Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
33 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Boyer v. Sealgreen2 sentences2011In a later case, Boyer v. Seal, 553 So.2d 827, 834 (La.1989), the court backed away from the almost absolute liability of Holland by applying the unreasonable risk of harm principle to animals, which posits that the damage must have been caused by a vice or aspect of the thing that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, citing the strict liability provisions of La. 2010In a later case, Boyer v. Seal, 553 So.2d 827, 834 (La.1989), the court backed away from the almost absolute liability of Holland by applying the unreasonable risk of harm principle to animals, which posits that the damage must have been caused by a vice or aspect of the thing that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, citing the strict liability provisions of LSA-C.C. art. 2317, as interpreted by Loescher v. Parr, 324 So.2d 441, 449 (La.1976). | 7 | 8 |
Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Buildingsgreen2 sentences2019In Broussard , 113 So.3d at 191 (citations omitted), the court stated: "each case involving an unreasonable risk of harm analysis must be judged under its own unique set of facts and circumstances.... [E]ach defect is equally unique, requiring the fact-finder to place more or less weight on different considerations depending on the specific defect under consideration." Moreover, the court went on to state that "the inherently dangerous nature of the plaintiff's activity may persuade the trier-of-fact to conclude a defective logging road, for example, is not unreasonably dangerous." Id . 2019In Broussard , 113 So.3d at 191 (citations omitted), the court stated: "each case involving an unreasonable risk of harm analysis must be judged under its own unique set of facts and circumstances.... [E]ach defect is equally unique, requiring the fact-finder to place more or less weight on different considerations depending on the specific defect under consideration." Moreover, the court went on to state that "the inherently dangerous nature of the plaintiff's activity may persuade the trier-of-fact to conclude a defective logging road, for example, is not unreasonably dangerous." Id . | 2 | 3 |
Oster v. Dept. of Transp. & Developmentgreen2 sentences1995In the unreasonable risk of harm analysis, the utility of the thing is balanced not only against the likelihood and magnitude of the risk; also to be considered is "a broad range of social, economic, and moral factors including the cost to the defendant of avoiding the risk and the social utility of the plaintiff's conduct at the time of the accident." Oster, 582 So.2d at 1289 . 1995In Oster v. Department of Transp. and Development, State of La., 582 So.2d 1285, 1289 (La.1991), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that: "In essence, the unreasonable risk of harm analysis is similar to the duty-risk analysis which is performed in a negligence case. | 2 | 3 |
Loescher v. Parrgreen2 sentences2011Civ.Code art. 2317, as interpreted by Loescher v. Parr, 324 So.2d 441, 446-449 (La.1976). 2010In a later case, Boyer v. Seal, 553 So.2d 827, 834 (La.1989), the court backed away from the almost absolute liability of Holland by applying the unreasonable risk of harm principle to animals, which posits that the damage must have been caused by a vice or aspect of the thing that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, citing the strict liability provisions of LSA-C.C. art. 2317, as interpreted by Loescher v. Parr, 324 So.2d 441, 449 (La.1976). | 2 | 2 |
Breaux v. Fresh Start Properties, L.L.C.green1 sentence2017To assist the finder of fact to determine whether a building's vice or defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the Supreme Court has adopted a risk-utility balancing test that weighs four factors: "(1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff's activities in terms of its social utility or whether it is dangerous by nature." Id. at 184 (citing Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc. , 08-0528 (La. 12/2/08), 995 So | 1 | 1 |
Dupree v. City of New Orleansgreen1 sentence2013See, e.g., Dupree, 99-3651 at pp. 13-14, 765 So.2d at 1012 ; Reed, 708 So.2d at 364-65 . | 1 | 1 |
| Tillman v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-1174 (La.3/4/98), 708 So.2d 362 ; Lawrence, supra; Reitzell, supra. The unreasonable risk of harm analysis requires the trier of fact to balance the gravity and risk of harm against individual and societal rights and obligations, the thing’s social value and utility, and the cost and feasibility of repairing the defect. 2004The supreme court applied an unreasonable risk of harm analysis in the case of Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-1174 (La.03/04/98), 708 So.2d 362 . | 8 | 2003–2013 |
Pepper v. Triplet
green
2 sentences2024Id. 2024Further, the unreasonable risk of harm requirement is viewed as “a limitation … upon the reach of strict liability, so the owner of an animal is not required to insure against all risk or loss.” Id. at p. 20, 864 So. 2d at 195 . 2 On May 23, 2024, the Legislature of Louisiana amended and reenacted Civil Code Article 2321 to include liability for damages caused by livestock. 5 If the plaintiff fails to establish that the defendant’s dog posed an unreasonable risk of harm, the plaintiff can instead apply a negligence standard. | 3 | 2010–2024 |
Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University
green
2 sentences2017To assist the finder of fact to determine whether a building's vice or defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the Supreme Court has adopted a risk-utility balancing test that weighs four factors: "(1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff's activities in terms of its social utility or whether it is dangerous by nature." Id. at 184 (citing Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc. , 08-0528 (La. 12/2/08), 995 So 2003Ass'n., 02-1401, p. 7 (La.1/14/03), 835 So.2d 416, 421 , quoting, Pitre v. Louisiana Tech Univ., 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.5/10/96), 673 So.2d 585 . | 2 | 2003–2017 |
Boyle v. Board of Sup'rs
green
2 sentences2004Id. 1997Boyle v. Board of Supervisors, 96-1158 (La.1/14/97); 685 So.2d 1080 . | 2 | 1997–2004 |
Phipps v. Amtrak
green
2 sentences1997See, for example, Migues v. City of Lake Charles, 96-626 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/96) ; 682 So.2d 946 ; Phipps v. Amtrak, 94-1876 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/20/95) ; 666 So.2d 341 , writ denied, 95-3012 (La.2/28/96); 668 So.2d 368 . . 1997See, for example, Migues v. City of Lake Charles, 96-626 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/96) ; 682 So.2d 946 ; Phipps v. Amtrak, 94-1876 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/20/95) ; 666 So.2d 341 , writ denied, 95-3012 (La.2/28/96); 668 So.2d 368 . [6] We note that the plaintiffs contend that "[t]he trial court, in its Reasons for Ruling, misunderstood the expert testimony and stated that the Cypremort area would be struck by lightning only once every twenty five years []. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Maxwell v. Board of Trustees
green
2 sentences1997This court has previously stated that the unreasonable risk of harm analysis is a factual determination and, therefore, subject to the manifest error standard of review. 5 Maxwell, 96-1207; 692 So.2d 641 ; Tullis v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, et al, 95-905 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/17/96) ; 670 So.2d 245 , unit not considered, 96-0444 (La.3/29/96); 670 So.2d 1241 ; White v. Louviere, 95-610 (La. 1997This court has previously stated that the unreasonable risk of harm analysis is a factual determination and, therefore, subject to the manifest error standard of review. [5] Maxwell, 96-1207; 692 So.2d 641 ; Tullis v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, et al., 95-905 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/17/96) ; 670 So.2d 245 , writ not considered, 96-0444 (La.3/29/96); 670 So.2d 1241 ; White v. Louviere, 95-610 (La. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Hunt v. City Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997Hunt v. City Stores Inc., 387 So.2d 585 (La.l980),’ and in deciding the scope of duty or legal cause under the duty/risk analysis. 1997Hunt v. City Stores Inc., 387 So.2d 585 (La.1980), and in deciding the scope of duty or legal cause under the duty/risk analysis. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
White v. Louviere
green
2 sentences1997App. 3 Cir. 11/2/95); 664 So.2d 603 . 1997App. 3 Cir. 11/2/95); 664 So.2d 603 . | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Tullis v. Rapides Parish Police Jury
neutral
2 sentences1997This court has previously stated that the unreasonable risk of harm analysis is a factual determination and, therefore, subject to the manifest error standard of review. 5 Maxwell, 96-1207; 692 So.2d 641 ; Tullis v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, et al, 95-905 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/17/96) ; 670 So.2d 245 , unit not considered, 96-0444 (La.3/29/96); 670 So.2d 1241 ; White v. Louviere, 95-610 (La. 1997This court has previously stated that the unreasonable risk of harm analysis is a factual determination and, therefore, subject to the manifest error standard of review. [5] Maxwell, 96-1207; 692 So.2d 641 ; Tullis v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, et al., 95-905 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/17/96) ; 670 So.2d 245 , writ not considered, 96-0444 (La.3/29/96); 670 So.2d 1241 ; White v. Louviere, 95-610 (La. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Tullis v. Rapides Parish Police Jury
neutral
2 sentences1997This court has previously stated that the unreasonable risk of harm analysis is a factual determination and, therefore, subject to the manifest error standard of review. 5 Maxwell, 96-1207; 692 So.2d 641 ; Tullis v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, et al, 95-905 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/17/96) ; 670 So.2d 245 , unit not considered, 96-0444 (La.3/29/96); 670 So.2d 1241 ; White v. Louviere, 95-610 (La. 1997This court has previously stated that the unreasonable risk of harm analysis is a factual determination and, therefore, subject to the manifest error standard of review. [5] Maxwell, 96-1207; 692 So.2d 641 ; Tullis v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, et al., 95-905 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/17/96) ; 670 So.2d 245 , writ not considered, 96-0444 (La.3/29/96); 670 So.2d 1241 ; White v. Louviere, 95-610 (La. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Migues v. City of Lake Charles
neutral
2 sentences1997See, for example, Migues v. City of Lake Charles, 96-626 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/96) ; 682 So.2d 946 ; Phipps v. Amtrak, 94-1876 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/20/95) ; 666 So.2d 341 , writ denied, 95-3012 (La.2/28/96); 668 So.2d 368 . . 1997See, for example, Migues v. City of Lake Charles, 96-626 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/96) ; 682 So.2d 946 ; Phipps v. Amtrak, 94-1876 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/20/95) ; 666 So.2d 341 , writ denied, 95-3012 (La.2/28/96); 668 So.2d 368 . [6] We note that the plaintiffs contend that "[t]he trial court, in its Reasons for Ruling, misunderstood the expert testimony and stated that the Cypremort area would be struck by lightning only once every twenty five years []. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Preis v. Preis
green
2 sentences1997See, for example, Migues v. City of Lake Charles, 96-626 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/96) ; 682 So.2d 946 ; Phipps v. Amtrak, 94-1876 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/20/95) ; 666 So.2d 341 , writ denied, 95-3012 (La.2/28/96); 668 So.2d 368 . . 1997See, for example, Migues v. City of Lake Charles, 96-626 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/96) ; 682 So.2d 946 ; Phipps v. Amtrak, 94-1876 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/20/95) ; 666 So.2d 341 , writ denied, 95-3012 (La.2/28/96); 668 So.2d 368 . [6] We note that the plaintiffs contend that "[t]he trial court, in its Reasons for Ruling, misunderstood the expert testimony and stated that the Cypremort area would be struck by lightning only once every twenty five years []. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
North Michigan Land & Oil Corp. v. Michigan Public Service Commission
green
2 sentences2017To assist the finder of fact to determine whether a building's vice or defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the Supreme Court has adopted a risk-utility balancing test that weighs four factors: "(1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff's activities in terms of its social utility or whether it is dangerous by nature." Id. at 184 (citing Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc. , 08-0528 (La. 12/2/08), 995 So 2017To assist the finder of fact to determine whether a building's vice or defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the Supreme Court has adopted a risk-utility balancing test that weighs four factors: "(1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff's activities in terms of its social utility or whether it is dangerous by nature." Id. at 184 (citing Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc. , 08-0528 (La. 12/2/08), 995 So | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Nachreiner Boie Art Factory v. Goris
green
1 sentence2017To assist the finder of fact to determine whether a building's vice or defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the Supreme Court has adopted a risk-utility balancing test that weighs four factors: "(1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff's activities in terms of its social utility or whether it is dangerous by nature." Id. at 184 (citing Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc. , 08-0528 (La. 12/2/08), 995 So | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hutchinson v. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, NO. 5747
green
1 sentence2017To assist the finder of fact to determine whether a building's vice or defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the Supreme Court has adopted a risk-utility balancing test that weighs four factors: "(1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff's activities in terms of its social utility or whether it is dangerous by nature." Id. at 184 (citing Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc. , 08-0528 (La. 12/2/08), 995 So | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging Inc.
green
1 sentence2017To assist the finder of fact to determine whether a building's vice or defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the Supreme Court has adopted a risk-utility balancing test that weighs four factors: "(1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff's activities in terms of its social utility or whether it is dangerous by nature." Id. at 184 (citing Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc. , 08-0528 (La. 12/2/08), 995 So | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Lawrence v. City of Shreveport
green
1 sentence2007Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, supra ; Lawrence v. City of Shreveport, 41,825 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/31/07), 948 So.2d 1179 , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.4/20/07), 954 So.2d 166 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Lawrence v. City of Shreveport
green
1 sentence2007Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, supra ; Lawrence v. City of Shreveport, 41,825 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/31/07), 948 So.2d 1179 , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.4/20/07), 954 So.2d 166 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Capone v. Ormet Corp.
green
1 sentence2006Capone, 822 So.2d at 703-05 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Div. of Ervin Industries
green
1 sentence2004The method for determining whether a thing under garde poses an unreasonable risk of harm, the court noted, is similar to that of taking into account all of the social, moral, economic and other considerations as would a legislator regulating the matter, and the analysis is virtually identical to the riskutility balancing test used in both negligence and products liability theories. 553 So.2d at 834 -36 (citing inter alia Entrevia v. Hood, 427 So.2d 1146 (La.1983), and Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, 462 So.2d 166 (La. 1985)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Johnson v. Brookshire Grocery Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2004The unreasonable risk of harm criterion entails a myriad of considerations and cannot be applied mechanically." Johnson v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 32,770 (La.App.2d Cir.03/01/00), 754 So.2d 346 , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.05/26/00), 762 So.2d 1107 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Entrevia v. Hood
green
1 sentence2004The method for determining whether a thing under garde poses an unreasonable risk of harm, the court noted, is similar to that of taking into account all of the social, moral, economic and other considerations as would a legislator regulating the matter, and the analysis is virtually identical to the riskutility balancing test used in both negligence and products liability theories. 553 So.2d at 834 -36 (citing inter alia Entrevia v. Hood, 427 So.2d 1146 (La.1983), and Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, 462 So.2d 166 (La. 1985)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Henry v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2004The unreasonable risk of harm criterion entails a myriad of considerations and cannot be applied mechanically." Johnson v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 32,770 (La.App.2d Cir.03/01/00), 754 So.2d 346 , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.05/26/00), 762 So.2d 1107 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
McGuire v. New Orleans City Park Imp. Ass'n
green
1 sentence2003Ass'n., 02-1401, p. 7 (La.1/14/03), 835 So.2d 416, 421 , quoting, Pitre v. Louisiana Tech Univ., 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.5/10/96), 673 So.2d 585 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Blanchard v. STATE, THROUGH PARKS & REC. COM'N green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Hunter v. Dept. of Transp. and Dev. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Morell v. City of Breaux Bridge neutral | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Morell v. City of Breaux Bridge green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.