Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Recently, Louisiana’s 2nd Circuit heard a civil suit in which the court examined the possible affirmative defenses for defendants of intentional tort cases when the actions of that defendant resulted from an aggressive plaintiff. In the case of Griffith v. Young, Mr. Young appealed the 26th district decision to grant Mr. Griffith a motion for partial summary judgment for his battery case against Mr. Young. After arriving at the plaintiff’s home, the defendant kicked down the plaintiff’s door and physically attacked him using a stun gun, which resulted in multiple injuries to the plaintiff. While these actions alone are shocking, the details are even more strange.

The defendant claimed that the attack stemmed from the plaintiff boasting about past sexual relations with the defendant’s wife and openly distributing provocative photos of her to others. The defendant claimed that the partial summary judgment was ruled in error because his behavior was the result of the plaintiff’s conduct. Further, he claimed that learning of the extramarital affair and the distribution of the pictures was enough provocation by the plaintiff to question the proportion of liability between the two parties, making summary judgment inappropriate. This appeal brings up questions about how liable an individual who is provoked to engage in a physical altercation is relative to the other participant, and how the law handles these “overly aggressive plaintiff” theories by defendants in intentional tort claims. We look at how the 2nd circuit views Louisiana’s current precedent on the issue.

One avenue found within the Louisiana courts, as discussed in Young, is the use of “provocation” as an affirmative defense. Louisiana jurisprudence follows a comparative fault principle for civil claims. Under such a principle, as enacted in La. C. C. art. 2323, the amount of damages recoverable by a plaintiff for any action resulting in injury or loss shall be made in proportion to the degree of fault attributable to that plaintiff. In an effort to promote such a doctrine, Louisiana no long utilizes the "aggressor doctrine." Under such a doctrine, a plaintiff would be unable to file a claim if it was determined that the plaintiff’s immediate actions sufficiently provoked the defendants attacked. The Louisiana Supreme Court in Landry v. Bellanger eliminated the use of the traditional "aggressor doctrine" and now allows defendants to assert a defense of provocation, utilizing comparative fault principles to proportion liability, when the plaintiff's actions toward the defendant or a third party immediately provoked the actions of the defendant. The more the plaintiff immediately provokes the defendant, the less liable the defendant would be for any attack that may follow. La. C. C. art. 2323(c) does create an exception to the provocation rule, where a defendant’s intentional tort that arose from a negligent plaintiff does not use the comparative proportionately reduction.

In addition, Louisiana still continues to allow defendants to claim “self-defense,” which operates as a privilege to committing the accused intentional tort. To prove self-defense, a defendant must show that there was a reasonably apparent threat to the defendant’s safety and the force employed cannot be excessive in degree or kind (See Landry v. Bellanger). In addition to proving all the elements of self-defense, the Louisiana’s 2nd circuit in Young also highlighted the requirement that the reasonably apparent threat of physical harm to the defendant must be immediate and does not apply if deadly force is involved.

Unfortunately for Mr. Young, the 2nd circuit determined that the evidence of infidelity by his wife and the plaintiff's attempt to spread pictures of her occurred over 20 months prior to the attack, and the failure to provide adequate evidence as to when Mr. Young learned of the plaintiff's conduct did not create the necessary immediate provocation needed to raise a legitimate issue of material fact, affirming the district court’s decision. Though such a defense did not work in the favor of Mr. Young, those involved in an intentional tort claim should be aware of their right to proportion liability when they feel they were adequately provoked by another or the right to claim self-defense when such an attack was done to prevent a reasonably apparent threat.

While the events in this case are extreme, the legal rhetoric and overall sentiments relating to an appeal and causation for a successful legal claim remain viable. The fact remains that the courts hold specific concepts all the more true, regardless of how distasteful they find the circumstances. By speaking to an attorney about your rights, anyone damaged in a manner similar can hopefully determine their legal options.

Continue reading " Battery Appeal from Wester Parish Examines Precedent for Intentional Torts " »

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), disabled employees are protected from discriminatory treatment by their employers. The Act protects disabled employees from discrimination with regard to hiring, promotions, termination, compensation, training, and various other conditions of employment. Unfortunately, the Act's protection is limited - only "qualified employees" are protected from those employers covered under the Act.

For an employee to be successful against their employer for a violation of the ADA, the employee must establish the following elements. First, the employee must have a disability. Second, the employee must establish that they are a "qualified individual" able to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation. Lastly, the employee must establish that the employer discriminated against him or her because of the disability. Each of these requirements sound simple enough to meet; however, the U.S. courts have defined and interpreted each of the requirements even further.

"Disability" is a specific term of art. Not every "disability" or impairment, in the ordinary sense of the term, will qualify under the ADA. A "disability" is defined as A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; B) a record of such impairment; or C) being regarded as having such an impairment. Importantly, it is the first type of disability, i.e. one that substantially limits a major life activity, that has been extensively litigated upon.

The complexity of determining whether a disability substantially limits a major life activity is illustrated in a recent Fifth Circuit decision, Picard v. St. Tammany Parish Hospital. Picard, an employee of St. Tammany Parish Hospital, brought a claim against the hospital claiming they failed to make reasonable accommodations for her Charot-Marie Tooth disease ("CMT"). The plaintiff's case alleged CMT disease hindered Picard's ability to work as a transcriptionist, and as such, Picard requested a special computer program to help her transcribe work. The hospital declined to provide the program requested, but did offer other alternatives. Soon after, Picard quit her position with the hospital and filed suit, claiming a violation under the ADA.

Picard established that she had a disability - CMT disease; however, she failed to establish that the disease substantially limited a major life activity. Major life activities include performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, learning, working, and various other activities. Picard testified at trial that she had difficulty working, walking, and shopping. However, she failed to establish that her CMT disability substantially limited her major life activities. To determine whether a limitation is substantial, courts will consider 1) the nature and severity, 2) the duration, and 3) the short or long-term impact of the disability on the employee. The jury heard evidence that Picard could ameliorate the impact of her disability by concentrating, that she could still perform various functions of her job, and that she continued to excel in her position at the hospital. Based on this evidence, the jury concluded that Picard's disability did not substantially limit her work or other life activities.

The Picard case emphasizes the complexity and interpretation required of various vague terms within the ADA. Each claim brought under the American with Disabilities Act is determined on the facts alone. Violations of the American with Disabilities Act are viable claims; however, in order to navigate through the many complex layers successfully, it is advisable to obtain legal help.

Continue reading " The Difficulties Abound in a Discrimination Case Regarding the Disabled " »

Odd things happen in everyday life that, really, no preparation on the part of the victim could prevent. Often chalked up to coincidence or just 'dumb luck,' these events do, however, still have legal ramifications for the responsible party, regardless of how odd or unique the event. One case recently affirmed by the Third Court illustrates that no matter how unusual, a responsible party still is responsible for the damage caused.

The plaintiff, Randy Williams, filed suit against the Louisiana Corporation IESI after the company’s garbage truck caused neck and shoulder injury to Mr. Williams. On December 17 2003, Mr. Williams stopped the IESI owned garbage truck during its daily garbage pick-up to request the help of the garbage men. Mr. Williams was requesting the help of the men to get his garbage can to the curb. After the men provided him assistance, Mr. Williams went to the trunk of his car. Mr. Williams testified that he heard a snapping noise and was suddenly struck by the end of a cable wire. It was concluded that the top of the garbage truck had snagged on the end of the cable wire as the garbage men continued on their route after assisting Mr. Williams. After the IESI employee’s realized what had happened, they pulled the wire loose from the truck and informed Mr. Williams that they would send help to fix the cable wire. The trial court found the IESI to be 100% liable to Mr. Williams’ injuries, awarding him just over $50,000.00. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, while bringing to light the standard needed by a plaintiff to succeed in the different factual and legal questions required to hold a person liable for negligence.

A prima facie case (or a case in which the evidence presented is sufficient for a judgment) of negligence rests on a plaintiff’s ability to show that a duty was owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, the defendant breached that duty, and actual damage resulted as a direct cause of that breach. IESI believed that the trial court incorrectly determined that Mr. Williams had successfully met this burden. IESI made three arguments to the 3rd Circuit, requesting a reversal of the trial court’s decision: (1) IESI claims the trial court erred in concluding that a flap on the top of the garbage truck was what snagged the cable box and caused the accident; (2) IESI claims the trial court erred in finding that Mr. Williams met his burden of proving that IESI breached its duty of care to Mr. Williams; and (3) IESI claims that the trial court erred in failing to consider the possibility that the injury was in part the fault of the cable company in failing to maintain the cable wire as required by Louisiana regulation.

IESI’s first argument was unsuccessful because it failed to show a clear error made by the trial court that the garbage truck’s flap was the cause of the snapped cable. The appellate court first determined that the argument presented was an attack of the factual conclusions made by the trial court. When reviewing questions of fact determined by the trial court, the appellate court follows the manifest error doctrine. As stated in Rosell v. ESCO, the manifest-error doctrine states that the appellate court is only to reverse a factual determination of the trial court if it finds that the conclusion was clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. When dealing with witness testimony, Rosell stated that witness credibility demands great deference to the facts of the case; only the fact finder can be aware of the variation in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding and believe in what was said.

This entry will be continued tomorrow, featuring the court’s findings regarding Mr. Williams’ claims.

Trip and fall cases like that of Ms. Arlene Chambers represent a significant portion of civil cases in Louisiana and around the country. There are various issues of law to review when the defendant appeals a successful result. Ms. Chambers had won a judgment for her injuries against the small Louisiana Village of Moureauville. The Village appealed and was only slightly successful in getting the reduction in the award that they sought.

The events leading to this case occurred on a sidewalk controlled and maintained by the Village in April 2008. Ms. Chambers came upon a "ledge" in the sidewalk where two abutting pieces of the sidewalk were of differing altitudes. She tripped on this ledge and injured her right arm. Ms. Chambers sustained a "comminuted fracture of the radius." This injury resulted in several rounds of physical therapy that, while appearing at the time to be successful, were not a permanent solution to Ms. Chambers' nagging injuries. These injuries eventually spread to her shoulder due to the necessary immobilization of her arm caused by the initial injury.

Ms. Chambers was awarded $200,000.00 for past and future pain and suffering; $25,000.00 in hedonic damages; $54,148.00 in future wage loss; $46,616.17 in past medical expenses; $10,000.00 in future medical expenses; and $3,617.34 in past wage loss. The Village was found to be 100 percent at fault for the accident. Ms. Chambers was also awarded all costs and fees, including the fees necessary to pay experts to testify on her behalf.

On appeal, the majority of this award was kept intact. The standard of review for findings of a damages by a trial court is "manifest error." This means that if the trial court reasonably could have found in the way it did based on the record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings or award. The appellate court cannot argue that if they had been sitting at the trial level and hearing the case with the same record of testimony and evidence they would have decided the case differently. The manifest error standard is more deferential to the trial court than that. The case law dictates that an objective standard be used.

The appellate court in Ms. Chambers' case found manifest error in the assignment of 100 percent fault to the Village. The court pointed to Ms. Chambers' admission that she had noticed some irregularities in the sidewalk. This knowledge was enough for the appellate court to adjust the finding of comparative fault. When an appellate court finds manifest error on the part of the trial court it is authorized to set the fault to the highest possible level assessable to the defendant and the lowest possible level assessable to the plaintiff. In this case the appellate court determined that 90 percent was the highest degree of fault that could be allotted to the Village. Consequently, ten percent comparative fault was assessed to Ms. Chambers. Her awards were reduced to reflect this determination.

The only other finding of error on appeal was in the area of future earnings. This is always a somewhat controversial area as it is necessarily speculative. Any attempt to discern the future with certainty is destined to be at best incomplete. Ms. Chambers lost her award of loss of future earnings because she failed to provide evidence that could lead to the reasonable conclusion that she would actually lose any future earnings. Since the beginning of the trial not only had Ms. Chambers continued to work in her previous occupation but she had earned a merit-based promotion as well. The appellate court decided that any finding of loss of future wages was manifestly in error and eliminated this award.

The deference shown to trial courts is finite. There are very real and very reachable limits to how a trial court can find without being overturned. Ms. Arlene Chambers' awards went beyond the pale. The appellate system did its job and sorted out the manifest errors from the reasonable findings. This case is an example of exactly how the American justice system is supposed to work.

Continue reading " Reason and Error on Appeal in Trip and Fall Case " »

Due to the heavy demands on the court system, the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure includes several provisions to ensure that litigants do not unduly delay the resolution of their disputes. One of these is the concept of abandonment, which refers to an excessive lapse of time without any forward progress in a case. Generally, the Code considers a case abandoned if "the parties fail to take any step in its prosecution or defense in the trial court for a period of three years." Any party or interested person can file an affidavit stating that "no step has been timely taken" in the case, at which time the trial court will dismiss the action by order that is served on the parties by the sheriff. A motion to set aside the dismissal may be filed in the trial court within 30 days of service.

The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) sued the owner, lessee, insurer, and driver of a truck that struck an overpass on I-10 in Acadia Parish. The truck's owner, Oilfield Heavy Haulers, LLC (OHH), had leased the truck to Ace Transportation Co. Ace's employee, David Vincent, was driving the truck at the time that its oversized load collided with and damaged the overpass. On May 21, 2010, Ace filed a motion for dismissal asserting that no step had been timely taken in the prosecution or defense of the action for a period of three years since March 15, 2007; therefore, the suit had been abandoned and should be dismissed. The trial court signed an order of dimissal on May 24, 2010. On June 18, 2010, DOTD filed a motion to set aside the dismissal, which resulted in a hearing on September 27, 2010. The trial court refused to overturn the dismissal, and DOTD appealed, arguing that two actions taken in 2007 demonstrated that the suit had not been abandoned. First, on April 24, 2007, counsel for OHH scheduled a discovery conference and notified all parties. Then, on May 10, 2007, DOTD sent discovery responses to OHH. DOTD relied on La. Code Civ. P. Art. 561(B), which provides that “[a]ny formal discovery ... served on all parties ... shall be deemed to be a step in the prosecution or defense of an action.” The court disagreed on both points. It reasoned that the scheduling of the discovery conference, which was necessary because of the DOTD's delinquency in responding to OHH's discovery requests and was accomplished via letter between the parties' attorneys, was an "extrajudicial effort." As such, it was not “formal discovery” sufficient to constitute a “step in the prosecution of the action" under the Code. With regard to the second point, DOTD admitted that it “inadvertently failed to send a copy of its formal responses to counsel for the remaining defendants [other than OHH].” Accordingly, the court held that "the discovery responses were not sufficient to interrupt abandonment given the lack of service on all parties." It therefore affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying the DOTD's motion to set aside the order of dismissal.

On appeal, the DOTD characterized the trial court's ruling as an overly "strict and rigid interpretation” of the Code. Still, the court of appeal found that the "express requirements of the [Code] article itself and the jurisprudence interpreting" it mandated the trial court's--and its own--conclusion. The complexity of the Code reveals the importance of a plaintiff's retaining an experienced and skilled attorney who can confidently navigate the waters of litigation. Here, the DOTD lost the chance to recover for the damage to the I-10 overpass due to a procedural error--one that could have been avoided by closer attention to the Code and its requirements.

Continue reading " DODT Learns Abandonment Lesson the Hard Way in Acadia Parish Highway Accident " »

Louisiana jurisprudence recognizes the concept of the interlocutory appeal, which is an appeal of a ruling by the trial court before the verdict is ultimately rendered. An interlocutory appeal is available only for issues that would directly affect the trial's outcome or that would not be reviewable except by immediate appeal. Thus, not all interlocutory judgments made by a trial court are eligible for appeal. For instance, a trial court's judgment granting a party's motion for new trial is an interlocutory judgment that is ineligible for appeal because it does not decide the merits of the case. This very rule was at the center of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's recent unpublished opinion in the case of Dauzat v. State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development.

On March 10, 2008, Christine Dauzat boiled several batches of crawfish in a large, heavy pot on the patio of her home located in Avoyelles Parish. When she was finished cooking, Dauzat and her adult son carried the pot of still-boiling-hot water to the roadside ditch that ran the length of her property. While attempting to dump out the pot, Dauzat slipped on a ramp that crossed over the ditch. The hot water from the pot poured over her as she fell into the ditch, burning her severely. Dauzat sued the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) alleging that the ramp and ditch were located within the DOTD's right-of-way and that the DOTD failed to properly maintain the ramp. At trial, a jury returned a verdict finding Dauzat to be 100 percent at fault for the accident. Dauzat filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial judge granted after a hearing. Then the DOTD filed a suspensive appeal in the Third Circuit Court of Appeal that sought to delay the commencement of the new trial. Dauzat countered that the DOTD's appeal was improper "because a judgment granting a motion for new trial is an interlocutory judgment." The Third Circuit agreed: "The judgment granting [Dauzat's] motion for new trial does not decide the merits of this case and, thus, is interlocutory." Louisiana jurisprudence has expressly held that "a judgment granting a motion for a new trial is a non-appealable interlocutory judgment.” Thus, the court found that the trial court’s ruling was a "non-appealable, interlocutory ruling," and Dauzat was able to proceed with her new trial.

At the center of this judgment was the fact that the trial court's granting of a new trial did not directly resolve the ultimate issues in the case - whether the DOTD had a duty to maintain the ramp and ditch in front of Dauzat's property, and whether it failed to do so. The trial court's judgment simply permitted the matter to be brought before a second jury for resolution, and that ruling was therefore not appealable. The policy of limiting appeals is based on the preference of handling matters at the trial court level whenever possible, as the trial court offers the most direct means by which to resolve factual disputes.

Continue reading " Avoyelles Parish Cooking Accident Leads to Court's Review of Interlocutory Appeals " »

Time is of the essence when it comes to filing a suit to address a grievance. If too much time passes, one may be barred from filing a lawsuit. The time period for filing a lawsuit is known as the "prescriptive time period." For example, a lawsuit for personal injury is subject to a one-year period of liberative prescription, following the date of the accident. The issue may become whether or not the time period has passed or not, thus, keeping a close eye on the calendar is the best way to stay safe when filing a lawsuit.

In a recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision, the court explored the time period in which the plaintiff initially filed to determine whether or not he filed in the appropriate time period. The cases arose from a fire at an oil well site in which the plaintiff was severely burned. The oil well accident occurred on September 27, 2007, thus, according to the prescriptive time period, he had one year from this date to file suit against the defendant(s). The plaintiff was employed by a Well Service Company that had contracted with an additional Mineral Company that produced oil and gas. In turn, the Mineral Company contracted with the plaintiff's direct employer to drill a well. The plaintiff filed a tort suit for his personal injuries against the Mineral Company and its insurer on September 4, 2008, falling within the one-year time period allowed for personal injury lawsuits. The plaintiff sustained injuries during the drilling operations, the well penetrated into formations that were pressurized with hydrocarbons. At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was in charge of circulating water through the well while awaiting heavier drilling mud to be pumped into the well to control the hydrocarbon pressure. His direct supervisor, a Well Service Employee, told the plaintiff to stand away from the well because the level the pressure was dangerous. However, the Mineral Supervisor contradicted the former supervisor's orders and told the plaintiff to get on his station at the pump and to abandon it only after shutting the pump off should the gas escape the well.

To the plaintiff's misfortune, he followed the Mineral Company's supervisor, where shortly after a hydrocarbon gas from down-hole escaped from the water tank sufficientily so that it ignited as the plaintiff was attempting to shut off the pump. This caused the hydrocarbon cloud in which the plaintiff was surrounded by, to become ignited, severely burning his entire body. It was only after the plaintiff filed suit against the Mineral Company that he discovered that the alleged Mineral Company supervisor was actually an independent contractor employed by a separate Pipeline Company. Thus, after the one year period, the plaintiff named the Pipe Company as a defendant in an amended petition. The question became whether or not the amended petition was proper, since the prescriptive period of one year had since passed. Thus, the Supreme Court's responsibility was to explore the lower court's decision which sustained the Pipeline Company's argument that too much time had passed and thus, the plaintiff should not be allowed to add them into the initial lawsuit.

Jurisprudence has recognized three different scenarios in which a plaintiff may rely on to establish that prescription has not run. These three situations include, suspension, interruption, and renunciation. In this case, the plaintiff relied on the theory of interruption to argue that his claim had not prescribed. In Louisiana Civil Code Article 1799 provides,

"The interruption of prescription against one solidary obligor is effective against all solidary obligors."

In addition, Louisiana Civil Code Article 3503 declares, "When prescription is interrupted against a solidary obligor, the interruption is effective against all solidqary obligors." Relying on jurisprudence, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirms the principle that for purposes of prescription, parties are solidarily liable to the extent that they share coextensive liability to repair certain elements of the same damage. As such, the plaintiff sustained severe physical injuries after being directly ordered to engage in dangerous activity by an independent contractor who was employed by the Pipeline Company. The companies are solidarily responsible since they held the supervisor out as a company employee and they were directly involved in the injury of the plaintiff. Therefore, prescription was properly interrupted as process was served upon the Mineral Company within the one year prescriptive time period, and since the independent supervisor involved was a solidary obligor, this initial service interrupted prescription amongst all involved and permits the plaintiff to amend the pleading to add the supervisor despite being past the one year prescriptive time period.

Lawsuits are a complicated process that require more than a grievance, they require proper filing within certain time periods, and serving parties at appropriate times. Thus, acquiring legal representation is highly recommended. This will help to ensure that the prescriptive time periods are followed and your legal argument does not fall between the cracks.

Continue reading " Understanding Prescriptive Time Periods When Filing a Lawsuit " »

Under Louisiana jurisprudence, daycare workers and other temporary custodians of children are required to exercise the "highest degree of care" toward their charges. However, they are not "insurers of the children's safety" with unlimited responsibility. Rather, the law requires custodians to follow a standard of care that is appropriate for the age of the children and the particular circumstances. This duty does not require "individual supervision of each child at all times and places," when such level of attention is not warranted. If a child happens to sustain an injury while under the care of a daycare provider, courts apply the traditional "duty/risk" analysis to determine whether the provider met the applicable standard of care.

The recent case of Wade v. Miniworld Daycare turned on the court's analysis of whether the defendant daycare facility "failed to conform to the appropriate standard" of care. The action arose after Ta'Marrion Wade, who was two years, nine months at the time, fell and broke a tooth while running around the Monroe Miniworld Daycare Center's designated outdoor play area. The boy's mother, Kassandra Wade, filed suit against the daycare alleging negligent supervision. The trial court entered a verdict for Wade and awarded her damages; Miniworld
appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal noted that the daycare unquestionably met the state's required standards for the ratio of caretakers to children at the facility. It also examined the record for evidence of the circumstances surrounding the incident: Ta'Marrion was engaged in a running game with his peers in the play area. The children were not "running crazy," and they did not "fight," "hit," "push," or engage in any other prohibited behavior that would have caused a worker to intervene. In fact, a teacher observed Ta'Marrion fall "face down" at one point, but he immediately "got up and started running ... some more." It wasn't until Ta'Marrion and the other children lined up to go indoors that the teacher noticed the child's missing tooth. Ta'Marrion appeared to be in no pain, so the teacher cleaned out his mouth, called Ms. Wade, and filled out an incident report. The court reasoned that "under [these] circumstances, defendant daycare was furnishing and maintaining adequate supervision." Further, while "daycare professionals have a duty to attempt to prevent ... injuries, sometimes it is impossible, as in the situation" described by Ta'Marrion's teacher. "Just because a child is injured while in the custody of a daycare does not mean that the daycare was acting negligently." Accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court "committed manifest error by finding the daycare liable," and reversed the judgment.

This result reflects the practicality inherent in the duty/risk analysis. Although it is reasonable for parents to demand a safe environment for their children while at daycare, Louisiana jurisprudence recognizes that it is impossible for caretakers to prevent every possible injury. If your child has been injured while at daycare, an experienced attorney can help you review the specific circumstances of the incident to determine how the duty-risk analysis would apply and counsel you on the likely outcome of a lawsuit.

Continue reading " Court Confirms: Daycare Center's Liability has Limits " »

The story behind Davis v. Foremost Dairies is a tale of a woman who could be considered at least slightly accident prone. Three different doctors weighed in on the probable cause of her main injury, a bulge in the disc between two of the vertebrae in her neck. In addition to the car accident with one of the defendants, she suffered a fall down some stairs and an incident in which an eight-year-old child grabbed her neck. The issue at hand was whether or not the accident with the defendant was the proximate cause of her permanent pain.

Proximate cause is a legal concept that most students of law find confusing at first. Proving that a defendant was the proximate cause of a plaintiff's injury is crucial to proving the overall claim. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. is probably the most famous case laying out the legal definition of proximate cause. Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, later Justice Cardozo, wrote this often cited opinion. His decision, strongly dissented to by Judge William Andrews, deviates somewhat from what could be called the common sense definition of causation.

For those not familiar with the Palsgraf case, here is a brief explanation. This case dealt with a woman injured by a falling scale on a train platform that was knocked over by vibrations in that platform cause by fireworks. These fireworks exploded when two guards pushed and pulled a man carrying a non-descript package onto a departing train. The issue at hand was whether or not the men, who were in the employ of the train company at the time of the incident, were liable for Ms. Palsgraf's injuries. A traditional "but-for" analysis of this event would say that Ms. Palsgraf would not have been injured but for the acts of the railroad company's employees. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the New York Supreme Court and denied relief to the plaintiff. The court determined that the behavior of the train company employees was too remote from the resulting harm. The men were not considered the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. How do courts determine the issue of causation in a modern context? The answer is very commonly expert medical testimony. Ms. Davis' case used the opinions of several of these medical experts.

Ms. Davis alleged, with at least the partial backing of three medical professionals, that her car accident was the proximate cause of her injuries. This allegation, once proven beyond a preponderance of the evidence, would entitle her to compensation for her injuries. "Preponderance of the evidence" may sound like a lofty standard but actually it simply means that something is more likely than not the case. The trial judge in Ms. Davis' case determined that it was more likely than not the case that Ms. Davis' injuries were proximately caused by the accident with the individual defendant. Since this was considered a factual finding, the trial judge's findings were given great deference on appeal.

The trial judge was called upon to weigh competing claims using far from conclusive evidence to determine the outcome of this case. The defense attempted to ruin Ms. Davis' credibility, as well. There were some allegations that she was addicted to prescription drugs. At least one of the doctors involved in this case testified that she exhibited signs of "doctor shopping" and other drug-seeking behavior. Despite all of the murkiness involved, the trial court determined that Ms. Davis' injuries were proximately caused by the accident with the defendant. Her award was reduced on appeal but not for lack of causation. The trial court's decision was not found to constitute "manifest error," which is required for overturning factual findings. The Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision in respect to causation. The accident with the defendant was the proximate cause of her injuries. The individual defendant's employer was found to be vicariously liable for her injuries.

Continue reading " Causation- Moving Beyond the Blame Game in Ouachita " »

Roxane Montgomery was hired in October of 2001 as an assistant manager for a video store owned by C & C Self Enterprises, Inc. in Lake Charles. She was 41 years old. Five months later, on April 8, 2002, she was terminated.

Ms. Montgomery sued C & C Self Enterprises claiming that she was terminated because of her age. The Louisiana Age Discrimination Employment Act makes it unlawful for an employer to "fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, any individual with respect to his compensation, or his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of the individual's age." Included in her claim that her employer violated LADEA, Ms. Montgomery alleged that she suffered "severe emotional distress resulting in physical complications due to her wrongful termination." C & C Self Enterprises answered by denying that Ms Montgomery was fired because of her age, but was instead fired because of her "inadequate job performance." They followed up their answer to the complaint by filing a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment and awarded the plaintiff $50,000.

Roxane Montgomery v. C & C Self Enterprises, Inc., was appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals from the Fourteenth Judicial District Court of the Parish of Calcasieu. The purpose of this article is to identify and discuss the necessary elements of a successful age discrimination claim and to identify why the trial court erred when it denied C & C Self Enterprises' motion for summary judgement. The Third Circuit court looked at Federal case law to assist in making their decision because LADEA is "nearly identical" to the Federal statute prohibiting age discrimination: the court looked at the U.S. Supreme Court decision McDonnell Douglas v. Green 411 U.S. 792 (1973) because this decision "set forth the basic allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof in an unemployment discrimination case."

ELEMENTS OF AN AGE DISCRIMINATION CLAIM

In this case and any case involving an age discrimination claim, the plaintiff has an initial burden to establish a prima facie case ("a case in which the evidence presented is sufficient for a judgment to be made unless the evidence is contested") of discrimination. To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff "must show that: (1) she is in the protected age group between the ages of 40 and 70 years (2) her employment with the defendant was involuntarily terminated, and (3) she was qualified to perform the job she was employed to perform." By fulfilling these three requirements a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, which results in the creation of "a presumption that the defendant unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff."

In addition to the creation of this presumption, the defendant then is subjected to a burden of production: the defendant must produce evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its actions. If the defendant succeeds in doing so, the presumption of discrimination ceases to exist. Also, if the defendant provides these reasons, the burden shifts again to the plaintiff. Now the plaintiff has to prove "by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's proffered reasons were merely 'pretext', or in other words, not the true reason for the alleged discrimination."

It is not enough for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant's reasons were pretext. The plaintiff must prove that "age must actually have played a role in the employers decision making process and had a determinative influence in the outcome." In other words age must have "motivated the employers decision."

To summarize, when residents like Ms Montgomery of Calcasieu Parish make a claim based on age discrimination, she first has to establish a prima facie case. If she does so, a presumption is created that the defendant has impermissibly discriminated against her. Next, the defendant must now give reasons for its conduct: reasons that are legitimate and non-discriminatory. Then the plaintiff has the opportunity to prove that the defendant's reasons are not the true reasons for the alleged discrimination. The plaintiff must prove that these reasons are pre-textual, and she must prove that her termination was caused by age discrimination.

This is the process for making an age discrimination claim. There were some issues in this process during the trial court phase of the present case. The Third Circuit identified some of the issues with the plaintiff's claim and concluded that the trial court erred in not granting summary judgement to the defendant.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS APPROPRIATE AT TRAIL COURT LEVEL

Before summary judgment can be granted two requirements must be met 1) there must be no genuine issue of material fact 2) the moving party must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court did not grant C & C Self Enterprises' motion for summary judgment. The Third Circuit reversed the trial court's decision. The Third Circuit opinion revealed that the trial court should have granted summary judgment.

Seemingly (the rhetoric of the opinion is not quite clear) the trial court's decision was based on the fact that the judge did not believe the reasons provided by C& C for the termination of Ms. Montgomery. The judge explained: " So as I understand it, if I find a prima facie case of unemployment; if I find that the employer was not truthful in the reason for termination, which I do in this case. I don't think they gave me a good reason or a truthful reason for terminating Ms. Montgomery..So I find for the Plaintiff, that she was terminated because of violation of the termination -- the law under 23:311 et seq."(LADEA). The Third Circuit concluded that the trial court erred in ruling for the "plaintiff based upon a finding of 'pretext' without evidence of an intentional act as required by law...It is not enough that the trial court simply disbelieves the employer's 'proffered reasons', the plaintiff must establish by preponderance of the evidence that age was the 'but for' reason the employer terminated the plaintiff, as opposed to merely a motivating factor."

The Third Circuit went further and claimed that "We find that the record does not permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the plaintiff proved the defendant terminated her employment because of her age." The trial court overweighed the importance of disbelieving the defendant's reasons for terminating Ms. Montgomery. "Because an employer's proffered reason is unpersuasive or even obviously contrived, does not necessarily establish that the plaintiff's assertion of age discrimination is correct." Also, the trial court "must believe that the plaintiff has proven its explanation of intentional discrimination." None of the reasons that Ms Montgomery gave for being fired were sufficient to "prove that the defendant acted with discriminatory animus in terminating her employment."

Perhaps even more importantly, the Third Circuit noticed that Ms Montgomery was hired and fired by the same person, who was also over 40 years old. They cited Proud v Stone (945 F.2d 796) for the following point: "in cases where the hirer and firer are the same individual and the termination of employment occurs within a relatively short time span following the hiring, a strong inference exists that discrimination was not a determining factor for the adverse action taken by the employer...There is nothing in the record to rebut this inference." The ultimate conclusion reached: "There was no sufficient showing that the plaintiff's age actually played a role or had a determinative influence in the defendant's decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment."

Summary judgment could have been granted in this case because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the elements required by LADEA in establishing a successful age discrimination claim. Ms. Montgomery did not establish that the defendant's proffered reasons for her termination were pre-textual. Nor did she establish that there was a causal relationship between the defendant's reasons and her termination: a relationship that is required by the statute. Because Ms. Montgomery did not meet any of the legal elements required for an age discrimination claim, C & C Self Enterprises is entitled to judgement as a matter of law; and thus, summary judgment would have been appropriate.

An explosion at the Multi-Chem Corporation chemical plant, followed by a series of smaller ones, has led to an evacuation of the area's residents. Preliminary reports indicate that no injuries have taken place but it will take some time before a full understanding of the incident is known. The company, which creates oilfield product chemicals, still does not know the full details of the incident. That another explosion has taken place, with the Dow Hahnville incident still in recent memory, leads to a lot of questions regarding the safety standards and practices being utilized at these facilities.

The Associated Press reports that the incident, which appears to have first begun at 4 pm today, featured a significant explosion that could be heard from more than a mile away. The incident led to a one mile radius surrounding the plant being evacuated as all plant employees are accounted for. While the State Police say no one was injured in the incident, previous chemical releases have proven that only after some time are the full effects of an explosion known.

A Multi-Chem Group in Houston spokesman says that the company is still in its exploratory phase and will provide details when they are available. Information is still scarce at this time but we will update this blog as it is available.

Reports are coming in that an explosion has taken place at the New Iberia chemical plant, leading to an immediate evacuation of residents in the area and plant personnel.

More information will be provided as it becomes available.

After filing a lawsuit, plaintiffs are required to notify defendants of the impending suit so that they may defend and respond to the claim. Without notice that a lawsuit has been filed against them, defendants' due process rights may be violated if an unfavorable judgment is entered or rendered without their knowledge. The time frame for this requirement - commonly known as "service of process" - varies among state and federal jurisdictions. In Louisiana, plaintiffs have ninety days from filing a lawsuit to request service of process, which is known in Louisiana as “citation and service.” The lawsuit officially begins once a defendant receives citation and service because only then will a court have jurisdiction over all of the parties. If service is not completed within the statutory period, defendants may justifiably make a motion to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs, however, may be able to defeat a motion to dismiss if they can show good cause for being untimely with the requirement. This issue was recently before the Supreme Court of Louisiana in George Igbinoghene and Sebastian Busari v. St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co.

In the seminal case, Igbinoghene and Busari (hereinafter "plaintiffs") filed their petition in the parish of Orleans on May 18, 2007, but failed to request service within ninety days of the filing date. St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company (hereinafter "St. Paul") filed a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. The district court denied the motion and St. Paul appealed.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that denying the motion to dismiss was proper because good cause was shown for being untimely since they agreed to St. Paul's request to extend the time to file responsive pleadings. The Supreme Court found this argument unpersuasive given that such events occurred in 2008 and 2009, which were outside of the relevant period. Moreover, the Supreme Court stated that requesting an extension to file pleadings did not act as an express, written waiver of citation and service. In addition, the Supreme Court declared that St. Paul's knowledge of the suit did not make citation and service unnecessary. To support this assertion, the Supreme Court relied on Naquin v. Titan Indemnity Co., a Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case, which held that "defendant's actual knowledge of a legal action cannot supply the want of citation because proper citation is the foundation of all actions."

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and granted St. Paul's motion to dismiss because it found that the district court erred in denying the motion. Igbinoghene and Busari v. St. Paul shows us that it is important to have competent representation that will successfully prepare for and fulfill the procedural requirements in bringing a lawsuit. As this case demonstrates, there are grave consequences, such as losing your case, if the lawsuit is challenged and dismissed on procedural grounds.

Continue reading " Louisiana Supreme Court Dismisses Plaintiffs' Case Based on Failing To Show Good Cause For Untimely Service of Process " »

According to the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, a merchant may use reasonable force to detain a suspected shoplifter for questioning or arrest for up to an hour. La. Code Crim. P. Art. 215(A)(1). A merchant who acts under this provision is entitled to immunity from any civil actions arising out of the detention, provided he can show that he had reasonable cause to believe that the detained person committed theft; he did not use unreasonable force; the detention occurred on the store premises; and the detention did not last longer than 60 minutes. Freeman v. Kar Way, Inc.

The issue of the merchant's reasonableness was at the center of the recent case of Rhymes v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. On the morning of December 24, 2007, Thomas Rhymes visited the Winn-Dixie grocery store in Abbeville to purchase some cough syrup. While shopping, Rhymes's blood sugar began to drop and he felt dizzy and weak. He slipped the cough syrup into his jacket pocket, grabbed several bags of honey buns, and made his way toward the checkout. A store manager intercepted Rhymes and demanded the products from his jacket pockets. The manager then told Rhymes to leave the premises but a moment later told him to stay, though Rhymes ignored this request and continued toward the door. The manager grabbed Rhymes by the neck and twisted his left arm behind his back. The manager attempted to hit Rhymes as they made their way to the back office but was stopped, mid-swing, by another store employee. When the police arrived, a different manager advised the officer to release Rhymes as the store did not wish to press charges. Rhymes filed suit for physical and mental injuries resulting from the incident. Winn-Dixie answered, denying that Rhymes was injured and asserting the merchant's detention privilege under the Louisiana Code. Winn-Dixie also filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted on May 20, 2010. Rhymes appealed.

The Third Circuit began its review with the well-established principle that summary judgment is appropriate only when there is "no genuine issue of material fact, and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rhymes's argument on appeal was that a question of material fact "regarding whether the force used by the manager was reasonable" existed. Indeed, Rhymes argued that the store manager's actions were "beyond unreasonable." The court likened the analysis under the merchant statute to determining whether the force used by police officers in arresting criminal offenders is reasonable, for which the Louisiana Supreme Court has held:

“Whether the force used is reasonable depends upon the totality of the facts and circumstances in each case. A court must evaluate the officers’ actions against those of ordinary, prudent, and reasonable men placed in the same position as the officers and with the same knowledge as the officers.” Kyle v. City of New Orleans.

In other words, the analysis very much turns on the specific facts of the incident. Here, the court had only Rhymes's deposition testimony to evaluate, as the store did not offer the manager's deposition or any other evidence. Accordingly, the court found that there were "questions of material fact as to whether the store manager’s actions in grabbing Mr. Rhymes by the neck and wrapping his arm behind his back constituted reasonable force under the circumstances of this case." The judgment of the trial court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Although summary judgment can be a winning strategy for either party in litigation, its applicability is limited to the cases where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact." Typically, when an analysis of reasonableness is required, the facts of the case will be of critical importance and summary judgment inapplicable. The court's action here indicates that a fact-intensive analysis is needed by the trial court on remand.

Continue reading " Appellate Court Denies Summary Judgment in Store's Favor in Shoplifter Detention Case " »

Over the past two decades, America's working class has suffered the impact of exposure to asbestos. Before it was known that asbestos could lead to serious illness and death, people worked around the material without hesitation. Problems with exposure arise due to the fact that the fibers of asbestos, once inhaled, can have a very negative impact on your lungs and body. Those who have been exposed to asbestos can contract mesothelioma, a rare kind of cancer that can develop from the protective lining that covers many of the body's internal organs. It is an aggressive and deadly kind of cancer that has very little remedy; usually the best type of treatment is the keep the person as comfortable as possible. Even worse, mesothelioma can have the same symptoms of other diseases, so it can be misdiagnosed very easily and lead to significant delays in treatment. What's more, the symptoms of the disease do not appear right away. Because the impact of exposure may not become obvious for many years after exposure, people have the possibility of being diagnosed with something other than the disease and miss out on sorely needed medical attention. Because the disease manifests itself so late, it can easily go under the radar and get worse before anything can be done to resolve it.

In Louisiana, in the New Orleans Parish Civil District Courthouse, the family members of yet another victim of exposure to asbestos will have their day in court. The deceased, Phillip Graf, was exposed to asbestos for over 30 years and died a long, emotional and painful death. His family members are suing up to 29 different defendants in their lawsuits arising from his untimely and unfortunate death. Among the defendants is Metropolitan Life. In court documents, the claim states that the company is liable because it aided and abetted the negligence and the marketing of unreasonably dangerous asbestos containing products by such manufacturers. The plaintiffs in the case allege that these actions exhibit a specific type of negligence and lack of care that led to Mr. Graf's death. Moreover, Benjamin Moore & Co. is listed as the lead defendant. This is because it was the employer of Mr. Graf. This case helps illustrate that with matters such as this, a variety of companies both directly and indirectly involved in the exposure can be held accountable for the unfortunate circumstances their actions, or lack thereof, caused.

Losing a member of the family due to a disease is a hard process. However, if you or a loved one feel that you are being exposed to dangerous work environments while on the job, do not hesitate to call an attorney.

Continue reading " Thirty Years of Asbestos Exposure Leads to Death " »

The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit upheld a District Court ruling in early 2011 allowing a contractor out of a negligence suit following a tragic incident in which a young man was electrocuted while trimming trees. The Court held Defendant Contractor Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) did not have a duty to protect a subcontractor from injury and therefore could not be held negligent. Because there was no contract between the contractor and the tree service subcontractor, the Court held there was no principal-independent contractor relationship that would have formed a duty.

Chad Groover, an employee of Groover Tree Service (GTS), was operating an aerial lift and cutting trees on the morning of December 7, 2006, north of Slidell when the basket he was riding in made contact with an energized line. Groover's brother, Larry Groover, witnessed the electrocution. Chad Groover was severely injured at the scene and sadly died seven months later from complications. The family of the deceased brought a negligence action against several defendants, including the contractor CDM, a CDM worksite monitor, and CDM's insurers, Zurich American Insurance Company and ACE American Insurance Company. The suit alleged CDM's negligence caused Larry Groover to suffer mental anguish when he witnessed his brother's death.

Proving negligence requires proof that the negligent party owed a duty to the injured party. Duty implies a special relationship or can be established by law. The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment arguing they did not have a legal duty to protect Chad Groover from injury. Plaintiffs averred in a cross motion for partial summary judgment Defendants had a statutorily provided duty to have the power company de-energize the lines.

Summary judgment is appropriate if the the person claiming it shows there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the movant demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact the burden shifts to the non-movant to provide specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. The issue as to whether a defendant owes a duty is a question of law. In deciding whether to impose a duty in a particular case, Louisiana courts examine whether the plaintiff has any law to support the claim that the defendant owed him a duty. Here, Plaintiffs provided no such law.

In their argument, Groover's side argued CDM was a principal and GTS was an independent contractor. Plaintiffs contended CDM had a duty to GTS because CDM controlled and expressly authorized the unsafe work practices that let to Chad Groover's death.

A principal, contractor relationship is in large measure determined by the terms of the contract between them. CDM and GTS did not have a contract. CDM's contract was with the Parish. GTS's contract was an oral one with another one of CDM's subcontractors. Under Louisiana law, a principal is not liable for the injuries resulting from the negligent acts of an independent contractor, unless the principal retained "operational control" over the contractor's work, expressly or impliedly approved the unsafe work practices, or the activity is ultra hazardous. Instantly, the Court held that the Plaintiffs side failed to provide evidence sufficient to show a principal-contractor relationship existed between the parties. Therefore, Defendant CDM owed no duty.

The Court also held the Louisiana Overhead Power Line Safety Act did not provide a statutory duty as the Act merely provides a means by which powerline operators and owners can hold individuals and companies liable for all damages, costs, or expenses incurred by the owner or operator as a result of contact with powerlines during the course of unauthorized work. Therefore, when doing work as a subcontractor it is important to ensure a valid contract exists between the parties.

If you have been injured on the job, hiring an attorney to discuss your rights is important. By hiring an attorney with experience and a thorough understanding of the law, you can protect your ability to recover for damages suffered.

Continue reading " Contractor Not Liable for Electrocution Death in St. Tammany Parish " »

The plaintiff in this case, Eileen Laday, was a passenger on a bus owned by the Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government. The bus had been donated to the City-Parish in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. When the bus was donated, it was missing a plexiglass shield that was designed to keep the bus door from coming into contact with passengers. As Ms. Laday sat in the front seat, the door opened and trapped her arm. She was not consistent about how long her arm was trapped.

Ms. Laday went to a doctor the next day, complaining of neck and shoulder pain radiating into her right arm. The doctor ordered an MRI, which showed degenerative cervical disc conditions as well as a disc herniation. She later saw an orthopedic surgeon, who recommended that she undergo surgery. As of the date of trial, she had not yet had the surgery, which was estimated to cost between $60,492.60 and $61,492.60.

The judge conducted a bench trial (where there is no jury) and ruled in favor of Ms. Laday because of the high standard of care imposed on common carries like operators of public buses. He awarded her $60,000 in general damages, $24,084.56 in past medical expenses, and $60,492.60 for future surgery costs to be placed into a reversionary trust under La.R.S. 13:5106, with interest to go to Ms. Laday.

Lafayette City-Parish appealed, claiming that the trial court was clearly wrong in believing Ms. Laday over its expert, who testified that the claimed contact between the bus door and Ms. Laday’s arm was a possible, but not probable, cause of the disc herniation. It also claimed that the court should have put the interest on the award for future medical expenses into the reversionary trust rather than giving it to Ms. Laday.

Ms. Laday, on the other hand, thought that the amount of general damages and medical expenses were abusively low, given that there were additional future medical expenses proven at trial, including follow-up visits for a year.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeal for the State of Louisiana considered the purpose of La.R.S. 13:5106, which was to assure that money for subsequent medical care was paid directly to a medical care provider because judgments against public entities have amounted to more than those entities are able to pay. The use of a reversionary trust ensures that a plaintiff will not take the money and use it for something else other than medical treatment. Considering the purpose of reversionary trusts, the appellate court ruled that any interest that accrued should also go into the trust rather than being paid out to the plaintiff.

The Third Circuit also found that there were follow-up medical appointments needed after the surgery, which the plaintiff had proven but the trial judge did not take into account when awarding future medical damages. The appellate court added those amounts back in, making the total amount $62,288.00 that should go into the trust.

Ms. Laday was ultimately awarded a higher amount for future medical expenses, but the money, along with the interest that would accrue on that money, would be placed in a trust to be paid directly to a doctor or other medical professional providing treatment. As a result of this award, she was able to pay for the back surgery she needed.

If you have been injured while riding on public transportation, you may be eligible for compensation from the operator of the vehicle.

Continue reading " Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government Ordered to Pay Damages, Costs to Injured Bus Passenger " »

In a prior post, we saw that the trial court is afforded considerable deference in the setting the amount of general damages in tort cases. More than 30 years ago, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated:

"[T]he role of an appellate court in reviewing general damages is not to decide what it considers to be an appropriate award, but rather to review the exercise of discretion by the trier of fact. Each case is different, and the adequacy or inadequacy of the award should be determined by the facts or circumstances particular to the case under consideration." Reck v. Stevens.

The Court went on to advise that an appellate court's primary role is to determine whether a trial court's general damages award amounted to an abuse of discretion. Only if such abuse is found is it appropriate for the appellate court to review prior judicial opinions to determine a range of amounts reasonably applicable in the case.

Against this formidable body of jurisprudence did the plaintiffs in the recent case of Andrus v. ACCC Insurance Co. appeal the trial court's award of general damages. On March 12, 2009, Terrence Andrus and Joseph Davis were driving on La. Highway 167 in St. Landry Parish. Jeri Ceasor rear-ended Andrus's car, after which Andrus and Davis, ("Plaintiffs") filed a suit for damages for injuries and property damage. The trial court found Ceasor to be at fault in the accident and awarded Plaintiffs general damages in the amount
of $1,500.00 each. The court also awarded the Plaintiffs special damages for medical costs in the amount of roughly $3,000 each. The Plaintiffs appealed the general damages award as "inadequate" for the Plaintiffs' "soft tissue" injuries that they sustained in the accident.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeal noted that "the evidence of record shows that the damage to the Andrus vehicle was minor," only "scratches and paint damage," and no deformity to the bumper. Both Plaintiffs complained of back pain following the accident, but for each it was only "minor" or, in the case of Davis, more "tightness" than pain. Both Plaintiffs were completely healed within three months after a series of chiropractic visits. During the trial, Andrus testified that the collision was just "a little jerk," while Davis characterized it as "nothing big." The court concluded, "we cannot say that an award of $1,500.00 in general damages to each of the Plaintiffs falls below 'that which a reasonable trier of fact could assess for the effects of the particular injury to the particular plaintiff under the particular circumstances,'" and affirmed the trial court's award.

This case clearly reflects the view of the Louisiana Supreme Court that "an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages." Indeed, the Plaintiffs pointed to no obvious reason by which the appellate court could conclude that the trial court's award was unreasonable. In the end, the Plaintiffs' appeal left them with an assessment of the costs of the action. While it is understandable for an injured plaintiff to want to maximize his recovery, a skilled attorney who understands the limits of the appellate court's role in adjusting damages can offer invaluable strategic guidance about whether to file an appeal.

Continue reading " Appellate Court Affirms Small General Damages Award in Minor St. Landry Parish Accident " »

On the evening of October 29, 2004, Jeanine Pryor, then 69, attended a football game between Barbe High School and New Iberia High School at Lloyd G. Porter Stadium in Iberia Parish. Pryor, who was there to see her grandson play, was recovering from hip surgery and required a cane to get around. She sat in the bleachers on the visitors' side of the stadium to be with the other fans of the Barbe High Bucs. The seat boards on the visitors' side bleachers were uniform and approximately eight inches apart in height, except that the space between the first and second seat boards had 18 inches between them. When Pryor first arrived, she realized she could not step up the distance between the first row and the second, so she "grabbed the second board and lay on her side so she could swing one leg up at a time." Then she stood up and was assisted by her daughter the rest of the way up the rows to her seat. At halftime, when Pryor descended the bleachers in order to visit the restroom, she attempted to simply step down the distance between the first and second seats, rather than use the same maneuver she had executed on the way up. In the process, she fell and was severely injured. Pryor filed suit against the New Iberia school board alleging that the bleachers were defective. After a bench trial, the district court entered a judgment for the school board, having determined under a risk/utility analysis that the condition of the bleachers was not unreasonably dangerous. Pryor appealed and the court of appeal reversed. It rejected the district court’s analysis, finding there was “no utility or social value in exposing visiting patrons to an eighteen-inch vertical differential between the seat boards in question.” The court apportioning 70 percent fault to the school board and 30 percent fault to Pryor, awarding her damages of over half a million dollars. The school board appealed.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recited the general rule that "the owner or custodian of property has a duty to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition," though the owner generally has "no duty to protect against an open and obvious hazard." It is the trial court's role to decide which risks are unreasonable based upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and review of its determination on appeal is subject to the manifest error standard. Louisiana courts have adopted a risk-utility balancing test for this analysis, which requires weighing four factors:

(1) the utility of the thing. Here, the court concluded, "it is undisputed that the bleachers serve a social utility purpose by providing seating for patrons of the stadium," and further, that "the eighteen-inch gap between the first and second seat is not a defect in the bleachers per se, but simply part of their design."

(2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, which includes the obviousness of the dangerous condition. In this case, the court agreed with the district court's finding that Pryor was "aware of the gap."

(3) the cost of preventing or correcting the harm. In this circumstance, the court noted that Pryor "could have avoided the harm at no cost to her by choosing to sit on the [home team's] side of the stadium, where disability access ramps and handicap-accessible seating were provided."

(4) the nature of the plaintiff's activities in terms of its social utility, or whether it is dangerous by nature. "Obviously, the act of attending a high school football game carries a social utility, and is not inherently dangerous," the court concluded. However, it viewed Pryor's decision to site on the side of the stadium where no ramps or handicap-accessible seating were provided "effectively increased the risk to her, given
her physical impairment."

Based on this analysis, the court concluded that "the district court’s factual determination that the bleachers were not unreasonably dangerous is not clearly wrong," and found the court of appeal erred in reversing the district court’s judgment.

The Pryor case is another classic example of the risk-utility analysis applied by the courts when trying to balance the duty that property owners owe to visitors with the visitors' obligation to look out for their own safety. Particularly in the case of municipalities, state agencies, and other public entities, the court must apply a reasonableness standard to ensure that tax revenues are spent responsibly in light of the duty.

Continue reading " Court Rules High School Football Stadium Bleachers Are Not Unreasonably Dangerous " »