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.
14 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Buildingsgreen2 sentences2022In discussing the open and obvious doctrine, the Broussard Court further found that the “analytic framework for evaluating an unreasonable risk of harm is 11 properly classified as a determination of whether a defendant breached a duty owed, rather than a determination of whether a duty is owed ab initio.” Broussard, 2012–1238, pp. 11–12, 113 So.3d at 185 (emphasis added); see also Hooper, 2015- 0339, pp. 9-10, 171 So.3d at 1001. 2021Office of State Buildings, 12-1238 (La. 04/05/13), 113 So.3d 175 , appellant contended that the open and obvious doctrine cannot be applied to undermine Louisiana’s comparative fault regime.4 She argued that her knowledge or awareness of the risk created by appellees’ conduct cannot operate as a bar to recovery, and that comparative fault principles apply, with her awareness of the danger as only one factor when assigning fault. | 2 | 7 |
Jones v. Stewartgreen2 sentences2021App. 4 Cir. 5/18/11), 66 So.3d 528, 534-35 ,18 explained that “despite the presence of an open and obvious condition, the jurisprudence has recognized that ‘case-specific factual issues’ may preclude summary judgment.’” Jones, 16-0329, p. 23, 203 So.3d at 398 . 2019App. 4 Cir. 10/5/16), 203 So. 3d 384, 395 (“that summary judgment may be granted based on the open and obvious doctrine in an appropriate case”). 1 | 2 | 3 |
Woods v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, L.L.C.green1 sentence2022App. 5 Cir. 6/27/18), 251 So.3d 675, 682 (addressing the open and obvious doctrine after trial on the merits in the context of jury instructions). 13 premises liability against Defendants. | 1 | 1 |
Eisenhardt v. Snookgreen1 sentence2019See Eisenhardt v. Snook, 2008-1287, p. 5 (La. 3/17/09), 8 So.3d 541, 544 ; see also Broussard v. State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Hiner v. Mojicagreen2 sentences2016Hiner v. Mojica, 271 Mich.App. 604, 615 , 722 N.W.2d 914, 922 (2006) (holding that "the applicability of the open and obvious danger doctrine depends on the theory underlying the negligence action” and that “[t]he doctrine applies to an action based on premises liability, but not ordinary negligence."). 2016Hiner v. Mojica, 271 Mich.App. 604, 615 , 722 N.W.2d 914, 922 (2006) (holding that "the applicability of the open and obvious danger doctrine depends on the theory underlying the negligence action” and that “[t]he doctrine applies to an action based on premises liability, but not ordinary negligence."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hooper v. Brown
green
2 sentences2025App. 4 Cir. 5/22/15), 171 So.3d 995, 1001 ). 2024App. 4 Cir. 5/22/15), 171 So.3d 995, 1001 ). | 3 | 2022–2025 |
Temple v. Morgan
green
2 sentences2019Temple , 15-1159 at p. 10, 196 So.3d at 77 . 2019Temple , 15-1159 at p. 10, 196 So.3d at 77 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Rodriguez v. Dolgencorp, LLC
green
1 sentence2021I disagree with the majority and find that the situs of an accident and the nature of the hazardous condition are material in all open and obvious cases, especially the situs of tripping accidents on concrete pathways.2 An open and obvious analysis is fact sensitive3 and requires a legal analysis as to whether the situs of the accident is “unreasonably dangerous” but “open, obvious and 2 The present case is clearly distinguishable from cases where a condition was blatantly open and obvious to all, such as a concrete barrier on a vehicle ramp in Ludlow v. Crescent City Connection Marine Divisio | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Jimenez v. OMNI ROYAL ORLEANS HOTEL
green
1 sentence2021App. 4 Cir. 5/18/11), 66 So.3d 528, 534-35 ,18 explained that “despite the presence of an open and obvious condition, the jurisprudence has recognized that ‘case-specific factual issues’ may preclude summary judgment.’” Jones, 16-0329, p. 23, 203 So.3d at 398 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re Harrier Trust
neutral
1 sentence2019Lafaye v. SES Enterprises, LLC, 2018-0905 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/26/18) , ___ So.3d ___, 2018 WL 6797293 , writ denied, 2018-0258 (La. 4/8/19), 267 So.3d 609 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Roy Bufkin, Jr. v. Felipe's Louisiana, LLC
green
1 sentence2019Bufkin, 2014-0288, p. 4, 171 So.3d at 855 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Scarberry v. Entergy Corp.
green
1 sentence2016A commentator points out that this court suggested in Scarberry v. Entergy Corp., 13-0214 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/19/14) , 136 So.3d 194 , writs denied, 14-0566, 14-0599 (La. 5/16/14), 139 So.3d 1026 , the scope of the application of the open and obvious doctrine is limited to cases involving a defect. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Dugas v. Bayou Teche Water Works, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2016A commentator points out that this court suggested in Scarberry v. Entergy Corp., 13-0214 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/19/14) , 136 So.3d 194 , writs denied, 14-0566, 14-0599 (La. 5/16/14), 139 So.3d 1026 , the scope of the application of the open and obvious doctrine is limited to cases involving a defect. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Tharp v. Bunge Corp.
green
2 sentences2000Even in Tharp, 641 So.2d at 23 , this Court recognized that “[f]or the open and obvious defense to be a complete bar to a negligence claim, the plaintiff must be one hundred percent (100%) negligent himself.” This Court held that if the “defendant and the plaintiff were both at fault in causing or attributing to the harm, then damages can be determined through the comparative negligence of both.” Id. at 24 . 2000Even in Tharp, 641 So.2d at 23 , this Court recognized that “[f]or the open and obvious defense to be a complete bar to a negligence claim, the plaintiff must be one hundred percent (100%) negligent himself.” This Court held that if the “defendant and the plaintiff were both at fault in causing or attributing to the harm, then damages can be determined through the comparative negligence of both.” Id. at 24 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Goodwin v. Derryberry Co.
green
1 sentence2000Goodwin v. Derryberry Co., 553 So.2d 40 (Miss.1989). (2) if an invitee is injured by a natural condition on a remote part of the business premises, and the danger was known and appreciated by the injured party, then there is no jury question. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.