comparative negligence doctrine in Louisiana

2014Ultimately, the court left it to the discretion of the individual courts to determine “in what contexts the doctrine of comparative negligence should be applied,” on a case-by-case basis. 1 Id. at 720 .

1999In Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates, Ltd., 93-2818, p. 8 (La.11/30/94); 650 So.2d 712, 717 , which we find compelling, logical, valid, and applicable to the facts in this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court framed the issue as, "whether the comparative fault law extends to wrongful conduct at the opposite end of the spectrum—intentional torts." The court found that while comparative fault under La.Civ.Code art. 2323 is broad enough to encompass both unintentional and intentional conduct, the Civil Code does not define "fault," and "this Court has heretofore read La.C.C. art 2323 as leavin

1989The recent case of LeBlanc v. Adams, 510 So.2d 678 (La.App. 4 Cir.1987) finds that such holding (that a provider of alcohol incurs no liability unless he performs an affirmative act which increases the peril) is not changed under the doctrine of comparative negligence, a rationale with which we agree.

1988The recent case of LeBlanc v. Adams, 510 So.2d 678 (La.App. 4 Cir.1987) finds that such holding (that a provider of alcohol incurs no liability unless he performs an affirmative act which increases the peril) is not changed under the doctrine of comparative negligence, a rationale with which we agree.

1985Writs were granted to determine whether our decision in Baumgartner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 356 So.2d 400 (La.1978) was affected by the adoption of the doctrine of comparative negligence by the Louisiana legislature. [1] Musette Turner was injured in the neutral ground on Canal Street where she was rushing to transfer from one bus to another, but was run over by a third bus.

1985Writs were granted to determine whether our decision in Baumgartner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 356 So.2d 400 (La.1978) was affected by the adoption of the doctrine of comparative negligence by the Louisiana legislature. [1] *711 Musette Turner was injured in the neutral ground on Canal Street where she was rushing to transfer from one bus to another, but was run over by a third bus.

1988As we held in Chatelain v. Project Square 221, 505 So.2d 177 (La.App. 4th Cir.1987), writs denied 508 So.2d 71 , 74, and 813 (La.1987), under the doctrine of comparative negligence, a compensation insurer's right to reimbursement from a third party tortfeasor is dependent upon the percentage of fault attributable to the employee.

1988As we held in Chatelain v. Project Square 221, 505 So.2d 177 (La.App. 4th Cir.1987), writs denied 508 So.2d 71 , 74, and 813 (La.1987), under the doctrine of comparative negligence, a compensation insurer's right to reimbursement from a third party tortfeasor is dependent upon the percentage of fault attributable to the employee.

1987We find this conclusion to be manifestly erroneous. *597 The case of Smith v. Trahan, 398 So.2d 572 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980), is similar to the present action.

1987For reasons to follow, we find plaintiffs negligence to be the sole cause of the accident, thus eliminating the application of both "comparative negligence” and "strict liability." See Burge v. City of Hammond, 489 So.2d 1320 (La.App. 1st Cir.1986). "5.

1986Factor (a): We agree with the Second Circuit that "[c]omity does not require deference to a state with fewer significant contacts." Lee, 457 So.2d at 195 . [5] Factor (b): Louisiana has a strong interest in providing its domiciliaries the protection afforded by its clear public policy evinced in the legislative adoption of the comparative negligence doctrine.

1986Davis v. Humble Oil & Refining Company, 283 So.2d 783 (La.App. 1st Cir.1973). [4] We note in passing that Texas has adopted a comparative negligence rule.

1986As to Ms. Ross' alleged negligence, the question of whether to apply the doctrine of comparative negligence or the rule of Baumgartner in pedestrian-motorist cases was recently decided in Turner v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 476 So.2d 800 (La.1985), which was handed down after the trial of this case.

1986La.Rev.Stat. 32:104 states that no person shall turn a vehicle at an intersection “unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.” As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Sloane v. Davis, 442 So.2d 1378 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1983), “a primary rule of safety in the operation of motor vehicles is to observe in the direction in which one is proceeding.

1984In Hebert v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 426 So.2d 111 (La.1983) and Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 418 So.2d 493 (La. 1982), the Louisiana Supreme Court recently considered the principles of tort liability which apply when injury occurs as the result of contact with overhead power lines.

1984In Hebert v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 426 So.2d 111 (La.1983) and Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 418 So.2d 493 (La. 1982), the Louisiana Supreme Court recently considered the principles of tort liability which apply when injury occurs as the result of contact with overhead power lines.

1977Appellant additionally cites language appearing in certain of our decisions including Eubanks v. Brasseal, 310 So.2d 550 (La.1975); Kontomitras v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 314 So.2d 441 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1975); and Haas v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, 321 So.2d 380 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1975), which favors adoption of the comparative negligence doctrine.

1977The contributory negligence rule has been in effect in this state since 1841 when the Supreme Court decided Fleytas v. Pontchartrain Railroad Company, 18 La. 339 (1841).

1977Appellant additionally cites language appearing in certain of our decisions including Eubanks v. Brasseal, 310 So.2d 550 (La.1975); Kontomitras v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 314 So.2d 441 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1975); and Haas v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, 321 So.2d 380 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1975), which favors adoption of the comparative negligence doctrine.

1977Appellant additionally cites language appearing in certain of our decisions including Eubanks v. Brasseal, 310 So.2d 550 (La.1975); Kontomitras v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 314 So.2d 441 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1975); and Haas v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, 321 So.2d 380 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1975), which favors adoption of the comparative negligence doctrine.

1975In Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of Cal., 13 Cal.3d 804 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 858 , 532 P.2d 1226 (1975) the California Supreme Court has now held that a plaintiff's causal negligence will not bar tort recovery.

1975In Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of Cal., 13 Cal.3d 804 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 858 , 532 P.2d 1226 (1975) the California Supreme Court has now held that a plaintiff's causal negligence will not bar tort recovery.

1973Co., 125 La. 777 , 51 So. 846 , that: "Our Brethren have applied the doctrine of comparative negligence, which ... has never obtained in this state ...." See also, Legendre v. Consumers' Seltzer & Mineral Water Mfg.

1973Co., 125 La. 777 , 51 So. 846 , that: "Our Brethren have applied the doctrine of comparative negligence, which ... has never obtained in this state ...." See also, Legendre v. Consumers' Seltzer & Mineral Water Mfg.

1973Co., 147 La. 120 , 84 So. 517 .

1973Co., 147 La. 120 , 84 So. 517 .

1941Contributory negligence on the part of the deceased would not prevent, but only modify, recovery, because the Jones Act recognizes the doctrine of comparative negligence (Socony-Vacuum Oil Company v. Smith, 305 U.S. 424 , 59 S.Ct. 262 , 83 L.Ed. 265 ; Ducombs v. Lykes Bros.

1941Contributory negligence on the part of the deceased would not prevent, but only modify, recovery, because the Jones Act recognizes the doctrine of comparative negligence (Socony-Vacuum Oil Company v. Smith, 305 U.S. 424 , 59 S.Ct. 262 , 83 L.Ed. 265 ; Ducombs v. Lykes Bros.

1941This was recognized in Olson v. Flavel [(D.C.) 13 Sawy. 232 , 34 F. 477 ], supra, and The Julia Fowler [(D.C.) 49 F. 277 ], supra, where the choice by the seaman of an unsafe appliance was held not to bar recoverjr but to be a proper basis for a substantial reduction of damages because of the negligence of the choice..

1941This was recognized in Olson v. Flavel [(D.C.) 13 Sawy. 232 , 34 F. 477 ], supra, and The Julia Fowler [(D.C.) 49 F. 277 ], supra, where the choice by the seaman of an unsafe appliance was held not to bar recoverjr but to be a proper basis for a substantial reduction of damages because of the negligence of the choice..

1941This was recognized in Olson v. Flavel [(D.C.) 13 Sawy. 232 , 34 F. 477 ], supra, and The Julia Fowler [(D.C.) 49 F. 277 ], supra, where the choice by the seaman of an unsafe appliance was held not to bar recoverjr but to be a proper basis for a substantial reduction of damages because of the negligence of the choice..

1939As we stated in the case of Inman v. Silver Fleet of Memphis et al., La.App., 175 So. 436 , we have no doctrine of comparative negligence in this State, although the Civil Code, Article 3556, paragraph 13, divides fault into three degrees; the gross, the slight and the very slight.