Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Daull v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co., 86 So. 477.

28 citing documents.

Christy Robinette v. Old Republic Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Robinette v. Old Republic Insurance Co. 229 So. 3d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
& Light Co., , 86 So.
Adams v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford 543 So. 2d 480 La. 1989
& Light Co., , 86 So.
Williams v. Barton 81 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
& Light Co., , 86 So.
Woodruff v. Stewart 6 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Squyres v. Baldwin 185 So. 14 La. 1938
& Light Co., , 86 So.
Martin v. Yazoo M. R. Co. 181 So. 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
& Light Co., , 86 So.
Calamia v. National Hosiery Mills 164 So. 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
& Light Co., , 86 So.
Favaza v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 154 So. 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
897 ; Daull v. N. O. Ry & Light Co., , 86 So.
Monkhouse v. Johns 142 So. 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Lorance v. Smith 138 So. 871 La. 1931
Bacon v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 137 So. 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
& Light Co., , 86 So.
Bailey v. Demourelle 135 So. 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
& Light Co., , 86 So.
Williams v. Lenfant 131 So. 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
& Light Co., , 86 So.
Hogan v. N. O. Public Service, Inc. 131 So. 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
1917F, 253, we find the following: “Negligence on the part of the driver of an automobile is not imputable to his guest in the car; nor does one who accepts an invitation to ride in an automobile' thereby engage in such a common enterprise or joint venture with the driver that neither would be liable to the other for an act of negligence.” See, also, Daull v. New Orleans Railway & Light Co., , 86 So.
Lawrason v. Richard 129 So. 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
driving the car, as in the present case, but the court said in deciding: •“Where the failure on the part of the guest to see and protest a danger was urged, where the guest had no authority nor control over the ear in which he was riding, he was not required to keep a lookout for danger, and could rely on the driver for the discharge of that duty.” Also in Daull v. New Orleans R. & Light Co., , 86 So.
Chopin v. Levy 125 So. 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
314 ; Daull vs. New Orleans Railway & Light Company, , 86 So.
Del Buono v. Ill. Cent. R. R. 124 So. 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Franklin v. Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co. 120 So. 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
& Light Company, , 86 So.
Smith v. Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co. 120 So. 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
511 ; Douall vs. N. O. Railway & Light Company, , 86 So.
Hargus v. N. O. Public Service, Inc. 118 So. 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Ann. 339 ; Daul vs. N. O. Ry & L. Co., , 86 So.
Ford v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 8 La. App. 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
& L. Co., , 86 South.
Vitale V. Checker Cab Co. 7 La. App. 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
& Light Co., , 86 South.
Southern Surety Co. v. Morgan's L. & T. R. R. & S. S. Co. 6 La. App. 575 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
& Light Co., , 86 South.
Reid v. Missouri Pacific Railroad 3 La. App. 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
& L. Co., , 86 South.
Townsend v. Missouri Pacific Railroad 3 La. App. 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
& L. Co., , 86 South.
Young v. Luria 98 So. 419 La. 1923
& L. Co., , 86 South.
Churchill v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. 92 So. 314 La. 1922
Daull v. New Orleans Railway & Light Co., , 86 South.