Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Tyer v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 78 So. 438.

22 citing documents.

Ledet v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad 79 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Bagala v. Kimble 74 So. 2d 172 La. 1954
Tyer v. Gulf, C. & S. R. Co., , 78 So.
Lervick v. White Top Cabs 10 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
[177], 178, , because defendant, through Hudson, employee, `might by the exercise of ordinary care have seen the danger in time to avoid the injury.'" We readily conclude that the last clear chance of avoiding the accident was with the defendant taxicab driver and that, as a consequence, the question of the primary or contributor
Patterson v. Yazoo M. v. R. Co. 187 So. 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Jackson v. Cook 181 So. 195 La. 1938
Miller v. Baldwin 178 So. 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Jackson v. Cook 176 So. 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Chitwood v. King 155 So. 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Favaza v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 154 So. 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
990 ; Tyler v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. R. Co., , 78 So.
Dowling v. Texas Pacific-Missouri Pacific Terminal R. 154 So. 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Leteff v. People's Ice Fuel Co., Inc. 149 So. 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
The principle, which I think should govern, in this case is practically the same that existed in Tyer v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., , 78 So.
Loewenberg v. Fidelity Union Casualty Co. 147 So. 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
178 , ; Hodges v. Davis, 7 La.
Eads v. Holliday 144 So. 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
178 , : “In order to enforce the humanitarian doctrine of ‘the last clear chance,’ it must appear that plaintiff has clearly shown that defendant, after seeing the danger, could by the exercise of ordinary care have avoided the injury, or if defendant did not see the danger, it must appear that plain *649 tiff has clearly s
Tassin v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 139 So. 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Guillot v. Baton Rouge Yellow Cab Co. 138 So. 219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
178 , , where the court, after stating the generally accepted rule hereinabove cited, added the following: “If defendant did not see the danger, it must appear that plaintiff has clearly shown that defendant might by the exercise of ordinary care have seen the danger in time to avoid the injury.” The Norwood v. Bahm Case is
Guinn v. Kemp 136 So. 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Norwood v. Bahm 127 So. 475 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
178 , , the doctrine is put in different verbiage, as follows: “That plaintiff must clearly show that defendant after seeing the danger, could by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided the injury.” Kemp testifies that when he saw Miss bTorwood his truck was 1 foot from the crossing, or that he saw her about 2 feet befo
Gibson v. T. & P. Ry. Co. 121 So. 382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Hardee v. Nevers 120 So. 227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Jones v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 111 So. 62 La. 1926
237 ; and Tyer v. G., C. & S. F. R. Co., , 78 So.
Jones v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 4 La. App. 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
Tyer vs. G. C. & S. F. R. Co., , 78 South.
Guillot v. Louisiana Railway & Navigation Co. 3 La. App. 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
In Tyer vs. Gulf C. & S. F. R. Co., , 78 South 438 , the court said that in order to enforce the humanitarian doctrine of the “Last Clear Chance” it must appear that plaintiff has clearly shown the defendant, after seeing the danger, could by the exercise of ordinary care have avoided *546 the injury, etc. “Here, before explained, the engine foreman had