equally well-established exception in Louisiana

1961Under the circumstances, we feel that the case is governed by the reasoning set out in Byrd v. Elliott, La.App. 2 Cir., 1958, 108 So.2d 248, 250 , wherein the Court stated: “The issue of law which is presented ¡by this appeal must be resolved in accordance with the generally enunciated .and accepted rule of liability which attaches to motorists, resulting in a conclusion of responsibility for collisions with the rear end of preceding vehicles •on a public highway, or it must be considered as falling under the equally well established exception to the general rule as exemplified in that line of

1961To be confronted with this unbelievable situation created by the Louisiana National Guard is an emergency which fits the rule of the case of Byrd v. Elliott, La.App., 108 So.2d 248 , 250: “The issue of law which is presented by this appeal must be resolved in accordance with the generally enunciated and accepted rule of liability which attaches to motorists, resulting in a conclusion of responsibility for collisions with the rear end of preceding vehicles on a public highway, or it must be considered as falling under the equally well established exception to the general rule as exemplified in

1961Under the circumstances, we feel that the case is governed by the reasoning set out in Byrd v. Elliott, La.App. 2 Cir., 1958, 108 So.2d 248, 250 , wherein the Court stated: “The issue of law which is presented ¡by this appeal must be resolved in accordance with the generally enunciated .and accepted rule of liability which attaches to motorists, resulting in a conclusion of responsibility for collisions with the rear end of preceding vehicles •on a public highway, or it must be considered as falling under the equally well established exception to the general rule as exemplified in that line of

1961To be confronted with this unbelievable situation created by the Louisiana National Guard is an emergency which fits the rule of the case of Byrd v. Elliott, La.App., 108 So.2d 248 , 250: “The issue of law which is presented by this appeal must be resolved in accordance with the generally enunciated and accepted rule of liability which attaches to motorists, resulting in a conclusion of responsibility for collisions with the rear end of preceding vehicles on a public highway, or it must be considered as falling under the equally well established exception to the general rule as exemplified in

1961Under the circumstances, we feel that the case is governed by the reasoning set out in Byrd v. Elliott, La.App. 2 Cir., 1958, 108 So.2d 248, 250 , wherein the Court stated: “The issue of law which is presented ¡by this appeal must be resolved in accordance with the generally enunciated .and accepted rule of liability which attaches to motorists, resulting in a conclusion of responsibility for collisions with the rear end of preceding vehicles •on a public highway, or it must be considered as falling under the equally well established exception to the general rule as exemplified in that line of

1961Under the circumstances, we feel that the case is governed by the reasoning set out in Byrd v. Elliott, La.App. 2 Cir., 1958, 108 So.2d 248, 250 , wherein the Court stated: “The issue of law which is presented ¡by this appeal must be resolved in accordance with the generally enunciated .and accepted rule of liability which attaches to motorists, resulting in a conclusion of responsibility for collisions with the rear end of preceding vehicles •on a public highway, or it must be considered as falling under the equally well established exception to the general rule as exemplified in that line of

2016Yet, there is an equally well-established exception to this rule in that an employer may be liable if it maintains the right to supervise or control the activity in question. 6 See Triplette, 554 So.2d at 1363 .

2014Yet, there is an equally well-established exception to this rule in that an employer may | fibe liable if it maintains operational control over the activity in question. 2 See Triplette, 554 So.2d at 1363 .

1961Under the circumstances, we feel that the case is governed by the reasoning set out in Byrd v. Elliott, La.App. 2 Cir., 1958, 108 So.2d 248, 250 , wherein the Court stated: “The issue of law which is presented ¡by this appeal must be resolved in accordance with the generally enunciated .and accepted rule of liability which attaches to motorists, resulting in a conclusion of responsibility for collisions with the rear end of preceding vehicles •on a public highway, or it must be considered as falling under the equally well established exception to the general rule as exemplified in that line of

1961To be confronted with this unbelievable situation created by the Louisiana National Guard is an emergency which fits the rule of the case of Byrd v. Elliott, La.App., 108 So.2d 248 , 250: “The issue of law which is presented by this appeal must be resolved in accordance with the generally enunciated and accepted rule of liability which attaches to motorists, resulting in a conclusion of responsibility for collisions with the rear end of preceding vehicles on a public highway, or it must be considered as falling under the equally well established exception to the general rule as exemplified in

2016Steinfelds v. Villarubia, 10-0975, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/15/10), 53 So.3d 1275, 1280 .

2004Id.

1979Hargrove v. Brown, 247 La. 689 , 174 So.2d 120 (1965).

1979Hargrove v. Brown, 247 La. 689 , 174 So.2d 120 (1965).

1962The equally well established exception to the rule arises in cases where there is no market value— such as the instant case—under which circumstance the owner is entitled to compensation representing the “ * * * full and perfect equivalent of the property taken * * * ” ; State Through Department of Highways v. Barrow, 238 La. 887 , 116 So. 2d 703 , quoting from Housing Authority of Shreveport v. Green, 200 La. 463 , 8 So.2d 295 , arid citing numerous authorities.

1962The equally well established exception to the rule arises in cases where there is no market value— such as the instant case—under which circumstance the owner is entitled to compensation representing the “ * * * full and perfect equivalent of the property taken * * * ” ; State Through Department of Highways v. Barrow, 238 La. 887 , 116 So. 2d 703 , quoting from Housing Authority of Shreveport v. Green, 200 La. 463 , 8 So.2d 295 , arid citing numerous authorities.

1962The equally well established exception to the rule arises in cases where there is no market value— such as the instant case—under which circumstance the owner is entitled to compensation representing the “ * * * full and perfect equivalent of the property taken * * * ” ; State Through Department of Highways v. Barrow, 238 La. 887 , 116 So. 2d 703 , quoting from Housing Authority of Shreveport v. Green, 200 La. 463 , 8 So.2d 295 , arid citing numerous authorities.

1962The equally well established exception to the rule arises in cases where there is no market value— such as the instant case—under which circumstance the owner is entitled to compensation representing the “ * * * full and perfect equivalent of the property taken * * * ” ; State Through Department of Highways v. Barrow, 238 La. 887 , 116 So. 2d 703 , quoting from Housing Authority of Shreveport v. Green, 200 La. 463 , 8 So.2d 295 , arid citing numerous authorities.

1951Paulsen v. Reinecke, 181 La. 917 , 160 So. 629 , 97 A.L.R. 1184 ; Geddes & Moss Undertaking & Embalming Co. v. First Nat.

1951Paulsen v. Reinecke, 181 La. 917 , 160 So. 629 , 97 A.L.R. 1184 ; Geddes & Moss Undertaking & Embalming Co. v. First Nat.

1951No one contests these rudimentary principles but, in applying them here, the majority completely ignore the equally well-established rule that statutes, or provisions of constitutions for that matter see State v. Alden Mills, 202 La. 416 , 12 So.2d 204 , purely remedial in nature, are retroactive in their operation unless their language plainly shows a contrary intention.

1951No one contests these rudimentary principles but, in applying them here, the majority completely ignore the equally well-established rule that statutes, or provisions of constitutions for that matter see State v. Alden Mills, 202 La. 416 , 12 So.2d 204 , purely remedial in nature, are retroactive in their operation unless their language plainly shows a contrary intention.