thing presents an unreasonable risk of harm “encompasses an abundance of factual findings, which differ greatly from case to case
Granger v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 140 So. 3d 1283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Our supreme court in Broussard v. State, 12-1238, p. 13 (La.4/5/13), -86 , explained that the determination of an unreasonable risk of harm is a question of fact, as follows: Because the determination of whether a defective thing presents an unreasonable risk of harm “encompasses an abundance of factual findings, which differ greatly from case to case, followed by an application of
Transpetco I Joint Venture v. Clearview Investments, Ltd. 139 So. 3d 49 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Broussard v. State, 2012-1238 (La.4/5/13), ; Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., supra.
Scarberry v. Entergy Corp. 136 So. 3d 194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
IsB In Broussard v. State of Louisiana, Office of State Buildings, 12-1238, p. 10 (La.4/5/13), , the Supreme Court 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.
Kelli Fuselier v. City of Oakdale La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
4/5/13), the Louisiana Supreme Court emphasized the fact- intensiveness of the risk-utility test and its purpose: We have described the question of whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm as “a disputed issue of mixed fact and law or policy that is peculiarly a
Fuselier v. City of Oakdale 130 So. 3d 984 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Office of State Bldgs., 12-1238 (La.4/5/13), , the Louisiana Supreme Court emphasized the fact-intensiveness of the risk-utility test and its purpose: We have described the question of whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm as “a disputed issue of mixed fact and law or policy that is peculiarly a question for the jury or trier of the facts.” As a
Christiano v. Southern Scrap Recycling 131 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Office of State *1064 Bldgs., 12-1238 (La.4/5/13), .
Graupmann v. Nunamaker Family Ltd. Partnership 136 So. 3d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In reaching that conclusion, we are obligated to *867 consider whether a defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm by applying the guiding precepts recently set forth by the supreme court in Broussard v. State, Office of State Bldgs., 2012-1238 (La.4/5/13), .
Falcone v. Touro Infirmary 129 So. 3d 641 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Office of State Bldgs., 12-1238, pp. 12-13 (La.4/5/13), -86 .
Currie v. Scottsdale Indemnity Co. 123 So. 3d 742 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The majority relies on Broussard v. State, Office of State Buildings, 2012-1238 (La.4/5/13), , in reversing the granting of summary judgment by the trial court.