Poche v. Frazier

59 Citing cases

  1. Harris v. Hamilton

    569 So. 2d 1 (La. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 15 times
    In Harris, this Court noted that owners of motor vehicles are not personally liable for damages arising out of automobile accidents when "permitted drivers" are operating the vehicle, unless the permitted driver is an agent, on a mission for the owner, or is incompetent.

    Regarding the liability of the two drivers, this circuit recognizes a rule that the drivers of automobiles involved in a collision resulting in injuries to an innocent third party are considered guilty per se in causing the accident. Poche v. Frazier, 232 So.2d 851, 856 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970). Thus, an innocent plaintiff meets his burden of establishing a prima facie case by simply proving that he sustained damages as a result of the negligence of the drivers.

  2. Wilson v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    446 So. 2d 786 (La. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 2 times

    The trial judge found both drivers negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout at the intersection. In his reasons for judgment, the trial judge, citing the case of Poche v. Frazier, 232 So.2d 851 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied 256 La. 266, 236 So.2d 36 (1970), stated that: "The law is also settled on the principle that when innocent third parties are injured as the result of the collision between two drivers, each of the drivers is deemed guilty of negligence, per se, and the burden of proof falls upon each to exculpate himself to negligence proximately causing the injuries to the third party. . . . Accordingly, the court finds both drivers have failed to exculpate themselves with negligence under the circumstances."

  3. Fernell v. McKinnie

    Civil Action No. 05-2594, Section "K" (5) (E.D. La. Jul. 26, 2006)

    Additionally, "when an innocent third party is injured as a result of the collision between two (or more) drivers, each of the drivers is deemed guilty of negligence per se and the burden of proof falls upon each to exculpate himself from negligence proximately causing the injury to the third party." Poche' v. Frazier, 232 So.2d 851, 856 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970). Analysis

  4. Danna v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co.

    365 So. 3d 679 (La. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    "It is well established that the decision to reopen a case after all parties have rested for the production of additional evidence is one within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless manifestly erroneous." State, Dep't of Transp. & Dev. v. Latiolais , 613 So.2d 1009, 1012 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 1/26/93) (citations omitted); see alsoPoche v. Frazier , 232 So.2d 851, 856 (La. App. 4th Cir. 3/9/70) (superseded by statute on other grounds). Given that the pertinent substance of the employee agreement was elicited through witness testimony, and the offer letter is otherwise irrelevant, we cannot find that the trial court's ruling was unreasonable or manifestly erroneous.

  5. Angelo Cuonzo Esq. v. Shore

    C.A. No. 05C-12-099 RRC (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 24, 2008)   Cited 2 times

    But see Myers v. Gold 419 A.2d 663 (Pa.Super. 1980) (holding, under similar facts, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for a new trial); Banes v. Thompson 352 So.2d 812 (Miss. 1977) (holding, under similar facts, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for new trial); Poche v. Frazier 232 So.2d 851 La. App. 1970) (holding, where a driver was hit from behind by another driver and was forced into the opposite lane, which caused an accident, that "each of the drivers [was] deemed guilty of negligence per se and the burden of proof falls upon each to exculpate himself from negligence proximately causing the injury to the third party,"). The Court begins its analysis by noting that it is a fundamental principle that a plaintiff must bear the burden of proving its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

  6. Dolmo v. Williams

    753 So. 2d 844 (La. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 7 times
    In Dolmo v. Williams, 99-0169 (La.App. 4th Cir.9/22/99), 753 So.2d 844, the court was faced with a similar issue in a case involving a three vehicle rear-end collision.

    In attempting to resolve the issue of liability in a three car collision, the Fourth Circuit has applied a presumption similar to the one in Eubanks, supra, to aid the trier of fact. In Poche v. Frazier, 232 So.2d 851, 856 (4th Cir. 1970) the Fourth Circuit succinctly stated: "Our law is well settled that when an innocent third party (such as the Dolmos) is injured as a result of a collision between two (or more) drivers, each of the drivers is deemed guilty of negligence per se and the burden of proof falls upon each to exculpate himself (herself) from negligence proximately causing the injury to the third party." Under this theory both Harris and Williams are presumed negligent and each must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that they were free from fault.

  7. Billiot v. Est., Richardson

    655 So. 2d 443 (La. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 3 times

    In brief, plaintiff specifically argues that the trial judge should have charged the jury concerning the Poche rule that an innocent third party injured as a result of a collision between two drivers is entitled to a presumption that each of the drivers is negligent and that the burden of proof falls upon each driver to exculpate himself from negligence. Poche v. Frazier, 256 La. 266, 232 So.2d 851, 856 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 256 La. 266, 236 So.2d 36 (1970). However, at trial plaintiff did not object to the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury on the Poche rule.

  8. Carmen v. Gonzalez

    637 So. 2d 1108 (La. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 3 times

    Id. Future medical expenses will be awarded where there is medical testimony that future medical expenses are indicated, and the medical testimony sets out the probable future medical costs. Poche v. Frazier, 232 So.2d 851 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1970), application denied, 266 La. 266, 236 So.2d 36 (1970). Plaintiff established that more probably than not he would require future surgery which would cost over $30,000.

  9. Davis v. Kreutzer

    633 So. 2d 796 (La. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 20 times

    Id. Future medical expenses will be awarded where there is medical testimony that future medical expenses are indicated, and the medical testimony sets out the probable future medical costs. Poche v. Frazier, 232 So.2d 851 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970), application denied, 256 La. 266, 236 So.2d 36 (1970). In the instant case, plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Gerald Davis, testified that plaintiff was "well within a strong need, 50/50," for lumbar surgery and that the future medical expenses would likely be the same as the amount accrued before trial.

  10. In re Medical Review Panel Bilello

    621 So. 2d 6 (La. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 27 times

    This includes medical expenses. See Poche v. Frazier, 232 So.2d 851 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970), writ denied, 256 La. 266, 236 So.2d 36 (1970). Plaintiff did not prove what portion of the total amount of medical expenses was attributable to the fault of defendants.