Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Watkins v. Gulf Refining Co., 20 So. 2d 273.

19 citing documents.

National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Harrington 854 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Oswalt v. Irby Const. Co. 424 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
App. 3d Cir.1979); Watkins v. Gulf Refining *353 Co., , (1944); (La.App.
Jardell v. Sabine Irrigation Co., Inc. 346 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
See, for example, , (1944); (La.App.
Dean v. Hercules Incorporated 328 So. 2d 69 La. 1976
Cowley v. Lott 291 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
161 , , at page 108, ‘less the cost of marketing, harvesting and maturing’, the market *449 value being ‘what the crops would have brought in a matured state at a sale in that community’, , , at page 281.
Trahan v. Florida Gas Transmission Company 208 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
(1944); Dubois v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 221 La.
Stoufflet v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. 162 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
161 , , at page 108, ‘less the cost of marketing, harvesting, and maturing’, the market value being ‘what the crops would have brought in a matured state at a sale in that community’, , , at page 281.” In the present case the cost of seeding and fertilizing should be deducted as the plaintiff testified that he planted no seed in 1959 or 1960 for the crop in question nor is there any evidence that he spent any money for fertilizer in these years.
Hudnall v. Travelers Insurance Co. 148 So. 2d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
54 ; Lanza v. De Ridder Coca Cola Bottling Co., La.App., ; , ; Johnson v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., La.App., ; Beck v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., 76 So.
Steadman v. American Fidelity & Casualty Company 113 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
Thus, in Watkins v. Gulf Refining Company, 1944, , , the Supreme Court stated the rule and its limitations to be: "The jurisprudence is clear that where damages are caused by an instrumentality under the exclusive control of a defendant and they would not ordinarily have occurred if the party having control thereof had used proper care, the doctrin
Williams v. US Royal Tires 101 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Gillis v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 95 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 91 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Hawayek v. Simmons 91 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Horrell v. Gulf & Valley Cotton Oil Co., 15 La.App.
Rhymes v. Guidry 84 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
161 , , at page 108, "less the cost of marketing, harvesting and maturing", the market value being "what the crops would have brought in a matured state at a sale in that community", , , at page 281.
Department of Highways v. Schwabe 79 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Arrington v. Hearin Tank Lines 80 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
In Watkins v. Gulf Refining Company, 1944, , , the Supreme Court declared: "The defendant in a damage suit coming under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur must show that he did not do anything that he should not have done, that he left undone nothing he should have done and that he neglected no legal duty owed to the plaintiff.
Dubois v. Phillips Petroleum Co. 59 So. 2d 107 La. 1952
Lejeune v. Collard 44 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
There must be a showing that the accident is of a nature which does not ordinarily occur where due care is exercised (Schon v. James [La.App., ] and Watkins v. Gulf Refining Co. [ , ], supra), and, further there must be a showing either of some act of negligence or of the omission of some precaution which constituted an actionable want of care.
Followed Anderson v. London Guarantee Accident Co. 36 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948