Marsalis v. LaSalle
Louisiana Court of Appeal
94 So. 2d 120 (1957)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
Marsalis (plaintiff) and her husband were shopping in a store owned by LaSalle (defendant). A cat belonging to LaSalle’s minor son either bit or scratched Marsalis while in the store. Marsalis requested LaSalle keep the cat under observation for approximately fourteen days so it could be determined whether the cat had rabies, and thus could have possibly infected Marsalis. LaSalle agreed; however, the cat escaped a few days later. Marsalis told her doctor friend this, which strongly encouraged her to begin rabies treatments just in case the cat had the disease. Her friend administered approximately fourteen treatments himself at his home. Marsalis turned out to be allergic to the treatments, and suffered severe complications. Marsalis brought suit against LaSalle for her injuries, alleging that LaSalle negligently permitted the cat to escape. According to Marsalis, if the cat had not escaped, the offending treatments would not have been necessary and she could have avoided injuries from her allergic reaction. The trial court found LaSalle negligent and awarded Marsalis $3,000 for her injuries. LaSalle appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McBride, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
