Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 24 So. 2d 292.

109 citing documents.

Le Beau v. Baton Rouge Bus Co. 136 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
"In Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , a case very similar to this one, the Court refused to hold a truck driver proceeding on a green light guilty of negligence for failing to observe that plaintiff's husband was not going to stop in obedience to a red signal light, which was not working at the time.
Plunkett v. Department of Highways 135 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
ijs ¡fc » See, also: , ; Henderson v. Central Mutual Insurance Company, 238 La.
Faulkner v. Ryder Tank Lines, Inc. 135 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
For instance, , , the Supreme Court quoted, with approval, an observation made in a dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeal by Judge (now Associate Justice) McCaleb who stated ( , 513-514): "We are living in an advanced stage of the motor age.
Tingle v. Rogers 134 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
it was appropriately stated by the Supreme Court that: “It can not and will not be disputed that a motorist, who recklessly and without exercising some degree of caution enters an intersection on a favorable light, is not free from negligence if he collides with another motorist who enters an int
Collins v. Purkey 134 So. 2d 123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Youngblood v. Robison, supra; Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Company, supra; , ; Patterson v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company, La.App.2d Cir., 1961, .
Patterson v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company 131 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
144 , , and Currie v. Government Employees Insurance Company et al., La.App., .
Guarisco v. Swindle 132 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
See Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Koob v. Cooperative Cab Co., 213 La.
Warner v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania 129 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Co. et al., La.App., ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Glen Falls Ins.
Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Company 124 So. 2d 535 La. 1960
Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Bahry v. Folse, supra; and White v. Travelers Insurance Company, La.App.
Winningham v. Weir 123 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Shortly thereafter the same court directed its attention to Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc. et al., in which Justice Hamlin, the organ of the court, , , 295: “We are living in an advanced stage of the motor age.
Allen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 120 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
903 , ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , 24 So.
Moss v. Travelers Insurance Co. 119 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Roussel v. Marshall, La.App.1958, ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 1945, .
Bowers v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company 119 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
903 , ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Smith v. Hoye, La.App., ; Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Co., Inc., La.
Youngblood v. Robison 118 So. 2d 431 La. 1960
In Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , a case very simi *347 lar to this one, the Court refused to hold a truck driver proceeding on a green light guilty of negligence for failing to observe that plaintiff’s husband was not going to stop in obedience to a red signal light, which was not working at the time.
Bryant v. Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Company 117 So. 2d 919 La. 1960
May v. Huey 116 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
f way street to exercise a mere slight care and precaution in observing approaching traffic, and where plaintiff’s driver did not at all look for approaching traffic, but merely straight ahead and did not see that which was there for her to see, she did not exercise the slightest care in that regard.” This principle has also been recognized by the Supreme Court in Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , where it was stated: “It can not and will not be disputed that a motorist, who recklessly and wi
Moore v. Shreveport Transit Company 115 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
Appropriate to the truckdriver's position is the following observation made by the Supreme Court in Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , 294-295: "* * * it also can not be disputed that under the traffic light system a motorist, who is proceeding on a proper signal, should not be held to the same degree of care and vigilance as if no such system prevailed.
Randall v. Baton Rouge Bus Co. 114 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
"In Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , it was stated: "`It cannot and will not be disputed that a motorist, who recklessly and without exercising some degree of caution enters an intersection on a favorable light, is not free from negligence if he collides with another motorist who enters an intersection on an unfavorable light.
Newton v. Pacillo 111 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Wood v. Manufacturers Casualty Co., La.App., ; Henderson v. Central Mutual Ins.
Evans v. Walker 111 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , 24 So.
Henderson v. Central Mutual Insurance 111 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Kientz v. *354 Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Wood v. Manufacturers Casualty Ins.
Platt v. Scarborough 108 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
La.App., , 314: “In gauging the fault which may be attributable to a motorist who was operating his vehicle in obedience to positive law, such as at a lawful speed and in a proper traffic lane, one should be convinced that the dereliction was most substantial and that it was such a direct factor that without it the accident would not have occurred; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , .” The established facts are convincing that plaintiff was free from fault in the occurrence of the collision with
Wood v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co. 107 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
In gauging the fault which may be attributable to a motorist who was operating his vehicle in obedience to positive law, such as at a lawful speed and in a proper traffic lane, one should be convinced that the dereliction was most substantial and that it was such a direct factor that without it the accident would not have occurred; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , .
Commercial Credit Corporation v. Morris 107 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
In reaching this conclusion, we are not unmindful of the observation made by the Supreme Court in Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , in quoting from a dissenting opinion of Judge McCaleb of the Orleans Court of Appeal, now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, in the same case as reported in , 513-514, wherein he stated: "`We are living in an advance stage of the motor age.
Insurance Co. of North America v. Gore 106 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Co., La.App., ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Glen Falls Ins.
Audubon Insurance v. Duet 102 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
’t make it so, and I would have to say on the basis of Mr. Fazzio’s testimony that the plaintiff’s act in entering that intersection on a red light was the negligence that was the proximate cause of this accident.” Plaintiff has cited as authority in support of the proposition that defendants truck driver was negligent, Schindler v. Gage, La.App., and Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , .
Johnson v. Delta Fire & Casualty Co. 102 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; White v. Travelers Insurance Co., La.App., .
Lewis v. Rosenthal 100 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
See Bartholomaus v. H. G. Hill Stores, Inc., La.App., ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , .
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 98 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
70 ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , .
Lampkin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 99 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
Similarly, in Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , which involved some facts similar to those in the instant case, particularly in that the red light of a traffic signal was not in operation, the Supreme Court found and stated as a fact that the driver who entered the intersection on the green light "looked first to the left and then to the right
Marrero v. Richard 98 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
The Supreme Court in the case of Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , has recognized the fact that due to the high number of automobiles oh our highways today, these rights and duties of every driver using the highways must be followed in order to prevent accidents.
Duree v. STATE, DEPT. OF INSTITUTIONS 96 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
In Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , our Supreme Court had occasion to discuss the relative duties of the drivers at an intersection regulated by traffic signals.
Youngblood v. Allstate Insurance Co. 98 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
70 , and Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , .
Stevens v. Delanoix 96 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
"Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Niagra Fire Ins.
Duree v. State ex rel. Department of Institutions 96 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
In Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , our Supreme Court had occasion to discuss the relative duties of the drivers at an intersection regulated by traffic signals.
Brignac v. Fontenot 96 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
In Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , the Court said: “The record discloses, and in fact it is not seriously disputed, that Mr. Kientz was guilty of negligence, but his negligence cannot be imputed to plaintiff, his wife.
Bartholomaus v. HG Hill Stores, Inc. 97 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
We also agree that the jurisprudence is to the effect that a motorist cannot in the face of imminent danger rely on the right of way accorded him by a favorable light, but as stated in Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , -294: "* * * it also can not be disputed that under the traffic light system a motorist, who is proceeding on a proper signal, should not be held to the same degree of care and vigilance as if no such system prevailed.
Ryan v. Allstate Insurance Company of Chicago 95 So. 2d 328 La. 1957
Co., La.App., ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Glen Falls Ins.
White v. Travelers Insurance Company 94 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Niagara Fire Ins.
Stovall v. Washington 88 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Had the streetcar not blocked plaintiff’s vision to his left, it is possible that we would feel that he should have noticed the truck even though it may have entered in the face of an 'tinfa-vorable light, but since his view was blocked his failure to see the on-coming truck was not negligence on his part.” In Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , the Supreme Court reasoned: “It can not and will not be disputed that a motorist, who recklessly and without exercising some degree of caution enters a
Fletcher v. Allstate Insurance 88 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
The Supreme Court in Kientz v. Charles Den-nery, Inc., 1945, , , appropriately stated: “It can not and will not be disputed that a motorist, who recklessly and without exercising some degree of caution enters an intersection op a favorable light, is not free from negligence if he collides with another motorist who enters an intersection on an unfavorable light
Martin v. Adams 88 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
In Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , it was stated: "It can not and will not be disputed that a motorist, who recklessly and without exercising some degree of caution enters an intersection on a favorable light, is not free from negligence if he collides with another motorist who enters an intersection on an unfavorable light.
Ryan v. All State Insurance Co. 86 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
903 , ; Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , ; Murphy v. Rowan, La.App., ; Glen Falls Ins.
Marler v. State 78 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
It was held by the Supreme Court in Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , , that a driver, knowing that a motorist on an intersecting street is required to stop before entering intersection, may assume that motorist will do so unless it is obvious that speed of motorist is so gr
Stevenson v. Williams 76 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
The point made by defendants of plaintiff’s nonobservance of the approach of defendant’s car has been answered by the Supreme Court in Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc. (In re Charles Dennery, Inc.,), , , 294-295 wherein the court said: “It can not and will not be disputed that a motorist, who recklessly and without exercising some degree of caution enters an intersection on a favorable light, is not free from negligence if he collides with another motorist who enters an intersection on an unfavor
Sullivan v. Locke 73 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
The Supreme Court also appropriately stated in Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , 294: "It can not and will not be disputed that a motorist, who recklessly and without exercising some degree of caution enters an intersection on a favorable light, is not free from negligence if he collides with another motorist who enters an intersection on an unfavorable light.
De Jean v. Hattier 65 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1953
In Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , the Supreme Court quoted with approval from Clark v. De Beer, 188 So.
Terrebonne v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 64 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
In Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , in which the Supreme Court said that although a motorist who has the right of way is not entirely relieved from the obligation of exercising some degree of care, still he has the right to assume that the other motorist will obey the traffic laws.
Daniel v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 61 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
I would not have pulled in the second lane for nothing.” Counsel for plaintiff, to avoid the impact of defendant’s alternative plea, argues that under the doctrine established by the Supreme Court in Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , , Daniel, when the light changed to green in 'his favor when he was 30 or 35 feet from the intersection, had the right to assume that traffic on Esplanade Avenue would obey the traffic signal, and that in entering the intersection he acted as a reasonably prudent d
Niagara Fire Ins. v. Schouest 58 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
See Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., , .