Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Jackson v. Cook, 181 So. 195.

221 citing documents.

Anderson v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. 74 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Anderson v. Morgan City Canning Co. 73 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Broughton v. Touchstone 72 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
Prine v. Continental Southern Lines 71 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Moore v. Nola Cabs 70 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Wheadon v. Porter 69 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
153 and Jackson v. Cook, 1938, , 181 So.
Mitchell v. Buras 68 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
153 and reiterated' in Jackson v. Cook, 1938, , 181 So.
Crossley v. Stell 69 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
The driver of any vehicle traveling at an-unlawful rate of speed.or in an unlawful manner shall forfeit any right of way which he might otherwise have.” , 181 So.
Audubon Ins. Co. v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. 68 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Potomac Ins. v. City of Alexandria 66 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Dupuy v. Veazey 63 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
153 and Jackson v. Cook, 1938, , 181 So.
Silvera v. Gallardo 63 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Pereira v. Herbert 59 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
Bergeron v. Department of Highways 60 So. 2d 4 La. 1952
Scheib v. Ledet 57 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
Kimble v. Airco Refrigeration Service, Inc. 57 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
Bechtel v. Oriol 52 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Bergeron v. Department of Highways 50 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
“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.” Then again in the case entitled Jackson v. Cook, as reported in , 181 So.
Breaux v. Barichnivich 49 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Drez v. Grand 48 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Cox v. Gross 47 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Haywood v. Fidelity Mut. Ins. Co. of Indianapolis 47 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
This defendant is presumed to have seen what he should have seen, , 181 So.
Conway v. Serio 47 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
It is true that under the doctrine of Jackson y. Gook, , 181 .So, 195, and other cases, the defendant is charged with having seen that which he should have seen, and that if he could have discovered plaintiff’s peril in time to have avoided the accident, he is liable, notwithstanding the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.
Flowers v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America 46 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
153, 156 , the Supreme Court said: “The first duty of those who operate engines or motor vehicles is to keep a sharp lookout ahead to discover the presence of those who might be in danger.” , 181 So.
Gonzales v. Hanle 46 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1950
Wall v. Great American Indemnity Co. 46 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
The principle was followed — and somewhat extended-— , 181 So.
Rohm v. Hamburg 43 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
153, 156 , the Supreme Court said:— “The first duty of those who operate engines or motor vehicles is to keep a sharp lookout ahead to discover the presence of those who might be in danger.” , 181 So.
Tillman v. Public Belt R. R. Commission 42 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
* * *" Shortly thereafter, , 181 So.
Parker v. Home Indemnity Co. of New York 41 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Maher v. New Orleans Linen Supply Co. 41 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
O'Connor v. Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. 40 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
McLelland v. Harper 38 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
Mahne v. Steele 32 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
[6] The Supreme Court, , 181 So.
Kemp v. Donnes 32 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Hanson v. Great American Indemnity Co. 33 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Paquet v. Renken 30 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
Wyche v. Brian 28 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Howze v. Hollandsworth 26 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Plaintiff is relying largely on the decisions in the cases of Rottman v. Beverly, supra, , 181 So.
Young v. Creegan 23 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Distinguished Bailey v. Reggie 22 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Muller v. Phillips 20 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
* * *" Counsel further argue that even if Phillips did not see Muller in time to avoid striking him, he is, nevertheless, liable because the Supreme *Page 445 , 181 So.
Hebert v. Meibaum 19 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
Carroll v. Louisiana Iron Supply Co. 17 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
The above doctrine was expanded in the case of Jackson v. Cook, La.App., .
Daly v. Employers Liability Assur. Corp. Ltd. 15 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
In these circumstances, she would not be liable under the doctrine of last clear chance, for, , 181 So.
Brown v. Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. 14 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
Gauthier v. Foote 12 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1943
"This has been held in repeated decisions of the Supreme Court (Jackson v. Cook, La.App., ).
Griffin v. Thompson 11 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Coleman v. Terrebonne Ice Co. 8 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Soards v. Shreveport Rys. Co. 8 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Epps v. Standard Supply Hardware Co. 4 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941