Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Aymond v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 91 So. 671.

38 citing documents.

Lowenburg v. Labor Pool of America, Inc. 296 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Contributory negligence can never be assumed and must be proven ( , 91 So.
Gant v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 234 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Texas 209 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Simon v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company 124 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
McCandless v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. 120 So. 2d 501 La. 1960
See, Aymond v. Western Union Telegraph Co., *999 , 91 So.
Gilliam v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. 119 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Kern v. Bumpas 102 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
378 ; Aymond v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 1922, , 91 So.
Senegal v. Thompson 91 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Lobell ex rel. Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Neal 48 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Matthews v. New Orleans Terminal Co. 45 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
343 ; Gibbens v. New Orleans Terminal Co., supra; , 91 So.
Cropper v. Mills 27 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
189 , , a 13 year old boy was employed as a messenger and, while so engaged, was killed by a train negligently operated by the employees of the railroad company.
Oubre v. Carondelet Bldg. 14 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
Althans v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 191 So. 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Dalferes v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 185 So. 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
In support of this proposition, the cases of Aymond v. Western Union Telegraph Co. and Texas & Pacific R. R. Co., , 91 So.
Squyres v. Baldwin 185 So. 14 La. 1938
Martin v. Yazoo M. R. Co. 181 So. 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia 177 So. 238 La. 1937
Dobrowolski v. Holloway Gravel Co. 173 So. 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Boykin v. Plauche 168 So. 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Robertson v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 165 So. 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Brown v. Wade 145 So. 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Pearce v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 143 So. 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
It may be urged, however, that in this state there are some decisions which would indicate that our courts have not gone to the extent of requiring a person to come to a state of absolute immobility, on reaching a railroad crossing, and in this connection, , 91 So.
McGehee v. Ashley 137 So. 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
ssing a railroad track, that must not be accepted so literally as to require a person upon approaching a railroad track to come at once to a position of absolute immobility; but common sense and common practice both indicate that it will suffice for such person to have his own motion so checked and under control that he may stop instantly if need be.” , 91 So.
Wyatt v. Yazoo & Miss. Valley R. R. 127 So. 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
In Aymond vs. Western Union, etc., et al., , 91 So.
Dardenne v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. 127 So. 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
In controverting the proposition that a person driving a car must actually stop upon approaching a railroad track, counsel for defendant refers to Aymond vs. Western Union Telegraph Co., , 91 So.
Thomas v. Shreveport Railways Co. 13 La. App. 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Kern v. Knight 127 So. 133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Jacoby v. Gallaher 126 So. 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
188 , ; Duffy vs. *481 Hickey, 151 La.
Gibson v. T. & P. Ry. Co. 121 So. 382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Stevens v. Illinois Cent. R. R. 6 La. App. 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
187 , , where it was held that the rule to sto:p before crossing a railroad track, does not require one to come to a position of absolute immobility.
Rousseau v. Texas & Pacific 4 La. App. 691 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1926
H. P. Richard & Sons v. Director General of Railroads 107 So. 891 La. 1926
In an application for a rehearing, defendant complains that we have allowed plaintiff, on the amount awarded him, legal interest from judicial demand, and calls our attention to the fact that Division C , 151 La.
Belden v. Roberts 3 La. App. 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
The court said: “There Was manifestly negligence on the part of defendant and an amount is due for the injury.” The plaintiff refers to the cases of Aymond vs. Western Union Telegraph Co., , 91 South.
Gibbens v. New Orleans Terminal Co. 105 So. 367 La. 1925
It was not intended, and the court did not hold, , 91 So.
Draiss v. Payne 104 So. 487 La. 1925
Blanchard v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. 1 La. App. 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
If one can sufficiently see that the way is clear for him to pass without danger, he is justified in going on without stopping, but *178 if the view is obstructed, he should approach cautiously until a view may be had.” In Aymond vs. R. R., , 91 South.
Williams v. Missouri Pac. R. 99 So. 286 La. 1924
If the injury and death of plaintiff’s child had occurred at a public street crossing under the cireumstancesi and conditions as stated and as disclosed by the record, there could be no sort of doubt of the defendant’s negligence; for, , 91 South.
Holstead v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co. 98 So. 679 La. 1923
The'question propounded is: “Was the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence in going upon the railroad track under the circumstances and conditions stated, * * * so as to bar his right of recovery?” , 91 South.