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.
6 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gregory v. Guariscogreen2 sentences1980The court quoted with approval from Gregory, supra, at p. 559: "The general tort principle obviously applicable to this case is that `those who use or handle dangerous agencies, substances or instrumentalities such as explosives, electricity, firearms, combustibles and *904 fireworks, which might endanger persons or property, are held to a high degree or extraordinary degree of care.'" In the supreme court case of Naquin v. Marquette Casualty Company, 244 La. 569 , 153 So.2d 395 (1963), the court made the following statement regarding natural gas: "In Raphael Brothers v. Cerophyl Laboratories, 1978The general tort principle obviously applicable to this case is that "those who use or handle dangerous agencies, substances or instrumentalities such as explosives, electricity, firearms, combustibles and fireworks, which might endanger persons or property, are held to a high degree or extraordinary degree of care." Gregory v. Guarisco, 320 So.2d 354, 356 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1975). | 1 | 2 |
Levy v. State, Char. Hosp. of La. at N. Orleans Bd. of Ad.green1 sentence2010See Levy, 253 La. at 76 , 216 So.2d at 819 ; see also Hubgh v. New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad Company, 6 La.Ann. 495 (La.1851)(wherein whether there could be any grounds for an action for damages for the death of a human being, the court held: “[o]n general principles, the only private rights which laws recognize, and which constitutions are established to protect, are the rights of persons and the rights of property.... | 1 | 1 |
Hubgh v. New Orleans & Carrollton Railroadgreen1 sentence2010See Levy, 253 La. at 76 , 216 So.2d at 819 ; see also Hubgh v. New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad Company, 6 La.Ann. 495 (La.1851)(wherein whether there could be any grounds for an action for damages for the death of a human being, the court held: “[o]n general principles, the only private rights which laws recognize, and which constitutions are established to protect, are the rights of persons and the rights of property.... | 1 | 1 |
Cothern v. LaRoccagreen2 sentences1974(Art. 670, stating an owner's liability to "neighbors or passengers" [passers-by], is not applicable when the person injured is on the property itself; see Cothern v. LaRocca, La.1970, 255 La. 673 , 232 So.2d 473 .) Art. 2322 makes the building owner "answerable for the damage occasioned by its ruin, when this is caused by neglect to repair it, or when it is the result of a vice in its original construction." However, assuming without deciding that the use of a glass door that breaks when walked into is a vice of construction, the owner is only responsible for "damage occasioned by [the buildi 1974(Art. 670, stating an owner's liability to "neighbors or passengers" [passers-by], is not applicable when the person injured is on the property itself; see Cothern v. LaRocca, La.1970, 255 La. 673 , 232 So.2d 473 .) Art. 2322 makes the building owner "answerable for the damage occasioned by its ruin, when this is caused by neglect to repair it, or when it is the result of a vice in its original construction." However, assuming without deciding that the use of a glass door that breaks when walked into is a vice of construction, the owner is only responsible for "damage occasioned by [the buildi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brossett v. Howard
green
1 sentence2011Brossett v. Howard, 08-535, p. 19 (La.App. 3d Cir.12/10/08), 998 So.2d 916, 931 , writ de nied, 09-0077 (La.3/6/09), 3 So.3d 492 ; see also Matos v. Clarendon National Insurance Company, 00-2814, p. 11 (La. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Brossett v. Howard
green
1 sentence2011Brossett v. Howard, 08-535, p. 19 (La.App. 3d Cir.12/10/08), 998 So.2d 916, 931 , writ de nied, 09-0077 (La.3/6/09), 3 So.3d 492 ; see also Matos v. Clarendon National Insurance Company, 00-2814, p. 11 (La. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Bethea v. Modern Biomedical Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002The Third Circuit concluded, in Bethea v. Modern Biomedical Svces, Inc., 97-332 (La.App. 3rd Cir.11/19/97), 704 So.2d 1227, 1233 , that the plaintiff's cause of action against her employer for its failure to preserve evidence was not precluded by the general tort immunity given an employer. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Carter v. Exide Corp.
green
1 sentence2002The issue was also examined by the Second Circuit in Carter v. Exide Corp., 27,358 (La.App. 2nd Cir.9/29/95), 661 So.2d 698 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Naquin v. Marquette Casualty Company
green
2 sentences1980The court quoted with approval from Gregory, supra, at p. 559: "The general tort principle obviously applicable to this case is that `those who use or handle dangerous agencies, substances or instrumentalities such as explosives, electricity, firearms, combustibles and *904 fireworks, which might endanger persons or property, are held to a high degree or extraordinary degree of care.'" In the supreme court case of Naquin v. Marquette Casualty Company, 244 La. 569 , 153 So.2d 395 (1963), the court made the following statement regarding natural gas: "In Raphael Brothers v. Cerophyl Laboratories, 1980The court quoted with approval from Gregory, supra, at p. 559: "The general tort principle obviously applicable to this case is that `those who use or handle dangerous agencies, substances or instrumentalities such as explosives, electricity, firearms, combustibles and *904 fireworks, which might endanger persons or property, are held to a high degree or extraordinary degree of care.'" In the supreme court case of Naquin v. Marquette Casualty Company, 244 La. 569 , 153 So.2d 395 (1963), the court made the following statement regarding natural gas: "In Raphael Brothers v. Cerophyl Laboratories, | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Harris Drilling Co. v. Delafield
green
2 sentences1980Those who handle and distribute it are charged with the duty to exercise that degree of care commensurate with its dangerous character and necessary to protect the public from any foreseeable injury therefrom.' This principle was reiterated in Harris Drilling Co. v. Delafield, 222 La. 416 , 62 So.2d 627 , wherein we stated: `* * * Those who handle and distribute a highly inflammable gas are charged with the duty to exercise a degree of care commensurate with its dangerous nature and necessary to protect the public from any foreseeable injury therefrom.'" Id. at 398-399. 1980Those who handle and distribute it are charged with the duty to exercise that degree of care commensurate with its dangerous character and necessary to protect the public from any foreseeable injury therefrom.' This principle was reiterated in Harris Drilling Co. v. Delafield, 222 La. 416 , 62 So.2d 627 , wherein we stated: `* * * Those who handle and distribute a highly inflammable gas are charged with the duty to exercise a degree of care commensurate with its dangerous nature and necessary to protect the public from any foreseeable injury therefrom.'" Id. at 398-399. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Raphael Bros. v. Cerophyl Laboratories, Inc.
green
2 sentences1980The court quoted with approval from Gregory, supra, at p. 559: "The general tort principle obviously applicable to this case is that `those who use or handle dangerous agencies, substances or instrumentalities such as explosives, electricity, firearms, combustibles and *904 fireworks, which might endanger persons or property, are held to a high degree or extraordinary degree of care.'" In the supreme court case of Naquin v. Marquette Casualty Company, 244 La. 569 , 153 So.2d 395 (1963), the court made the following statement regarding natural gas: "In Raphael Brothers v. Cerophyl Laboratories, 1980The court quoted with approval from Gregory, supra, at p. 559: "The general tort principle obviously applicable to this case is that `those who use or handle dangerous agencies, substances or instrumentalities such as explosives, electricity, firearms, combustibles and *904 fireworks, which might endanger persons or property, are held to a high degree or extraordinary degree of care.'" In the supreme court case of Naquin v. Marquette Casualty Company, 244 La. 569 , 153 So.2d 395 (1963), the court made the following statement regarding natural gas: "In Raphael Brothers v. Cerophyl Laboratories, | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.