Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

369 So. 2d 708

Docket No. 64183.

Hebert v. Maryland Cas. Co.

Nanette Renee HEBERT v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided March 30, 1979.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1979-03-30

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1999

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[T]he fault of the victim that defeats recovery for harm occasioned by strict liability imposable upon a defendant involves a voluntary exposure to the risk with full knowledge and appreciation of the danger. Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corp., 258 La. 1067 , 249 So.2d 133, 140-141 . The trier of fact could properly have found that the plaintiff, an experienced horsewoman, had so assumed the risk. "Although the language of the court of appeal incorrectly suggests that the objective test of contributory negligence rather than the subjective test of assumption of the risk defeats a recovery based on strict liability, the result is correct. See Daniel v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 368 So.2d 810 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1979) in which writs were denied this day, for a correct statement of the principles involved.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 417 So. 2d 1327 - Sumner v. Foremost Ins. Co.

Relies on Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corporation · 368 So. 2d 810 - Daniel v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1979-03-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Writ denied.

¶2TATE, J., concurs and assigns reasons.

¶3DIXON and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.

¶4TATE, Justice (concurring in the denial).

¶5The result is correct. However, the fault of the victim that defeats recovery for harm occasioned by strict liability imposable upon the defendant involves a voluntary exposure to the risk with full knowledge and appreciation of the danger. Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corp.,258 La. 1067, 249 So.2d 133, 140-141. The trier of fact could properly have found that the plaintiff, an experienced horsewoman had so assumed the risk.

¶6Although the language of the court of appeal incorrectly suggests that the objective test of contributory negligence rather than the subjective test of assumption of the risk defeats a recovery based on strict liability, the result is correct. See Daniel v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Co.,368 So.2d 810 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1979) in which writs were denied this day, for a correct statement of the principles involved.

/369/so2d/708 · .json · Public domain