DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Anderson v. London Guarantee Accident Co., 36 So. 2d 741.

14 citing documents.

  • Wiley v. J. Weingarten, Inc. 274 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    Anderson v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., La.App.2d Cir., 1948, .
  • Larkin v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. 258 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
    -885 (La.App., 2d Cir. 1959); Anderson v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.
  • Tucker v. Travelers Insurance Company 160 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    Anderson v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., La.App.2d Cir., 1948, .
  • Longlois v. Ackel 146 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    The district judge cited the case of Anderson v. London Guarantee & Accident Co. (La.App., 2 Cir., 1948), , as his reason for deciding the case in favor of defendant.
  • Le Bourgeois v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co. 101 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    The leading case cited by defendant was Anderson v. London Guarantee *723 & Accident Co., La.App., .
  • Bergeron v. Houston-American Insurance Company 98 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    2 Cir., , Riche v. Thompson, La.App.
  • Woodward v. Tillman 82 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    App., , for the general rules of negligence found therein.
  • Carter v. Middleton 76 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    Co., La.App., ; Anderson v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., La.App., ; Dupuy v. Graeme Spring & Brake Service, La.App., ; Vallette v. Maison Blanche Co., La.App., ; Piacun v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., La.App., .
  • Leigh v. Johnson-Evans Motors 75 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
    Also relied upon by defendant is the opinion of this court in the case of Anderson v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., Limited, La.App., , which was an action for injuries sustained by service station employees injured when a tire rim threw a spare truck tire into their faces while removing a flat tire for repairs.
  • Hoyt v. Amerada Petroleum Corp. 69 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    ' ' We recognize the rule laid down in Anderson v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., Limited, La.App., , and other cases to the effect that it is incumbent on a claimant invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to establish some negligence, and if he fails' to do so, there can be no recovery.
  • Stell v. Briggs 69 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    These cases refer- to the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine as applied to storage and garage businesses, etc. For a full discussion of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, see Anderson v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., La.App., , where numerous cases from this and other jurisdictions are cited and discussed.
  • Landry v. News-Star-World Pub. Corp. 46 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    In the opinion of this Court in Anderson v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., Ltd., , certiorari refused, we quoted a number of authorities with respect to negligence, in the course of which we noted the following quotation: “ ‘The common usage of a business or occupation is frequently stated to be a test of care or negligence, and accordingly, conformity to custom or usage is very generally reg
  • Lejeune v. Collard 44 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    App., , to-wit: "An essential element in the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a showing that a defendant failed to use proper care as to the instrumentality under his control."
  • Lockwood v. Kennedy 44 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was discussed by this Court at length in the Mercer case, supra, and in the comparatively recent case of Anderson et al. v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., Ltd., La.App., , certiorari denied by the Supreme Court on November 8, 1949.