DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Aaron v. Martin, 177 So. 242.

14 citing documents.

  • Adams v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford 543 So. 2d 480 La. 1989
  • Walker v. Marcev 427 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • LeBlanc v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 157 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Bernard v. Hungerford 157 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
  • Grayson v. Allstate Insurance Company 141 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Bordelon v. Couvillion 130 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Otis v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 127 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
  • Senegal v. Thompson 91 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
  • Leger v. Texas & P. R. Co. 67 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    It is his duty to exercise ordinary care to protect himself from known dangers and perils which the attendant circumstances suggest.’ ” , 177 So.
  • White v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. 64 So. 2d 245 La. 1953
    st, where such guest is aware of the danger and .makes no protest, is that of assent to- and acquiescence in such negligence.” All of these principles relating to the-conduct and the duties of the guest in an automobile are not without their application by this court as is fully reflected in the case of Lorance v. Smith, supra, and more particularly, in my opinion, , 177 So.
  • Levy v. New Orleans Northeastern R. Co. 20 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
  • Clinton v. City of West Monroe 187 So. 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    f danger attendant upon the sudden and violent movements of the car, but also such as arise from the inability of the driver, when traveling at a high rate of .speed, to make short quick stops to avoid collisions, or defects in the street, or direct the car at bends or curves in the road so as to keep it in the traveled way.” , 177 So.
  • Squyres v. Baldwin 185 So. 14 La. 1938
    As to the first ground, defendant contends that the presence of a railway car obstructing a crossing is in itself sufficient warning of the danger and that the railroad company is not negligent in failing to give additional warning of the obstruction, and cites in support thereof the following cases: , 177 So.
  • Murray v. Yazoo & M. v. R. Co. 183 So. 543 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938