DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Davis v. Teche Lines, Inc., 7 So. 2d 365.

13 citing documents.

  • Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 158 So. 2d 162 La. 1963
    The burden arising from the inference of negligence merely requires the defendant to show that it was free from negligence ( , ; it is not obliged to show, even in cases of passenger and carrier, how and why the accident occurred.
  • Jacobs v. Beck 141 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    Co. of North America, La.App., ; , .
  • State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Herrin Transportation Co. 136 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    In Davis v. Teche Lines, Inc., , (1942), the court commented : “The rebuttable presumption or inference of negligence arising by virtue of the operation of this rule is predicated upon, and arises only in the absence of, an explanation by the defendant, but the presumption or inference is overcome and rebutted if the defendant’s ex
  • Brown & Blackwood v. Ricou-Brewster Building Co. 121 So. 2d 70 La. 1960
    653 ; Davis v. Teche Lines, Inc., , ; Leigh v. Johnson-Evans Motors, Inc., supra; Hazel v. Williams, supra.” See, Cook & Co., Inc. v. Gulf Shipside Storage Corp., D.C., 177 F.Supp.
  • Jeter v. Lachle 106 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
    653 ; Davis v. Teche Lines, Inc., , ; Leigh v. Johnson-Evans Motors Inc., supra; Hazel v. Williams, supra.
  • Holder v. Lockwood 92 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
    Co. v. Eunice Motor Car Co., Inc., La.App., , a suit for damages to a vehicle, which was the object of the bailment, the court, , , held that where this doctrine was applicable and specific acts of negligence are also proven, the defendant would be required not only to rebut the inference of negligence arising from the rule but to show that he was not guilty of the specific acts of negligence.
  • Niagara Fire Insurance v. Shuff 93 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    iff support of his contention that the defendants should have shown all the facts surrounding the fire known to them, and quotes the following: "It appears that this employee willingly and freely gave all the information in his possession as to, the manner in which and where the fire originated.”
  • Saunders v. Walker 86 So. 2d 89 La. 1956
    Plunkett v. United Electric Service, 214 La.
  • Carter v. Middleton 76 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    814 ; , ; Gerald v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 204 La.
  • Leigh v. Johnson-Evans Motors 75 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    447, 449 , and as followed by the Supreme Court in Davis v. Teche Lines, Inc., , .
  • Pacific Fire Ins. v. Eunice Motor Car Co. 47 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    nion, viz.: (1) “in placing the defendant in the position of an insurer by holding it responsible, under' the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur where no negligent acts were proven, solely because the employees were unable to explain the cause of the fire” ; (2) the decision “is in conflict with the principle of law announced by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in the case of Davis v. Teche Lines, 1942, , .” With reference to the first assigned error, we definitely state that we are not placing or atte
  • Pittman Contracting Co. v. City Home Builders, Inc. 30 So. 2d 426 La. 1947
    Davis v. Teche Lines, Inc., , ; McGee v. Yazoo & M. V. R Co., 206 La.
  • Dupuy v. Graeme Spring Brake Service 19 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
    Concerning the proof which one must offer who, because of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, is under the duty of explaining such an occurrence, , , 367, said that he need not show exactly what had caused the loss but could extricate himself from liability by merely showing his own freedom from fault.