DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Morales v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., 12 So. 2d 804.

50 citing documents.

  • Funez v. Jefferson Parish School Bd. 528 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    Corp., , , this Court aptly stated: `It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • Jones v. Levy 520 So. 2d 457 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    Corp., , , this Court aptly stated: `It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • McCann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 483 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Corp., , (1943), it was stated that: "...
  • Beauclair v. Travelers Insurance Co. 480 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Carriere v. Olivier 432 So. 2d 1089 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Zeno v. Lincoln General Hospital 404 So. 2d 1337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    Corp., , , this Court aptly stated: `It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • White v. McCool 395 So. 2d 774 La. 1981
    Corp., , , this Court aptly stated: `It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • Cranford v. Nelson & East Ford Co. 339 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    4th Cir., 1962), and Morales v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, , (1943).
  • Taylor v. CNA Insurance Group 300 So. 2d 479 La. 1974
    *482 755, , this Court aptly stated: `It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • Sharon v. Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. 270 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Haymark and Sons, Inc. v. Prendergast 268 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
  • Rhodes v. Max Factor, Inc. 264 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
    Corporation, , (1943), as follows: "`It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • Simon v. Ford Motor Co. 256 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    and Morales v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., , (1943).
  • Romero v. Butcher Air Conditioning Company 255 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
    Corporation, , (1943); (La.App.
  • Craker v. Allstate Insurance Company 250 So. 2d 746 La. 1971
    (Morales v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corp., , [1943]).
  • Sharrett v. Fontcuberta 246 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    Corp., , (1943) wherein it is stated: “ It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • Thomas v. Gillette Company 230 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
    Corporation, , (1943), our Supreme Court stated: "It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room *876 for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • Moak v. Link-Belt Company 229 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
    Corp., , (1943); Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, 223 La.
  • Connecticut Fire Insurance v. Lavergne 224 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    Corporation, , (1943), as follows: “It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • Favalora v. Travelers Insurance Co. 223 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Hanchey v. Central Louisiana Electric Co. 218 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    544 , (1957); Morales v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corp., , 12 So.
  • King v. King 217 So. 2d 395 La. 1968
    Corp., , ; Lorance v. Smith, 173 La.
  • Evans v. Travelers Insurance Company 212 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    that when the evidence allows the conclusion that the accident may be attributable to causes other than negligence on the part of the defendant the reason for application of res ipsa loquitur fails and it cannot be invoked.
  • Marshall v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Co. 204 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
  • West v. Hydro-Test, Inc. 196 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
  • Hill v. Insurance Co. of North America 279 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    (1943) , , the court had before it a case somewhat similar to the instant case.
  • Fruge v. Trahan 194 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
    Corp., , , to-wit: "It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • Eversmeyer v. Chrysler Corporation 192 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
    When it is shown that the accident might have happened as the result of one of two causes, the reason for the rule fails and it cannot be invoked * * *" Morales v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., , .
  • Tarbox v. Eason 179 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • Nelson v. Zurich Insurance 165 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Corp., , , this Court aptly stated: “ ‘It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • Schulingkamp v. Bolton Ford, Inc. 163 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    Corp., , , the Supreme Court said: "It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 158 So. 2d 162 La. 1963
    Corp., , , this Court aptly stated: `It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • Glisson v. Colonial Buick, Inc. 156 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 148 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Bougon v. Traders & General Insurance Company 146 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    Corporation, , ; Ardoin v. Millers Mutual Fire Ins.
  • Layfield v. Bourgeois 142 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    Corporation, , , we find the following statement of the law as to the applicability of res ipsa loquitur to automobile accidents: "To render the doctrine applicable in an automobile accident, the accident must be one which ordinarily could not happen except through defects in the car or fault in its operation, or both
  • Singleton v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation 131 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    Corp., , , this Court aptly stated: `It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • Bauer v. Columbia Casualty Company 126 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    Corporation, , ; Jones v. Shell Petroleum Corporation, 185 La.
  • Talbert v. Tyler 121 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Ardoin v. Millers Mutual Fire Ins.
  • Derouen v. American Employers Insurance 118 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    Corp., , , this Court aptly stated: ‘It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave room for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • Steadman v. American Fidelity & Casualty Company 113 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
    In Morales v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., 1943, , , the following pertinent comment was made: "It is fundamental that negligence is never presumed from the happening of an accident, but the happening of an accident with its attendant circumstances may justify the inference of negligence.
  • Shields v. United Gas Pipe Line Company 110 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
  • Minton v. Continental Insurance Company 110 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    52 , Morales v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., , , Ardoin v. Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Texas, La.App., and Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 233 La.
  • Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 97 So. 2d 389 La. 1957
    Corp., , , this Court aptly stated: “It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • Ardoin v. Millers Mutual Fire Insurance 92 So. 2d 123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    Plaintiff contends that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in this case and cites in support thereof Morales v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, La.App.1942, , affirmed by Supreme Court in , .
  • Saunders v. Walker 86 So. 2d 89 La. 1956
    Corporation, *435 Ltd., , , we adopted a rule reading in effect as follows: “It is fundamental that negligence is never presumed from the happening of an accident, hut the happening of an accident with its attendant circumstances may justify the inference of negligence.” The slipping off or coming aloose of the rubber hose
  • Dorman v. T. Smith & Son, Inc. 64 So. 2d 833 La. 1953
    Corp., , , it is stated: “It is the, duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies.
  • Kean's v. National Surety Corp. 53 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    As brought out by the defendants in their brief, the doctrine of res ipsa lo-quitur is not applicable when the accident could have happened as a result of one of two causes, citing the case of Morales v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corp., , , wherein the Supreme Court said: “(12-14) It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a d
  • Gerald v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana 16 So. 2d 233 La. 1943
    11 ; Morales v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., et al., , 12 So.
  • Storey v. Parker 13 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    In construing the rule, the Supreme Court, in the case of Morales v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., et al., La.Sup., , decided within the last few weeks and not yet reported, stated as follows: "It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that th