Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hill v. Knight, 163 So. 727.

31 citing documents.

Rizzuto v. Bracamontes 310 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Malone v. Hartford Insurance 239 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
The court in Taylor recognized the rule of Hill v. Knight, La.App., , wherein the court stated that in cases involving rear end collisions “No hard and fast rule can be laid down.
Green v. Talley 217 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
“As long ago as 1935, , this court recognized and approved the rule that a following driver should drive at such speed and maintain such an interval as would enable him to avoid collision with a leading car under circumstances which should reasonably be anticipated.
Jeansonne v. Willie 212 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
853 ; Hill v. Knight, La.App., ; Roberts v. Eason, 6 La.App.
Volkswagen Insurance v. Tamburello 210 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in these “rear-end” situations.
Henderson v. Ancona 197 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Again, in Hill v. Knight, La.App., , the following driver was held negligent in driving a few feet behind the lead vehicle which distance the court found too close under the prevailing circumstances.
Taylor v. Genuine Parts Company 192 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
In Hill v. Knight, La.App., , the court recognized that in cases involving rear-end collisions "* * * no hard and fast rule can be laid down.
Morgan v. Whittington 191 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
As long ago as 1935, in Hill v. Knight, [La.App.,] , this court recognized and approved the rule that a following driver should drive at such speed and maintain such an interval as would enable him to avoid collision with a leading car under circumstances which should reasonably be anticipated.
Fontenot v. Guidry 191 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Hill v. Knight, La.App., ; Plaisance v. Maryland Casualty Co., La.App., ; Nomey v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., .
Self v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 183 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
2 Cir., ; Plaisance v. Maryland Casualty Co., La.
Hester v. Stewart 177 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
As long ago as 1935, in Hill v. Knight [La.App.], , this court recognized and approved the rule that a following driver should drive at such speed and maintain such an interval as would enable him to avoid collison (sic) with a leading car under circumstances which should reasonably be anticipated.
Plaisance v. Maryland Casualty Company 169 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Regarding interval to be maintained by the trailing driver, we cite with approval the following language appearing in McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., La.App., : "In Hill v. Knight, La.App., , the following rule of law found in Blashfield's Cyclopedia of Automobile Law, Volume 1, Paragraph 942, was cited with approval.
Ray v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 152 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1963
"As long ago as 1935, in Hill v. Knight [La.App.], , this court recognized and approved the rule that a following driver should drive at such speed and maintain such an interval as would enable him to avoid collision with a leading car under circumstances which should reasonably be anticipated.
Elder v. Travelers Indemnity Company 125 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
II of Blashfield's Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, Perm.Ed., section 942, at page 96, quoted with approval in Hill v. Knight, La.App., ."
Lacour v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc. 124 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
These cases are Hill v. Knight, La.App., ; Peranio v. Superior Insurance Company, La.App., ; and Reeves v. Caillouet, La.App., .
Nomey v. Great American Indemnity Company 121 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
As long ago as 1935, , this court recognized and approved the rule that a following driver should drive at such speed and maintain such an interval as would enable him to avoid collison with a leading car under circumstances which should reasonably be anticipated.
Sibley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. 113 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
853 ; Hill v. Knight, La.App., ; Roberts v. Eason, 6 La.App.
Soudelier v. Johnson 95 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Indeed, in the case of McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., La.App., , relied on by the trial judge, which cited Hill v. Knight, La.App., quoted from Blashfield's Cyclopedia of Automobile Law as follows: "`The only rule that can govern the interval to be maintained is that of reasonable care under the circumstances.
Coleman v. Shreveport Railways Company 86 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
The court quoted from Hill v. Knight, La.App., , wherein the following rule of law found in Blashfield's Cyclopedia of Automobile Law, Vol.
Peranio v. Superior Insurance Company 76 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
We had this same proposition before us in the case of Rhea v. Daigle, La.App., in which the cases of McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., Inc., supra, and Hill v. Knight, La.App., , were cited; and in which was quoted and from which we quoted extensively, Blashfield's Cyclopedia of Automobile Law: "The only rule that can govern the interval to be maintained is that of reasonable care under the circumstances.
A. C. Service, Inc. v. Porter 73 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Therein, the case of Hill v. Knight, La.App., , was cited from which language was quoted as follows: “ 'The only rule that can govern the interval to be maintained is that of reasonable care under the circumstances.
Rhea v. Daigle 72 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Indeed, in the case of McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co., La.App., , relied on by the trial judge, which cited Hill v. Knight, La.App., quoted from Blashfield's Cyclopedia of Automobile Law as follows: "The only rule that can govern the interval to be maintained is that of reasonable care under the circumstances.
Max Barnett Furniture Co. v. Barrosse 70 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
853 ; Hill v. Knight, La.App., ; Roberts v. Eason, 6 La.App.
McGowan v. Royal Indemnity Co. 63 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
The plaintiff relies chiefly upon the doctrine enunciated in the case of Hill v. Knight, La.App., , in which the Court said: “We recognize and approve the rule of law that a following driver should drive at such a speed and maintain such an interval that he can avoid collision with the leading car, under circumstances which should reasonably be.
Crow v. Alesi 55 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Also see Shockley v. Norvell-Wilder Supply Co., La.App., ; Volume 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 301, p. 710; Hill v. Knight, La.App., ; Reeves v. Caillouet, La.App., ; Adams v. Morgan, La.App., 173 So.
Reeves v. Caillouet 46 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Even as to a following driver, the court had this to say in the case of Hill v. Knight, La.App., ; "We recognize and approve the rule of law that a following driver should drive at such a speed and maintain such an interval that he can avoid collision with the leading car, under circumstances which should reasonably be anticipated by him.
Smith v. Smith 36 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
App., , is appropriate to the case before us: "In action for damages to automobile which collided with truck ahead of automobile, motorist held not contributorily negligent in following truck so closely as to be unable to stop in time to avoid collision where truck abruptly stopped, without warning, to pick up pedestrian.
Vienne v. Chalona 28 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
Hebert v. Keller 17 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
304 ; Hill v. Knight, La.App., ; Boudreaux v. Iseringhausen, La.App., 177 So.
Hudgins v. Gage 194 So. 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
See Hill v. Knight et al., La.App., ; Allen v. Campbell, 17 La.App.
Roberson v. Rodriguez 186 So. 853 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
He was violating rule 8, section 3, of Act No. 21 of 1932, * * Plaintiff’s , decided by this court.