Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Dodge v. Bituminous Casualty Corporation, 39 So. 2d 720.

61 citing documents.

McCoy v. Franklin Parish Police Jury 414 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
798 , ; , ; Fontenot v. Lafleur, La.App.
South Texas Lloyds v. Guarantee Insurance Co. 299 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
(1949), the Supreme Court held a motorist traveling on a straight highway at 45 miles per hour on a dark evening free from negligence for his failure to see a darkened truck until he was almost upon it, and who was unable to take the risk of passing to his left due to oncoming traffic.
Peggy Parish v. Liberty Universal Insurance Co. 251 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Ins.
Fairfax v. American Casualty Co. of Reading 236 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
377 (1940); , (1949); and Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company, 229 La.
O'Reilly v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 230 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
915 , (1956); , (1949); (La.App., 3d Cir. 1960 — cert.
Calais v. Thibodeaux 220 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
377 ; , ; Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company, 229 La.
Sittig v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 198 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
Corp., , ; Arnold v. Grain Dealers Mutual Ins.
Hernandez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 192 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
Shively v. Hare 189 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
798 , ; Dodge v. Bituminous Casualty Corporation, (1949) , ; Carter v. Le Blanc Lumber Co. (La.App., 1948) ; and Lynch v. Fisher (La.App., 1949) .
Crabtree v. Home Indemnity Co. 185 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
625 (2nd Cir. 1935) ; Dodge v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., La.App., (1st Cir. 1947) affirmed, , ; Heyden v. Dubos, La.App., (Orl.Cir.1952) ; Greenberg v. New Orleans Public Service, La.App., (Orl.
Gros v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company 183 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Cain v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. 178 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
377 ; , ; Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company, 229 La.
Woods v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 172 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
" , , we affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal holding free from negligence the motorist traveling on a straight highway at 45 miles per hour on a dark evening, unable to see a darkened truck until he was almost upon it and unable to take the risk of going to his left due to approaching traffic, and
Colclough v. Orleans Parish School Board 166 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
Granger v. Travelers Insurance Co. 167 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
798 , ; , ; Fontenot v. Lafleur, La.App.
Eubanks v. Wilson 162 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Wollerson v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Co. 159 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
377 (1940); , (1940); Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co., 229 La.
Smith v. Henry 147 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
Youngblood v. Newspaper Production Company 135 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Arata v. Orleans Capitol Stores, supra; , ; West v. Ray, 210 La.
Lewis v. Quebedeaux 134 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Ardoin v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 133 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Robards v. American Automobile Insurance Co. 128 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Fontenot v. LaFleur 124 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
Corp., , ; Puissegur v. Louque, La.App.
Ellis v. Nola Cabs, Inc. 124 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
238 ; , ; Rea v. Dow Motor Co., La.App., .” The District Judge obviously felt that the exception is applicable here.
Guillory v. Farmers Automobile Insurance 120 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
the Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed a decision of this Court where we held a plaintiff was not contributorily negligent when he was driving his automobile at a legal rate of speed in the nighttime, his lights burning and a careful look-out ahead being kept, when he struck a stationary truck on the
Gilliam v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. 119 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Arata v. Orleans Capitol Stores, Inc., supra; , ; West v. Ray, 210 La.
Puissegur v. Louque 113 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
377 ; , ; Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co., 229 La.
Tauzier v. Bondio 111 So. 2d 756 La. 1959
Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Ins.
Washington Fire & Marine Insurance v. Canal Insurance 110 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Corp., , ; Gaiennie v. Cooperative Produce Co., 196 La.
Bolton v. North River Insurance Company 102 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Mouton v. Pacific Indemnity Co. 102 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
798 , ; , ), so as to bar plaintiff’s recovery.
Suire v. Winters 97 So. 2d 404 La. 1957
Brignac v. Fontenot 96 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
25 , ; , .” All of the cases on which exceptors rely, which hold that the driver of the overtaking vehicle cannot recover, are based on the well founded theory that the driver of the said overtaking vehicle was himself guilty of contributory negligence.
Cormier v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 94 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Corp., , (relied upon by Castille's insurer), where the parked vehicles were left unlit and so as to create a hazard upon the highway under circumstances where reasonably prudent oncoming drivers might be expected to fail to perceive the dangerous obstacle in their path.
Washington Fire & Marine Insurance v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. 94 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Rizley v. Cutrer 95 So. 2d 139 La. 1957
377 ; , and Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co., 229 La.
McCullin v. State 94 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
ng in damages for personal injury or death on the ground of contributory negligence of the plaintiff, unless its charges are such as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis other than that the sole and proximate cause of the accident was due to the contributing fault of the plaintiff.” This rule has been followed in subsequent cases, among which arc: , ; West v. Ray, 210 La.
Downs v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London 90 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
where the court said: “We conclude therefore that- an affirmative defense, presented through exceptions or motions tried or triable only on the face of the petition, should not’’ be’ sustained unless the allegations of the petition exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than the premisé upon which the defense is based.” This rule was cited with, , .
Noland v. Liberty Mutual Ins. 89 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
238 ; , ; Rea v. Dow Motor Co., La.App., .
Washington Fire & Marine Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 86 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
238 ; , ; Rea v. Dow Motor Co., La.App., .
Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co. 86 So. 2d 909 La. 1956
we affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal holding free from negligence the motorist traveling on a straight highway at 45 miles per hour on a dark evening, unable to see a darkened truck until he was almost upon it and unable to take the risk of going to his left due to approaching traffic, and
Hicks v. Tilquit 82 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
377 ; , and , ; Lynch v. Fisher [La.App.], ; Buford v. Combs [La.App.], .
King v. Rabalais 79 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
definitely established 'in our jurisprudence that this result should be reached in each case only after taking into consideration all of the circumstances and facts surrounding the particular occurrence.’ “The well established rules to which we have ..referred have not, been changed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Dodge v. Bituminous Casualty Corporation, rendered on February 14th, 1949 [ ], .
Sedotal v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 77 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1954
238 ; , ; Rea v. Dow Motor Co., La.App., ; Buford v. Combs, La.App., .
Fernandez v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 76 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
for the purpose for disclosing actionable negligence against the driver of the truck, the following cases which we have carefully reviewed but do not find controlling under the facts and circumstances presented herein: Rea v. Dow Motor Co., La.App.1948, ; Holliday v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, La.App.1949, ; Dodge v. Bituminous Casualty Corporation, 1949, , ; Lynch v. Fisher, La.App.1949, ; Capitol Transport Co., Inc., v. A. R. Blossman, Inc., 1951, 218 La.
Sustendal v. Weber 76 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
It was said by the Supreme Court in Dodge .v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., , , 721 “As a general rule, contributory negligence being a special defense cannot be pleaded on an exception of no cause of action, since negligence is a question of fact which must be' determined by a trial on the merits.
State v. Carter 76 So. 2d 6 La. 1954
1026 , ]: “There are other decisions, however, announcing a different course to be followed, they being to the effect that where it appears that very probably the.
Distinguished Monteleone v. Dularge Packing Co. 73 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1954
377 ; , ; and Buford v. Combs, La.App., .
Swank v. Jordan 71 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
238 ; , ; Arata v. Orleans Capitol Stores, 219 La.
Max Barnett Furniture Co. v. Barrosse 70 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
This situation is referred to in Woodall v. Southern Scrap Material Co., La.App., , and which we, referring to a , , said: “That opinion, with the ‘per curiam’ by which a rehearing was refused, indicates to us that the Supreme Court is still of the opinion that the driver of a vehicle is under the primary duty of operating it so that he will not run into any obstruction or vehicle ahead pf him, but that there may be