La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 32:81 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§81. Following vehicles; exceptions

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 234 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 35 So. 3d 230 (La. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 35 So. 3d 230 (La. 2010). · cites it 4× “Under LSA-R.S. 32:81, the driver of a following motor vehicle must maintain a reasonable and prudent distance from the preceding vehicle, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic *241 upon and the condition of the roadway.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LeRouge, 995 So. 2d 1262 (La. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “LeRouge and Mr. Ducre and by the objective evidence contained in the photographs of the vehicles taken immediately after the accident occurred.”
State v. Shapiro, 751 So. 2d 337 (La. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 9× “R.S. 32:81 and requested that Mr. and Mrs.”
Mart v. Hill, 505 So. 2d 1120 (La. 1987). “§ 32:81 (West 1963) which provides, in pertinent part: The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.”
Dugas v. Derouen, 824 So. 2d 475 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “R.S. 32:81 which provides in pertinent part that "[t]he driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.”
Ebarb v. Matlock, 69 So. 3d 516 (La. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “R.S. 32:81 and, hence, acted negligently.”
Domingo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 54 So. 3d 74 (La. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “R.S. 32:81 and thus is presumed negligent.”
Eubanks v. Brasseal, 310 So. 2d 550 (La. 1975). · cites it 3× “At the outset, R.S. 32:81 furnishes the standard of care required of motorists following other vehicles.”
Prejeant v. Gray Ins. Co., 176 So. 3d 704 (La. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “R.S. 32:81 4 and 18was negligent. Mai Vu, 30 So.”
Laizer v. Kosarek, 16 So. 3d 442 (La. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “R.S. 32:81 that a following motorist involved in a rear-end collision is liable for the accident.”
Daigle v. Mumphrey, 691 So. 2d 260 (La. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “That presumption is derived from LSA-R.S. 32:81(A), which provides as follows: The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard *262 for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon and the condition…”
State v. Dixon, 708 So. 2d 506 (La. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “LSA-R.S. 32:81 prohibits a driver from following another vehicle "more closely than is reasonable and prudent .”
Show all 234 citing cases →
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:81(A) — 101 cases
Daigle v. Mumphrey, 691 So. 2d 260 (La. Ct. App. 1997). “That presumption is derived from LSA-R.S. 32:81(A), which provides as follows: The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard *262 for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon and the condition…”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LeRouge, 995 So. 2d 1262 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “LeRouge and Mr. Ducre and by the objective evidence contained in the photographs of the vehicles taken immediately after the accident occurred.”
Dugas v. Derouen, 824 So. 2d 475 (La. Ct. App. 2002). “R.S. 32:81 which provides in pertinent part that "[t]he driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.”
Anderson v. May, 812 So. 2d 81 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
Cox v. Shelter Ins. Co., 34 So. 3d 398 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:81(A)(B) — 1 case
Walker v. Insured Lloyds, 477 So. 2d 1222 (La. Ct. App. 1985).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:81(B) — 2 cases
Murphy v. KD Auger Trucking, Inc., 598 So. 2d 443 (La. Ct. App. 1992).
Rayford v. Saia Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 442 So. 2d 548 (La. Ct. App. 1983).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.