Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Loewenberg v. Fidelity Union Casualty Co., 147 So. 81.

18 citing documents.

Stephens v. Natchitoches Parish School Board 110 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
Counsel for defendant insist that Stephens "failed to use due care in approaching the intersection," and cite the general principle governing the exercise of necessary caution in approaching an intersection, etc., as enunciated in Loewenberg v. Fidelity Union Casualty Co., La.App., ; Gartman v. Traylor, La.App., 164 So.
Crosby v. Brown Oil Tools 92 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
While we have carefully considered counsel's brief in which he states that in the case of Loewenberg v. Fidelity Union Casualty Company, La.App., , the Court fixed the rate of speed at which a pedestrian normally walks at four miles per hour, and using this rate, if Fagan was traveling 40 miles per hour he was traveling ten times as fast as decedent and, therefore, when the latter started across the highway the Fagan car was more than *120 180 feet from the poi
Parker v. Home Indemnity Co. of New York 41 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
App., , and Young v. Thompson, La.
Lervick v. White Top Cabs 10 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
153 ; Loewenberg v. Fidelity Union Casualty Company, La.App., .
Rector v. Allied Van Lines, Inc. 198 So. 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
195 ; Loewenberg v. Fidelity Union Casualty Co., La.App., ; Iglesias v. Campbell, La.App., 175 So.
Young v. Thompson 189 So. 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Loewenberg et al. v. Fidelity Union Casualty Company et al., La.App., , and Iglesias v. Campbell, La.
Prince v. Texas & N. O. R. Co. 189 So. 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Loewenberg v. Fidelity Union Casualty Company, La.App., ; Harlow v. Owners’ Auto Insurance Company, La.App., 160 So.
Shipp v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. in Trusteeship 188 So. 526 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
195 ; Loewenberg v. Fidelity Union Casualty Co., La.App., ; Iglesias v. Campbell, La.App., 175 So; 145; Davidson v. American Drug Stores, La.App., 175 So.
Jackson v. Cook 181 So. 195 La. 1938
Harlow v. Owners’ Auto Ins.
Jackson v. Cook 176 So. 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Harlow, v. Owners’ Automobile Ins.
Iglesias v. Campbell 175 So. 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
this court held: “Last clear chance doctrine applies even if defendant did not see the danger, but by exercise of ordinary care could have seen danger in time to avoid injury.” Numerous decisions are there cited which sustain this conclusion.
Hicks v. Texas & N. O. R. Co. 173 So. 745 La. 1937
Iglesias v. Campbell 170 So. 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
we said that the rule in Louisiana is that, if defendant did not see the danger, but by the exercise of ordinary care could have seen the danger in time to avoid the injury, the doctrine, of the last clear chance will apply.
Alengi v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 167 So. 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Gartman v. Traylor 164 So. 660 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
“ , the Court of Appeal says: “ ‘The courts of this state have repeatedly held that a motorist, on approaching an intersection, must reduce the speed of his car to a speed which will give him such *663 control of his car as to allow him to stop the car at the shortest possible notice.
Pannell v. Consolidated Parcels, Inc. 164 So. 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Harlow v. Owners' Automobile Ins. 160 So. 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
App.) , are pedestrian eases where the pedestrian had placed himself in danger, but where the defendant had an opportunity of avoiding the accident, of which he did not avail himself, and we believe these cases are applicable to the case at bar.
Fontanille v. Ducote 155 So. 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934