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.
7 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fontenot v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.green2 sentences1959In seeking to uphold the award of damages herein counsel for plaintiff contend that the defendant is liable (1) by virtue of the absolute liability principle as enunciated and applied in Fontenot v. Magnolia Petroleum Company, 227 La. 866 , 80 So.2d 845 , and (2) because plaintiff has established gross negligence on the part of the defendant, and (3) because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable and the defendant has not rebutted the inference of negligence which arises thereunder. 1959In seeking to uphold the award of damages herein counsel for plaintiff contend that the defendant is liable (1) by virtue of the absolute liability principle as enunciated and applied in Fontenot v. Magnolia Petroleum Company, 227 La. 866 , 80 So.2d 845 , and (2) because plaintiff has established gross negligence on the part of the defendant, and (3) because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable and the defendant has not rebutted the inference of negligence which arises thereunder. | 1 | 2 |
Lombard v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleansgreen2 sentences2005In Lombard, 284 So.2d at 907, 912-13 , on which the Third Circuit relied, this court suggested that the absolute liability standard of article 667 would govern the plaintiff's claim seeking damages related to the defendants' construction activities that included both the installation of sheet piling and the driving of round, wood piling. 2005We thus agree with the Vicknair court that a plaintiff's claim regarding the installation of metal sheeting does not qualify for the absolute liability standard under article 667, because such a claim does not involve the ultrahazardous activity of "pile driving." Moreover, Lombard v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, 284 So.2d 905 (La.1973), does not require a different conclusion. | 1 | 1 |
Mossy Motors v. Sewerage and Water Bd.green1 sentence2005See, e.g., Mossy Motors, Inc. v. Sewerage and Water Bd. of City of New Orleans, XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/12/99), 753 So.2d 269 (discussing the 1996 amendment and noting that "[t]he new definition by amendment defines an ultrahazardous activity legislatively"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Government
green
2 sentences2017Id., 04-1459, p. 6, 907 So.2d at 45 . 2008Thus, to qualify for the absolute liability standard, the plaintiff must show that the activity complained of is either "pile driving" or "blasting with explosives." Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government, et al., 04-1459, p. 13 (La.4/12/05); 907 So.2d 37, 49 . | 2 | 2008–2017 |
Yokum v. 615 Bourbon Street, LLC
green
2 sentences2015C.C. art. 2317.1 ...” Id. 2015C.C. art. 2317.1 and the 1996 amendments to Articles 2321 and 2322.” Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Vicknair v. Boh Bros. Construction Co.
neutral
1 sentence2005However, the Fifth Circuit, in Vicknair v. Boh Brothers Construction Co., XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/30/04), 871 So.2d 514, 521 , found that "pile driving" in article 667 did not encompass the installation of sheeting, the precise activity defendants' undertook in the present case. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Central Expl. Co., Inc. v. Gray, Et Ux.
green
2 sentences1956The fact that plaintiffs did not discover these substantial injuries until two days after defendants' operations, or that the homes were of frail or cheap construction (with no substantive proof to support this conclusion) does not in any wise relieve defendants of liability." Recovery by plaintiff was permitted under the doctrine of absolute liability, the court saying: "We are unwilling to follow any rule which rejects the doctrine of absolute liability in cases of this nature and prefer to base our holding on the doctrine that negligence or fault, in these instances, is not a requisite to l 1956The fact that plaintiffs did not discover these substantial injuries until two days after defendants' operations, or that the homes were of frail or cheap construction (with no substantive proof to support this conclusion) does not in any wise relieve defendants of liability." Recovery by plaintiff was permitted under the doctrine of absolute liability, the court saying: "We are unwilling to follow any rule which rejects the doctrine of absolute liability in cases of this nature and prefer to base our holding on the doctrine that negligence or fault, in these instances, is not a requisite to l | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.