Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lynch v. Fisher, 34 So. 2d 513.

30 citing documents.

Vaccaro v. Allgood, Inc. 449 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Carter v. CITY PARISH GOVERNMENT, ETC. 423 So. 2d 1080 La. 1982
LeJeune v. Allstate Ins. Co. 356 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
Gansloser v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. 339 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
s, we find in Section 435 a plain and unambiguous statement of the principle which refutes the requirement of foreseeability: `If the actor's conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about harm to another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it occurred does not prevent him from being liable.'" Lynch v. Fisher, La.App., , 518 & 519.
McCormick v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company 328 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Stevenson v. Delahaye 310 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
834, 837 , and 843, , 640 and 642 (1966); and Grigsby v. Coastal Marine Service of Texas, Inc., 235 F.Supp.
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Burris 240 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1970
4th Cir. 1962), (La.App.
Gambino v. Lubel 190 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
1964), Lynch v. Fisher, La.App., , ; 38 Am.Jur.
Distinguished Dartez v. City of Sulphur 179 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Laplace v. Minks 174 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
The petitioner cites Lynch v. Fisher, La.App., in support of his claim for damages.
Woods v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. 172 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
See Lynch v. Fisher, et al, La.App., ; same case at .
Propane Corp. v. Phoenix Assurance Co. of New York 171 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
In view of this factual conclusion the principles enunciated in Lynch v. Fisher, et al. (2nd Cir., 1948), La.App., , cited by counsel, would not be applicable.
Oldham v. Hoover 140 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Able counsel for plaintiff in his brief cites and relies upon the case of Lynch v. Fisher, La.App., .
Walton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 136 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon the pronouncement in Lynch v. Fisher et al., La.App., ; Id., La.App., (2nd Circuit, 1949), to the effect that an intervening cause, in order to supersede original negligence, must have alone produced the injury.
Peats v. Martin 133 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Lanza Enterprises, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co. 129 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Rector v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. of Hartford, Conn. 120 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
As was pointed out in Lynch v. Fisher, La.App., , the fact that a particular injurious consequence is improbable or not to be reasonably *521 expected is not an adequate defense."
Fisher v. Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society, Ltd. 119 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
2 Cir., , also (on merits), La.App.
Ganey v. Scalia 116 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
In support of this contention counsel cites well established and accepted principles and authorities, embracing, inter alia, the cases of Lynch v. Fisher, La.App., ; La.App., , and Gay v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., .
Myers v. American Chain & Cable Co. 109 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
The law of this state is well set forth in the case of Lynch v. Fisher, La.App., , and from which we quote the following: “ ‘ “We think it is well established that the general doctrine of foreseeability is not applicable to the extent of relieving one who sets in motion, through the agency of the negligent act, a chain of circum *273 stances leading to the final resultant injury.
Bergeron v. Houston-American Insurance Company 98 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
2 Cir., (merits), (exception of no cause of action), perhaps the leading Louisiana case on the subject, specifically approved the rule of Section 435, First Restatement of the Law of Torts, cited at : "If the actor's conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about harm to another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw
Soudelier v. Johnson 95 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
"The other case of Lynch v. Fisher, La.App., , which the lower court relied upon is not apposite to the facts in the instant case.
Exner v. Flowers 82 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
For if -the Exner car remained where Mrs. Flowers driving with due care could have .had sufficient time to observe it and avoid striking it, it would appear that she would be negligent, see, e. g., Lynch v. Fisher, La.App., .
Edelman v. Refrigeration Equipment Co. 72 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
In the case of Lynch v. Fisher, La.App., , the Court states: ■ “Plaintiff herein has properly alleged the concurrent negligence of the several defendants and there is ample authority in this State for the proposition that a third person may recover from either or all parties alleged tó be guilty of concurrent negligence.
Rhea v. Daigle 72 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
App.], , and McDaniel v. Capitol Transport Co. [La.App.], , substantiate the rule of law that it is duty of a driver of an automobile following another to have his car under such control as to be able to bring it to a complete stop within the range of his vision or penetration of lights when confronted by any obs
Preuett v. STATE DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS 62 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1953
We think this proposition has been adequately disposed of in the opinion of this court in Lynch v. Fisher, La.App., , from which we quote as follows: "Finally, consideration must be given to the application vel non of the general rule that one is not responsible for those particular injurious consequences which are unforeseen, improbable and not reasonably to have been expected to result from the original act of negligence.
Gibbs v. Tourres 50 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1951
App., , the fact that a particular injurious consequence is improbable or not to be reasonably expected is not an adequate defense.
Chavers v. AR Blossman, Inc. 45 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
App., , and from which we quote the following: "We think it is well established that the general doctrine of foreseeability is not applicable to the extent of relieving one who sets in motion, through the agency of the negligent act, a chain of circumstances leading to the final resultant injury.
Lynch v. Fisher 41 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Woodall v. Southern Scrap Material Co. 40 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
App., ; Ledoux v. Beyt et al., La.