Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Rottman v. Beverly, 165 So. 153.

188 citing documents.

Kimball v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 161 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
I find no manifest error in the trial court’s factual appreciation that it presents a last clear chance case (although very close) , 165 So.
Campisi v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York 152 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
Biggs v. Verbois 151 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
At pages 561-562 of 100 So.2d, I find in the opinion: "Prior to the advent of Rottman v. Beverly, 1935, , 165 So.
Parks v. Texas Pacific-Missouri Pacific Terminal R. 152 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
Emmco Insurance Co. v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin 150 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
O’Dell v. Hood, La.App., ; Newton v. Pacillo, La.App., ; , 165 So.
Moore v. American Insurance Co. of Newark 150 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Insofar as the application of the doctrine of last clear chance to motorists injuring pedestrians on the highways, , 165 So.
Reeves v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 149 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Rea v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 149 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Breaux v. Flithers 144 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
On this point, plaintiff seeks to invoke the doctrine of last clear chance, , 165 So.
Hudgens v. Mayeaux 143 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
"Assuming, as both courts found, that the driver of the truck was not negligent in any manner when he had stopped or slowed down and surveyed the situation before proceeding to make the turn, his duty then was to concentrate his attention on making the turn, and as stated in Rottman v. Beverly, supra [ , 165 So.
Hoy v. Stuyvesant Insurance 141 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Plaintiffs next contend the truck driver, his employer and its insurer should be held responsible under the doctrine of last clear chance or discovered peril, and cite as authority, , 165 So.
Waagen v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co. 136 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Phares v. Biggs 135 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
The doctrine of "discovered peril;" "apparent peril," or "last clear chance" confirmed by the landmark cases of Rottman v. Beverly, et al., , 165 So.
Woodard v. Burkes 135 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Fontenot v. Travelers Indemnity Company 134 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Dean v. Pitts 133 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Keenan v. Wactor 130 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Franicevich v. Lirette 129 So. 2d 740 La. 1961
Ordinarily contributory negligence by the deceased would be fatal to plaintiff’s case, but he seeks to recover under the so-called doctrine of “discovered peril”, , 165 So.
Martin v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark 127 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
In that regard our Supreme Court, in a frequently cited discussion of the doctrine of discovered peril, stated: “Of course, there can be no recovery against defendant if he used due care in discovering the peril and after discovering it could not avoid the accident, as in such case there would be no negligence at all on the part of the defendant.” Rottman v. Beverly, 1936, , 165 So.
Knighten v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 127 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Hoffpauir v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 124 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
Rottman v. Beverly, 1935, , 165 So.
Franicevich v. Lirette 124 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
McCarthy v. Blair 122 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Ingram v. McCorkle 121 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Rottman v. Beverly, *305 , 165 So.
Boyd v. Sutton 120 So. 2d 350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Spiers v. Consolidated Companies, Inc. 125 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Woodard v. American Indemnity Co. 118 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Mobley v. Citizens Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 117 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Rottman v. Beverly, 1935-1936, , 165 So.
Whitner v. Scott 116 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
This case notes the fact that our jurisprudence was broadened in *183 , 165 So.
Schellang v. Demuth 115 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Moore v. Shreveport Transit Company 115 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
Wells v. Meshell 115 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
Benjamin v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 113 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Newton v. Pacillo 111 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
Short v. City of Baton Rouge 110 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
language appearing in the Bergeron case, supra, is deemed particularly appropriate to the case at bar: “Assuming, as both courts found, that the driver of the truck was not negligent in any manner when he had stopped or slowed down and surveyed the situation before proceeding to make the turn, his duty then was to concentrate his attention on making the turn and, , 165 So.
Alvares v. Rush 108 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
Platt v. Scarborough 108 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Barrett v. Houston Fire & Casualty Co. 108 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1959
Lejeune v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 107 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Joffre v. Ike Haggert MacHine Works 100 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Prior to the advent of Rottman v. Beverly, 1935, , 165 So.
McElveen v. Gant 102 So. 2d 477 La. 1958
Bourgeois v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 102 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
g side of the highway has the last clear chance of avoiding the accident is normally a question of fact, depending on whether the oncoming *535 driver did or should have observed that the other driver had created or was creating a dangerous situation; and whether after such time, the oncoming driver could have avoided the accident in question, but nevertheless failed to do so, , 165 So.
Watson v. McEacharn 99 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Ballard v. Piehler 98 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Frazier v. Muse 98 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Litton v. Samuel 98 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
Rottman v. Beverly, 1935-1936, , 165 So.
Guillory v. Allstate Insurance 96 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
This court, having decided that the doctrine of last clear chance applies to these facts adopts a portion of Judge Odom’s , 165 So.
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co. 96 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
195, 197 , the doctrine of discovered peril as previously stated in Rottman v. Beverly, 1936, , 165 So.
Lacy v. Bullard 95 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Arnold v. Reuther 92 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1957
Counsel for plaintiffs concede the negligence of Mrs. Arnold in entering the street in the face of obvious danger, , 165 So.