Miller v. STATE, DOTD’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2018
12 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 617 So. 2d 880 - Stobart v. State Through DOTD · 579 So. 2d 931 - Socorro v. City of New Orleans · 582 So. 2d 1285 - Oster v. Dept. of Transp. & Development · 648 So. 2d 898 - Campbell v. DEPTARTMENT OF TRANSP. & DEV. · 620 So. 2d 1149 - Hunter v. Dept. of Transp. and Dev.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[U]nder the facts of this case, we must ask: was the risk that a speeding and intoxicated motorist, driving an A-frame vehicle of this size and design, might lose control of his vehicle, travel across the opposite lane of travel, then traverse the shoulder and ditch beyond, and strike this tree at the precise angle it did, within the ambit of duty that DOTD owes motorists? Additionally, when determining whether a condition or defect presented an unreasonable risk of harm, courts balance several factors, including the probability and gravity of the harm presented by the risk against the social utility of the thing involved, the cost to the defendant of avoiding the risk, and the social utility of the plaintiff's conduct at the time of the accident. Nicks v. Teche Elec. Co-op. Inc. , 93-1418 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/94) , 640 So.2d 723 , writ denied , 94-1710 (La. 10/7/94), 644 So.2d 640 . The tree in question was part of a vast wooded area. The evidence reveals that there is no reason to believe that the risk of harm this tree posed to this driver was in any way different from that presented by the trees around it. Plaintiffs' own expert, Mr. Moody, testified that "[i]f that tree hadn't been there, and he'd gone off that curve, then there are other trees that he could've hit," some further away, and been killed at his calculated speed. This tree had been there for approximately thirty years, and Allen had driven that road many times, and made that curve, all without incident. Thus,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The highway department’s duty to maintain a safe shoulder does not encompass the foreseeable risk of injury to a motorist who strays completely off the traveled portion of the highway because his driving ability is impaired by reason of intoxication ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cormier v. Comeaux“The court found that the cause of the accident was the individual's negligence in failing to act as a reasonable and prudent person in the operation of his vehicle, not DOTD's failure to remove a tree.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.