emergency rule in Louisiana

1937In O’Rourke v. McConaughey, 157 So. 598 , 606 we said: “The driver of an automobile has no right to assume that the road before him is open and to proceed ahead without regard to the safety - of those who* may be thereon. * * * While under certain circumstances creating an emergency the rule may be different, there is little or no excuse for running into a stationary object, particularly one which has been stationary for some time before the collision, whether it be daylight or dark, clear or foggy, misty or rainy.” It is contended' on behalf of the plaintiff that the allegations of the supple

1937Referring to the fact that the obstruction struck was a truck loaded with long pine pilings, the court said: “There is no evidence herein to show wherein this fact affected visibility.” In O’Rourke v. McConaughey, supra, we said that, although ordinarily there is a duty in the driver of a vehicle to see any object in the roadway ahead and to operate his car at -such speed as will permit of its being stopped before such object is struck, nevertheless “under certain circumstances creating an emergency the rule -may be different,” and in Waters v. Meriwether Transfer Co., supra, the Court of Appe

2014Tobin v. Jindal, 11-0888 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/10/12) , 91 So.3d 317, 321 , In this case, plaintiff seeks to have certain sections of an emergency rule issued by the Commissioner of Insurance declared unconstitutional.

2001Cressey v. Foster, 96-2716 (La.App. 1st Cir.4/25/97), 694 So.2d 1016, 1021 .

1997For a more complete discussion of the interrelationship between the federal statutes and the state's responsibilities, see Greenbriar Nursing Home, Inc. v. Pilley, 93-2059 (La. 5/23/94), 637 So.2d 429 . [2] LSA-R.S. 49:954(B)(2) states, in pertinent part, that "an emergency rule shall become effective on the date of its adoption...." [3] The emergency rules were finalized and published as rules in the Louisiana Register, Volume 20, No. 3, pp. 304-05 (1994). [4] Indeed, pursuant to the authority of LSA-R.S. 49:955(E)(4), Bell Oaks proffered a cash deed showing the property at No. 3 Shane Drive

1988Plaintiffs' lack of consent-battery theory, based upon Pizzalotta v. Wilson, 437 So.2d 859 (La.1983), sounds in intentional tort and is a separate theory of action from lack of informed consent, which sounds in negligence.

1985EMERGENCY CLAUSE The defendant in Admiral Paint Company v. Goltzman, 254 So.2d 104 (La.App.3d Cir.1971) also argued that ill health and delay causing production difficulties constituted an emergency excusing him from his obligation to perform.

1984Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978).

1982In State v. White, 399 So.2d 172 (La.1981), we approved a warrantless search made because of exigent circumstances.

1982Root v. Gauper, 438 F.2d 361 (8th Cir.1971); See also, Mascolo, The Emergency Doctrine Exception to the Warrant Requirement Under the Fourth Amendment, 22 Buff.L.Rev. 419 (1973). *1076 The burden of showing that the entry fell within the narrow confines of the emergency exception is upon the state.

1958Peranio v. Superior Insurance Company, La.App., 76 So.2d 315 .

1955In the case of Crow v. Alesi, supra, the situation was reversed.

1955Wayne v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La.App.1951, 52 So.2d 55 .

1949App., 29 So.2d 551 .

1935App. 650 , 131 So. 212, 213 , we said, in speaking of a similar situation, that “ * * * if the fog affected his [Trauth’s] vision, he should not have maintained a speed of 20 miles an hour knowing that he was driving on a very narrow thoroughfare.” In O’Rourke v. McConaughey, 157 So. 598, 606 , a case arising from an accident which occurred on Canal boulevard at a time when traffic was heavy in that section and during a dense fog, this court said: “The driver of an automobile has no right to assume that the road before him is open and to proceed ahead without regard to the safety of those who

1935App. 650 , 131 So. 212, 213 , we said, in speaking of a similar situation, that “ * * * if the fog affected his [Trauth’s] vision, he should not have maintained a speed of 20 miles an hour knowing that he was driving on a very narrow thoroughfare.” In O’Rourke v. McConaughey, 157 So. 598, 606 , a case arising from an accident which occurred on Canal boulevard at a time when traffic was heavy in that section and during a dense fog, this court said: “The driver of an automobile has no right to assume that the road before him is open and to proceed ahead without regard to the safety of those who