Cormier v. Angelle

10 Citing cases

  1. Canada v. Jones

    198 So. 2d 170 (La. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 1 times

    * * * Dowden v. Bankers Fire Marine Insurance Company, La. App., 124 So.2d 254. See Grayson v. Allstate Insurance Company, La. App., 141 So.2d 101; Otis v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La. App., 127 So.2d 197; Cormier v. Angelle, La. App., 119 So.2d 876; Ford v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La. App., 102 So.2d 523; Elba v. Thomas, La. App., 59 So.2d 732; Cf. Addington v. American Insurance Co. of Newark, N.J., La. App., 162 So.2d 190.' "

  2. State ex Rel. Dykhouse v. Edwards

    908 S.W.2d 686 (Mo. 1995)   Cited 7 times
    In Edwards, the Supreme Court of Missouri refused to enforce an order issued by a Michigan court enjoining indefinitely all "litigation involving Confederation [Life Insurance Company ('Confederation')]."

    Relator further contends that respondent's order is contrary to established law holding a stay of litigation is appropriate in the context of rehabilitation. Relying solely on the law of other jurisdictions, relator cites State ex rel. Guste v. ALIC Corp., 595 So.2d 797, 800-01 (La. Ct. App. 1992) (upholding validity of receivership order issued pursuant to Louisiana's version of the UILA and enjoining the institution or continuation of any suits against insurer); Powell v. All City Ins. Co., 426 N.Y.S.2d 135, 136 (N.Y.App. Div. 1980) (enforcing original rehabilitation order, which enjoined bringing or further prosecuting of any action against insurer under New York statute designed to insure an orderly proceeding); Maryland Casualty Co. v. MarquetteCasualty Co., 173 So.2d 868, 868-69 (La. Ct. App. 1965) (staying proceedings on appeal against insurer pursuant to injunction in rehabilitation); Cormier v. Angelle, 119 So.2d 876, 877 (La. Ct. App. 1960) (holding that court was powerless to adjudicate case as against insurer where a preliminary writ of injunction was issued during receivership proceedings); and Benenate v. Brooks, 95 So.2d 757, 762 (La. Ct. App. 1957) (holding that the court was powerless to adjudicate a case against insurer in light of receivership order enjoining further actions against it). All of the cases relator cites involve enforcement of a stay issued by one state court in a court of the same state rather than interstate enforcement of an order. None of the cases involves statutes identical to those at issue here.

  3. Jones v. Continental Casualty Co. of Chicago

    246 La. 921 (La. 1964)   Cited 79 times
    Defining "intoxication" to mean that the driver's "mental and physical faculties were materially impaired at the time the collision occurred"

    "The courts have repeatedly recognized that in order to prove that one is incapable of operating a motor vehicle, it need not be shown that he was drunk, but only that he had a sufficient quantity of intoxicants to make him lose normal control of his mental and physical faculties and cause such faculties to be materially impaired; and that whenever a guest companion who knew or should have known that the driver was under the influence of drink, voluntarily rode with him in such condition, the rights of the guest to claim damages is barred. * * *" Dowden v. Bankers Fire Marine Insurance Company, La.App., 124 So.2d 254. See, Grayson v. Allstate Insurance Company, La.App., 141 So.2d 101; Otis v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La. App., 127 So.2d 197; Cormier v. Angelle, La.App., 119 So.2d 876; Ford v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La. App., 102 So.2d 532; Elba v. Thomas, La.App., 59 So.2d 732. Cf. Addington v. American Insurance Co. of Newark, N. J., La.App., 162 So.2d 190.

  4. Godfrey v. Boston Old Col.

    718 So. 2d 441 (La. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 11 times
    In Godfrey we explained that, in cases in which a bar has sold alcohol to an underage person, and the underage person has then been involved in a tort as a result of intoxication, the application of general negligence principles and the duty/risk analysis required that, before the bar can be held liable, it must be proven that (1) the bar failed to exercise the care of a reasonable person under the circumstances and (2) the bar committed some "affirmative act" which "increased the peril" posed by the minor's intoxication.

    Citing that rule, the Mercier court denied a passenger recovery because of his own contributory negligence in riding with a driver that he obviously knew was intoxicated. See also Cormier v. Angelle, 119 So.2d 876 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1960) (guest passenger denied recovery against host driver he had seen imbibe six drinks of whiskey within a few hours); Elba v.Thomas, 59 So.2d 732 (La.App. Orl. 1952) (wife denied coverage against her husband's insurer based on wife's awareness of husband's intoxication following cocktail party). The rule denying recovery based on contributory negligence was expanded in McAllister v. Travelers Insurance Co., 121 So.2d 283 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1960) to a guest passenger who may have been so intoxicated himself that he was unaware he was riding with an intoxicated driver.

  5. Gruber v. Beeson

    284 So. 2d 820 (La. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 2 times

    "'The Courts have repeatedly recognized that in order to prove that one is incapable of operating a motor vehicle, it need not be shown that he was drunk, but only that he had a sufficient quality of intoxicants to make him lose normal control of his mental and physical faculties and cause such faculties to be materially impaired; and that whenever a guest companion who knew or should have known that the driver was under the influence of drink, voluntarily rode with him in such condition, the right of the guest to claim damages is barred. * * *' Dowden v. Bankers Fire Marine Insurance Company, La.App., 124 So.2d 254. See, Grayson v. Allstate Insurance Company, La.App., 141 So.2d 101; Otis v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La.App., 127 So.2d 197; Cormier v. Angelle, La.App., 119 So.2d 876; Ford v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La.App. 102 So.2d 523; Elba v. Thomas, La.App., 59 So.2d 732. Cf. Addington v. American Insurance Co. of Newark, N. J., La.App., 162 So.2d 190." Jones v. Continental Casualty Co. of Chicago, III., 246 La. 921, 169 So.2d 50, 53 (1964).

  6. Berry v. Travelers Insurance Company

    273 So. 2d 923 (La. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 2 times

    `The courts have repeatedly recognized that in order to prove that one is incapable of operating a motor vehicle, it need not be shown that he was drunk, but only that he had a sufficient quantity of intoxicants to make him lose normal control of his mental and physical faculties and cause such faculties to be materially impaired; and that whenever a guest companion who knew or should have known that the driver was under the influence of drink, voluntarily rode with him in such condition, the right of the guest to claim damages is barred. * * *' Dowden v. Bankers Fire Marine Insurance Company, La.App., 124 So.2d 254. See, Grayson v. Allstate Insurance Company, La.App., 141 So.2d 101; Otis v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La.App., 127 So.2d 197; Cormier v. Angelle, La.App., 119 So.2d 876; Ford v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La.App., 102 So.2d 523; Elba v. Thomas, La.App., 59 So.2d 732. Cf. Addington v. American Insurance Co. of Newark, N. J., La.App., 162 So.2d 190." [ 169 So.2d 50, 53].

  7. Daigle v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Company

    187 So. 2d 214 (La. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 7 times
    In Daigle v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Company, La. App., 187 So.2d 214, the Court of Appeal denied recovery to a guest passenger who went to sleep after having had several drinks with the driver at a lounge and then at a party.

    In Stalsby v. Powell, La. App., 146 So.2d 279 (3rd Cir. 1962) this court said: "The jurisprudence of this State has been established to the effect that a guest passenger cannot recover for injuries received as a result of his host driver's negligence where the driver has had a sufficient quantity of intoxicants to make him lose control of his mental and physical faculties or to cause such faculties to be materially impaired, and where the guest passenger knew or should have known of the driver's condition and yet voluntarily rode with him. Richard v. Canning, La. App.Orl., 158 So. 598; Elba v. Thomas, La. App.Orl., 59 So.2d 732; Cormier v. Angelle, La. App. 1 Cir., 119 So.2d 876; McAllister v. Travelers Insurance Co., [La. App., 121 So.2d 283,] supra; Dowden v. Bankers Fire Marine Insurance Company, La. App. 2 Cir., 124 So.2d 254; Otis v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La. App. 4 Cir., 127 So.2d 197." In the more recent case of Jones v. Continental Casualty Company of Chicago, Ill., 246 La. 921, 169 So.2d 50 (1964) our Supreme Court approved prior jurisprudence to the effect that it is not necessary to show that the driver was drunk.

  8. Jones v. Continental Casualty Co. of Chicago

    159 So. 2d 5 (La. Ct. App. 1964)   Cited 5 times

    denied); Warner v. Home Indemnity Company, La.App.Orl., 123 So.2d 518 (Cert. denied); McAllister v. Travelers Insurance Co., La. App. 1 Cir., 121 So.2d 283; Cormier v. Angelle, La. App. 1 Cir., 119 So.2d 876; Woods v. King, La. App. 2 Cir., 115 So.2d 232. In such a situation the guest passenger is held to have assumed the risks incident to riding with a drunken driver.

  9. Stalsby v. Powell

    146 So. 2d 279 (La. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 6 times

    The evidence also indicates to us that the defendant driver must have been "markedly intoxicated," as later found by the examining physician, before plaintiff went to sleep, and this fact should have been obvious to him, especially since he had been with her and had seen her consume a substantial quantity of alcoholic beverages that afternoon. The jurisprudence of this State has been established to the effect that a guest passenger cannot recover for injuries received as a result of his host driver's negligence where the driver has had a sufficient quantity of intoxicants to make him lose control of his mental and physical faculties or to cause such faculties to be materially impaired, and where the guest passenger knew or should have known of the driver's condition and yet voluntarily rode with him. Richard v. Canning, La. App. Orl., 158 So. 598; Elba v. Thomas, La. App. Orl., 59 So.2d 732; Cormier v. Angelle, La. App. 1 Cir., 119 So.2d 876; McAllister v. Travelers Insurance Co., supra; Dowden v. Bankers Fire Marine Insurance Company, La. App. 2 Cir., 124 So.2d 254; Otis v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La. App. 4 Cir., 127 So.2d 197. The trial judge, in his written reasons for judgment, stated:

  10. McAllister v. Travelers Insurance Co.

    121 So. 2d 283 (La. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 25 times

    In Elba v. Thomas, La. App., 59 So.2d 732, the claim of a guest passenger wife against the liability insurer of her host driver husband for damages arising from an accident which occurred while the couple was returning from a cocktail party was dismissed on the ground the wife having attended a drinking party with her husband and being aware of his intoxication was precluded from recovery for injuries thusly sustained. The most recent expression on the subject matter under consideration may be found in Cormier v. Angelle et al., La. App., 119 So.2d 876, decided in this court April 25, 1960, in which we rejected the claim of a guest passenger against a host driver on the premise plaintiff was contributorily negligent in riding with defendant after having seen defendant imbibe some six drinks of whiskey within the space of a few hours. We fully agree with learned counsel for plaintiff that inebriation per se may not be considered the proximate cause of every accident in which an intoxicated driver may become involved.