Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Delaune v. Breaux, 139 So. 753.

42 citing documents.

Alexander v. Dominick 533 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
That duty has been tersely said by this Court, in Delaune v. Breaux [ , 139 So.
Hutson v. Madison Parish Police Jury 496 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
McCoy v. Franklin Parish Police Jury 414 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Richards v. American Home Assurance Co. 241 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
King v. King 217 So. 2d 395 La. 1968
That duty has been tersely said by this Court, in Delaune v. Breaux, supra [ , 139 So.
Beavers v. Butler 188 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
McMorris v. Hanover Insurance Co. 175 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
That duty has been tersely said by this Court, in Delaune v. Breaux, supra [ , 139 So.
Abboud v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 157 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Carter v. Canal Insurance Co. 154 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Grayson v. Allstate Insurance Company 141 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
242 , it was stated: "* * * As was said by this court in Delaune v. Breaux, ( , 139 So.
Bordelon v. Couvillion 130 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Hargett v. Chemical Service, Inc. 116 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
994 , , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 ; , 139 So.
Upshaw v. Great American Indemnity Company 112 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
994 , 250 , 42 A.L.R.2d 338 , the Supreme Court of Louisiana said of that responsibility: "That duty has been tersely said by this Court, in Delaune v. Breaux, supra [ , 139 So.
Ferguson v. Highway Insurance Underwriters 109 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Jackson v. Young 99 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
her judicial expression of the duties that a driver owes to his guest passengers was made in Malone v. Hughes, La.App., , 668 and was stated as follows: "It is well established as a general principle in the settled jurisprudence of this state that a guest has the right to rely to a reasonable extent on the care of the driver and his proper operation of the vehicle, , 139 So.
Senegal v. Thompson 91 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Insurance Co. 88 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Dickson v. Peters 87 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co. 86 So. 2d 909 La. 1956
Taormina v. Reid 71 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
235, 239 , the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit said: “In numerous decisions, this court has held that the guest riding in an automobile has the right to rely to a reasonable extent on the care of the driver and his proper management of the car, , 139 So.
Malone v. Hughes 65 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
It is well established as a general-principle in the settled jurisprudence of this state that a guest has the right to rely to a reasonable extent on the care of the driver and his proper operation of the vehicle, , 139 So.
White v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. 64 So. 2d 245 La. 1953
He *1017 did nothing of the kind, but sat idly by and said nothing.” , 139 So.
Lovelace v. Gowan 52 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Singley v. Thomas 49 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1950
Albright v. Tatum 37 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
253 , affirmed by the Supreme Court, , 139 So.
Cassar v. Mansfield Lumber Co. 35 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
Coffey v. Lalanne 20 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1945
Epps v. Standard Supply Hardware Co. 4 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Chaney v. Hutches 192 So. 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Delauné v. Breaux, , 139 So.
Squyres v. Baldwin 185 So. 14 La. 1938
He may rely reasonably on the driver to discharge that obligation.” , at page 47, 139 So.
Gillespie v. Louisiana Long Leaf Lumber Co. 185 So. 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Squyres v. Baldwin 181 So. 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Aaron v. Martin 177 So. 242 La. 1937
Johnson v. National Casualty Co. 176 So. 235 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1937
In numerous decisions, this court has held that the guest riding in an automobile has the right to rely to a reasonable extent on the care of the driver and his proper management of the car, , 139 So.
Aaron v. Martin 172 So. 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Prudhomme v. Continental Casualty Co. 169 So. 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
In cases of this kind, , 139 So.
Aaron v. Martin 167 So. 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Ponder v. Ponder 157 So. 627 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Sandoz v. Beridon 150 So. 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
If such were the rule, it would be incumbent on the guest ‘to keep a look-out for danger’ and without placing any reliance on the driver, which would be destructive of the requirement in such cases, recognized in the Churchill Case, above cited.” The decision in the Delaune Case was reviewed by the Supreme Court, , 139 So.
Richard v. Roquevert 148 So. 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
29, 31 ; this court held, to quote from the opinion on rehearing: “ ‘There is no joint adventure in the sense that the occupant of an automobile is equally liable with the driver unless there be also equal right to control the operation of the automobile,’ citing 42 C. J. 1179, § 957; Berry on Automobiles (6th Ed.) § 644.” See, also, , 139 So.
Monroe v. D'Aunoy 143 So. 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Brown v. Dalton 143 So. 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
It is certain that Brown did not apprise Lemaire of the coming of the defendant’s car towards the intersection, and if we held him to that statement, for his failure to warn Lemaire; , 139 So.