Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lorance v. Smith, 138 So. 871.

51 citing documents.

Adams v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford 543 So. 2d 480 La. 1989
Hutson v. Madison Parish Police Jury 496 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
McCoy v. Franklin Parish Police Jury 414 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Richards v. American Home Assurance Co. 241 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
See 8 Am.Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 543, p. 101; Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Co. v. Jackson, 5 Cir., 95 F.2d 369 ; , 138 So.
King v. King 217 So. 2d 395 La. 1968
Beavers v. Butler 188 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
LeBlanc v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 157 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Bernard v. Hungerford 157 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
Abboud v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 157 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Carter v. Canal Insurance Co. 154 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Grayson v. Allstate Insurance Company 141 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
"In Lorance v. Smith, ( , 138 So.
Bordelon v. Couvillion 130 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Brady ex rel. Brady v. Audubon Insurance Co. 114 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Ferguson v. Highway Insurance Underwriters 109 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Harris v. Varnado 94 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Senegal v. Thompson 91 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Insurance Co. 88 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Dickson v. Peters 87 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
Vowell v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co. 86 So. 2d 909 La. 1956
Hawkins v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 73 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
29 ; Lorance v. Smith, 1932, , 138 So.
Hubble v. Bourg 68 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
White v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. 64 So. 2d 245 La. 1953
utory negligence is immaterial.” This Court has evidently been aware of the distinction between a guest’s contributory negligence and his assumption of risk as brought out in the foregoing discussion in connection with the doctrine of the latter doctrine which, as is shown, includes the element of “acquiescence or willingness to proceed in the face of danger,” , 138 So.
Jones v. Burke 51 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Stuart v. Gleason McKenney 42 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
The circumstances under which a , 138 So.
Levy v. New Orleans Northeastern R. Co. 20 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Waguespack v. Savarese 13 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1943
Morales v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. 12 So. 2d 804 La. 1943
Russo v. Aucoin 7 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Gott v. Scott 199 So. 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
In Grantham v. Smith, the decision relied upon, a Court of Appeal decision, the Supreme Court, , 138 So.
Buttitta v. Varino 197 So. 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Thibodaux v. Culotta 192 So. 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
The defendants contend that the fact that deceased was driving his small coupe automobile, built, as they say, for the accommodation of only two people, with six persons riding therein, constitutes negligence on his part, , 138 So.
Clinton v. City of West Monroe 187 So. 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
con-tributorily negligent as matter of law and could not recover from railroad or from mill owner whose employees were operating switch engine on spur track for injuries sustained, where guest was aware of track, automobile driver was not confronted with sudden emergency, box car having blocked all or nearly all of crossing, and guest did not warn driver to be cautious.” , 138 So.
Aaron v. Martin 177 So. 242 La. 1937
Lofton v. Cottingham 172 So. 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
art. 2315.” Lorance v. Smith et al. (Grantham v. Smith), , 138 So.
Herr v. Thames 165 So. 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
David v. Joseph 164 So. 467 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1935
Waddell v. Langlois 158 So. 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
884 , , the Supreme Court, acting on a case in which they found facts somewhat similar to the present situation, approvingly quoted from 42 C. .7.
Ponder v. Ponder 157 So. 627 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
“Able counsel for defendants cite a number of cases in support of their contentions in this case, , 138 So.
Rhodes v. Jordan 157 So. 811 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1934
Smith v. Vellino 156 So. 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Kimbro v. Holladay 154 So. 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Provosty v. Christy 152 So. 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Sandoz v. Beridon 150 So. 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
or unexpected danger arises to the knowledge of the guest, apparently not observed by the driver, it is the duty of the guest to warn the driver of it at once, and if the guest fails to do so, he is guilty of negligence contributing to the accident and cannot recover.” , 138 So.
Richard v. Roquevert 148 So. 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Burnett v. Cockrill 145 So. 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Monroe v. D'Aunoy 143 So. 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
191 , we held that the burden of proving negligence rests on the injured guest, just as it ordinarily does on every other plaintiff, , 138 So.
Monkhouse v. Johns 142 So. 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Levy v. Leopold 142 So. 191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Driefus v. Levy 140 So. 259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Delaune v. Breaux 139 So. 753 La. 1932
duty by the driver, who was responsible for its operation; and it not appearing that the deceased saw the approaching train until almost the instant of the collision, and, having shouted the warning as soon as it was discovered, we do not find that he was guilty of negligence.” , 138 So.