Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

In order for a court to have jurisdiction over a person, proper service of process must be employed, giving legal notice to the party of the suit and enabling them to timely prepare in anticipation of the suit. If proper service is not performed, a court may not have jurisdiction over such person. In a recent Louisiana Supreme Court case, the requirements of proper service were explored in order to determine whether the proper steps were employed. proper service of process is one of the most important parts of a law suit, without proper service, the defendant may not be forced to participate in the case. Thus, the importance of proper service cannot be emphasized enough.

The case at issue involves the plaintiff, who fax-filed suit against several defendants, including the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), seeking to recover damages arising from an automobile accident. In the plaintiffs petition, requested service on DOTD though the attorney general was made. The issue became whether the plaintiff's service of process was insufficient based on the fact that he did not request service on the secretary of DOTD. Citing to Louisiana Revised Statute 13:5107(A) which provides in part:

"In all suits filed against the state of Louisiana or a state agency, citation and service may be obtained by citation and service on the attorney general of Louisiana, or on any employee in his office above the age of sixteen years, or any other proper officer or person, depending upon the identity of the named defendant and in accordance with the laws of this state, and on the department, board, commission, or agency head or person..."

The plaintiff has 90 days from filing the complaint, to properly serve the named defendant(s). Here, the defendant argues that the plaintiff failed to request proper service within 90 days of the filing of his suit pursuant to La. R.S. 13:5107(A), entitling DOTD to the dismissal of the plaintiffs claims. the issue is whether or not litigation involving two state agencies requires double service, i.e., service on the agency head and the attorney general. The appellate court relied on jurisprudential interpretation to dismiss the plaintiffs claim, stating that the interpretation of LSA-R.S. 13:5107 mandates service of citation on the state agency must be made upon the attorney general and on the agency head for the department against whom the action is filed. However, upon the Louisiana Supreme Court's grant of supervisory writ, the court specifically explored whether an actual "double service" was indeed required. The Court held that a double request for service is not necessary. Clearly, the plaintiff's request for service on the attorney general alone satisifed the service requirements of LSA-R.S. 13:5107(A). This is supported by LSA-R.S. 39:1538 which neither imposes a time constraint on the service required by the plaintiff nor provides for dismissal for the failure to effectuate service. In fact, the plaintiff's failure to request service on the department head and the office of risk management within 90 days of commencement of his action did not entitle DOTD to the dismissal of his claims against it. Since there are no time periods set forth nor a requirement for dismissal, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the incomplete service can be cured by the plaintiff simply requesting and obtaining service of process on DOTD's secretary and the office of risk management, and the appellate court had erred in failing to allow him the opportuity to so do.

In summary, proper service is monumentally important in allowing a case to go forward against a specific defendant. If proper service is not effectuated the complaint may not be heard. However, if the plaintiff has properly served named defendants according to the revised Statutes, than his complaint may not be dismissed for a mere technicality that requires him to further serve specific parties within a state agency. As a result, a plaintiff who properly does perform service on the "main" defendants as named in the revised statutes will be permitted to remedy the incomplete service by permitting extra time to obtain service on the additional enumerated parties.

Gambling is one of the many recreational activities that the state of Louisiana has to offer. One of the more popular ways to gamble in Louisiana, is on the river boat casinos. However, in a recent Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal decision, the court explored whether or not incidents such as personal injury that occur on these river boat casinos qualify under maritime law as a result of being "in navigation." This issue presents an interesting dilemma in classification, especially after the Louisiana legislature in 2001 amended the gambling laws so as to prohibit gambling boats in Lake Charles from conducting cruises or excursions. Thus, the question becomes: are these river boat casinos in navigation and thus governed by maritime law?

The facts of the case include a young woman who visited a river boat casino on Lake Charles to enjoy gambling in addition to the complimentary food and drinks. However, she became intoxicated and at 4 a.m., she fell from a stairway onto the ground below, suffering serious injuries. According to protocall, her blood alcohol content was measured at 0.33%. Initially, the young woman pursued damages under Louisiana law, however, Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2800.1 provides:

"The legislature finds and declares that the consumption of intoxicating beverages, rather than the sale or serving or furnishing of such beverages, is the proximate cause of any injury, including death and property damage, inflicted by an intoxicated person upon himself or upon another person."

In an effort to circumvent Louisiana's statute prohibiting liability in the case of an intoxicated individual, the young woman alleged that her cause of action was instead, controlled by federal maritime law which contains no similar provision barring the type of claims she was asserting. Her reasoning for alleging a federal maritime claim, was that her fall occurred on a permanently moored floating casino, a watercraft she contends is a vessel in navigation for purposes of general maritime law. The trial court did not explore the definition of "navigation," nor the actual status of the casino, but instead, agreed, finding the plaintiff's claims did fall within admiralty jurisdiction. It was not until the defendant river boat casino company files an appeal that the actual status of the boat was taken into consideration and explored.

Whether or not a boat is in navigation depends on the services the boat provides and the duties the boat performs. As such, in Stewart v. Dutra, the Supreme Court discussed the distinction drawn by the general maritime law between watercraft that are permanently affixed to the shore or resting on the ocean floor and those that are temporarily stationed in a particular location. The record reflects that the Lake Charles river boat casino was prohibited from conducting cruises or excursions after the Louisiana legislature enacted La. R.S. 2765. Since that time period, the river boat casino has been docked and has not conducted any cruises. Further, the boat itself was fitted with four winches, each holding steel cables to permanently secure the vessel to the dock. The utilities servicing the boat, including electricity, water, telephone, sewer, cable, and surveillance were attached to the vessel from land-based sources. Additionally, since the restrictions were set in place prohibiting river boat casinos mobility, the crew of the river boat has been significantly reduced, in fact the captain of the boat was no longer responsible for any navigational duties. To support the contention that this river boat is indeed "out of navigation," the Fifth Circuit held in De LaRosa v. St. Charles Gaming Co., that the very same gambling boat at issue in the present case, was not a vessel for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction. The Appellate court dismissed the young woman's claim, citing to the federal jurisprudence interpretation on maritime jurisdictional rules and definitions as applied to similar boats and circumstances. Therefore, her claim was not based in general maritime jurisdiction and would have to be governed by Louisiana statutes, which ultimately will deny her damages as a result of her blood alcohol content.

In summary, boats have to be in navigation in order to qualify for general maritime jurisdiction. The numerous river boat casinos that are located throughout Southeast Louisiana may fall outside the definition of a "vessel in navigation." A boat cannot be permanently attached to the shore, or moored for extended periods of time and still qualify as being "in navigation." Thus, the river boat casino would not be governed by federal maritime law, instead, they are out of navigation and are governed by the rules and statutes of Louisiana.

When making a legal claim against a person or entity, time is of the essence. Prescription bars certain legal actions after a specified time period. If the specified time period has lapsed, the action is thereafter prohibited. The Fifth Circuit recently explored the issue of prescription, demonstrating how prescription operates to effectively bar actions if they are not timely brought.

The facts of the case are disturbing; the plaintiffs alleged that they were sexually abused by a Roman Catholic priest who was ordained by the Catholic Church. The complaint alleges very serious accusations of abuse. However, abuse turned out not to be the dispositive issue, rather, prescription was the focal point for the Fifth Circuit. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit had to determine whether the suit, based on molestation allegations that occurred over twenty-five years ago, was timely under Louisiana law. It was uncontested that the plaintiff's claims had indeed expired and that they were as a result, barred, unless prescription was tolled under the Louisiana law doctrine of "contra non valentem." This is an exception that was judicially created to statutory prescription, it applies only in exceptional circumstances. In particular, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Eastin v. Entergy Corp., held that the "prescriptive period commences on the date the injured party discovers or should have discovered the facts upon which his cause of action is based" if contra non valentem applies. The plaintiffs alleged that exceptional circumstances were present, as a result of their memories of the abuse they suffered being repressed, preventing them from knowing about their cause of action. However, depositions that the plaintiff gave showed otherwise. Rather, the plaintiffs unequivocally stated that they actively remembered the abuse after it occurred. Thus, their memories were not repressed and the concept of contra non valentem would not apply. Prescription would instead, govern the issue.

The plaintiffs thereafter contended that they should have the opportunity to obtain additional evidence on the subject of their repressed memories and would obtain an affidavit from a professor of psychology that would support their contentions. This affidavit would be used to rebut the defendant's Rule 56 summary judgment motion, such motions are generally favored and should be liberally granted, but the plaintiffs must demonstrate two things. First, they must demonstrate why they need additional discovery and second, how the additonal discovery will likely create a genuine issue of material fact. Thus, even if the plaintiffs were granted additional time to obtain the affidavit in their support, it would not suffice to defeat a summary judgment motion. The plaintiffs already admitted in their depositions that they could remember the abuse right after each encounter, thus, the affidavit would not help defeat summary judgment since they already have demonstrated a lack of exceptional circumstances to qualify for prescriptive tolling.

In summary, time is exceedingly important in being able to bring a legal action against another person or entity. If the specified time period has lapsed, the action will be barred. However, under the legal concept of contra non valvalentem, an exception may be made and the time period may be extended if exceptional circumstances exist. However, the plaintiffs defeated the exception when they admitted that they never repressed the memories of the abuse, thus, the exception would not apply to them. As a result, even as horrific as the abuse may have been, their lawsuit was dismissed.

Continue reading " Time is of the Essence When Understanding Prescription and Timing of a Case " »

Numerous prior posts on this blog have examined Louisiana's system for helping plaintiffs who have been the victim of medical malpractice. Although the state's medical review panel is in place to screen potential claims before they get to court, a plaintiff must still rely on competent legal counsel to see the case to resolution. So important is the lawyer's role that the courts have consistently held that when a litigant loses his day in court solely due to his attorney's negligence, strictly enforcing a technical rule should not result in the miscarriage of justice. This principle was recently relied upon by the Second Circuit Court of Appeal in the case of Sims v. Hawkins-Sheppard to avoid an unjust outcome for the plaintiff.

Rebecca Sims was admitted to the maternity ward of the Glenwood Regional Medical Center in Ouachita Parish on April 2, 2007 for the delivery of her baby. She requested a delivery by Caesarean section due to complications she experienced with her first child. Sims's doctor, Tonya Hawkins-Sheppard, nevertheless decided to perform a surgical vaginal delivery
with the use of forceps. Sims's baby suffered permanent eye injuries from the use of the forceps, and Sims herself suffered injuries that required a hysterectomy. Sims submitted her claim to the state's medical review panel. She alleged that she was heavily medicated and in great pain, and therefore did not give consent for the delivery as performed by Dr. Hawkins-Sheppard; further, Sims asserted that Dr. Hawkins-Sheppard breached the applicable standard of care in the delivery of her baby. After receiving the review panel's opinion that Dr. Hawkins-Sheppard did meet the standard of care, Sims filed a lawsuit. Dr. Hawkins-Sheppard filed a motion for summary judgment when Sims's counsel responded to discovery requests with a statement that Sims did not have a medical expert who could offer an opinion. Sims's counsel then filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment which contained an unsigned physician’s affidavit. Sims's lawyer assured both Sims and the court that the unsigned affidavit would be replaced with a valid affidavit before the scheduled hearing on the motion. But Sims's lawyer failed to obtain the signed affidavit because he did not present it to the physician, Dr. Kimberly Hess, before she left for vacation out of state. Sims learned of this only the day before the hearing, at which time she fired her attorney. At the hearing, Sims explained the situation to the court but the judge refused to grant a continuance so she could obtain new counsel. Instead, the court granted the motion for summary judgment. Sims found new counsel about a month later, who immediately filed an appeal of the court's granting of summary judgment for Dr. Hawkins-Sheppard.

The Second Circuit noted that under La. C.C.P. art. 966(B), affidavits to oppose a motion for summary judgment must be filed eight days prior to the hearing on the motion, which Sims's original counsel clearly failed to do. However, "the trial judge retains great discretion regarding the time of filing. The court shall give the adverse party additional time to file a response, including opposing affidavits, if good cause is shown." Furthermore, it is entirely within the trial judge's discretion to "continue the hearing to enable compliance with the eight day filing requirement." Citing the principle for ensuring the proper carriage of justice, the court noted that Sims was not aware of her attorney’s failure to obtain a valid affidavit and that, even though the doctor would have been able to correct the problem simply by signing the affidavit, the trial court "rendered judgment..., closing its doors to a trial on the merits of [Sims's] case." Yet, it is the court's duty "to permit litigants all reasonable opportunity to place before a court all facts bearing on the issues involved." The court concluded:

"When weighing the options of giving a litigant, who was misled by her attorney, more time to obtain the necessary documents that are, based on the record, easily attainable versus shutting the doors to litigation, we find that the trial court abused [its] discretion... The trial court should have allowed [Sims] a reasonable amount of time to obtain new counsel and secure the signature of Dr. Hess rather than cutting off [Sims] at the summary judgment phase, which was a clear and direct result of her being misled and deceived by her former counsel."

Thus, the court reversed the trial judge’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

One cannot help but sympathize with a plaintiff whose physician inflicts serious injuries to her and her baby and who then encounters an astonishingly ineffective lawyer. Although Sims presumably will have her day in court following the Second Circuit's decision, other plaintiffs may not be so fortunate if they put their trust in an attorney who is not experienced in medical malpractice litigation.

Continue reading " Ouachita Parish Medical Malpractice Case Reveals Second Circuit's Interest in Allowing Plaintiffs Their Day in Court " »

In the event that a landowner plans to do any form of significant work on an area of land, whether cosmetic, such as landscaping, or extensive, the work should be preceded by the contracting of one qualified and certified to inspect the property and physically mark the location of utility cables upon it. This is to prevent damage to the utility cables, and to prevent the costs of repair to the companies which own the cables. Such action invokes the Louisiana Damage Prevention Act - Louisiana Underground Utilities and Facilities Damage Prevention Law.

An incident central to the MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. Hagan case was noted at causing a $20,000 a minute loss to the utility company for every minute the cable was out of commission. It thus seems rational that the possible negligence and/or trespass in damaging the cable, property owned by a utility company, can cause significant troubles, even if it occurs within the property of the landowner.

The most substantial part involved in this case is the determination of what the definition of trespass and negligence is when a landowner affects the transposed property of the utility company. Without a doubt, a landowner has the right to be on and use the land, but the utility company also has been given the right by law to continue to leave its utility cable in/on the land and continue using it, and retains this right even if the contract for use of the land was made with a previous landowner. If a servitude is involved with having the utility cable in/on the land, then there is a possible claim for Trespass to Land in conjunction with a negligence claim. However, if there is not a servitude, and only a right to continue to use the utility cable on the land exists, then the recourse if damage occurs would be Trespass to Chattels, for damage to personal property, not Trespass to Land, as attempted in this case.

The intent question is one of strict liability, whether the only intent needed is the intent to perform the action, in this case intentionally using the backhoe, and a result, damaging the utility cable, occurred. More succinctly, the aforementioned case notes a trespass is "an unlawful physical invasion of property in the possession of another and the only intent required is the trespasser's intent to perform the act which constitutes the trespass." Thus, "an individual need only refrain from taking intentional action that results in harm to another." However, the Louisiana Supreme Court has yet to rule on the intent standard in regard to claims of trespass to underground cables, and hence, the issue at hand. The Certified Question for the Louisiana Supreme Court is:

"Is the proposed jury instruction in this case, which states that "[a] Defendant may be held liable for an inadvertent trespass resulting from an intentional act," a correct statement of Louisiana law when the trespass at issue is the severing of an underground cable located on property owned by one of the alleged trespassers, and the property is not subject to a servitude by the owners of the underground cable but only to the contractual right to keep it, as an existing cable, underneath the property?"

The ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court will not only impact a landowner, but the contractors and excavators who will more commonly perform the excavations, and are more likely to cause damage to underground utility cables. This could also bring up further issues in agency, for if it was to be found that an individual who caused the resulting damage was acting as an agent of another, the principal, then the principal would incur the legal wrath of the utility companies.

Though the Supreme Court of Louisiana has yet to rule on this Certification Question, as to the standard of intent for trespass in this situation, contact the Berniard Law Firm for further information regarding the outcome of this case, for clarification of the Louisiana Damage Prevention Act, and for assistance in determining if your property is subject to similar issues.

The ABA (American Bar Association) has called upon lawyers and non-lawyers alike to submit blogs from across the internet as exceptional examples of legal advice and content. With content about the law ranging widely across the internet, the ABA recognizes the value of those blogs that wish to educate the public about a wide range of issues as examples of how attorneys can help bring an understanding of public policy to the masses.

Through a form, located here, ABA members and/or the public can nominate the efforts of attorneys whose work helps explain the complexities that the law has to offer. While the competition prevents bloggers from nominating themselves, the ABA has requested that the work of their peers be showcased. Due by September 9th, blog suggestions can cover any topic of the law, whether maritime, personal injury, civil or criminal in nature. This possibility of diversity makes the Top 100 list all the more interesting because of the wide variety of content the selected are sure to cover.

If you know of a blog that wishes to discuss legal issues of interest to lawyers (and perhaps those outside of the field), click here to fill out the ABA's form. Limited to 500 words, nominations should explain why the blog, obviously, deserves to be included in the list as well as its value as a whole. Nominated sites should avoid the regurgitation of content from other sites (copy and pasted quotes of news items, etc.), showing that the main focus of the content is original discussion of those issues of law that affect professionals as well as the public.

We will undoubtedly be checking out this list as it is sure to contain content that is of interest not only to residents of Louisiana but across the country. For a directory of 'blawgs,' as categorized by the American Bar Association, you can click here to tour the spectrum of content available by state or topic.

This blog was started as an effort to not only showcase the knowledge of our law firm but to also provide people, whether residents of New Orleans, Louisiana, the Gulf Coast, or throughout the country, a resource that explains how the law is important to their everyday lives. Blogging is a powerful tool not only in the legal profession but as a medium of empowering people who may not realize that an instance of tragedy or harm comes with it legal recourse. We hope that the content we have provided over time has helped people find an answer to legal issues or simply gain a little bit of knowledge about how this country's system of law works. This is said not to shill for a nomination to the aforementioned contest but, instead, to note that this ABA-sponsored contest highlights something we feel strongly about, that being the power of legal blogs.

We hope you continue to enjoy your weekend and will have new content available Monday.

Recently we explored the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's discussion of the legal cause of a tragic natural gas explosion at the Jones residence in Opelousas Parish. Another of Centerpoint's assignments of error on appeal, the last that we'll review from the case, was that the jury incorrectly apportioned fault; the jury assigned 50 percent of the fault to Centerpoint and 50 percent to Carl Jones, Sr. Centerpoint argued that Jones should have been assessed "at least ninety percent of the fault in causing the explosion and fire." The review of fault allocation by an appellate court is based on the "manifestly erroneous" standard. That is, the court must allow the jury's apportionment to stand unless it is clearly wrong.

The court began its review of Centerpoint's argument by focusing on the trial testimony of several of its witnesses. All expressed that the company "clearly recognizes the inherently dangerous nature of its product and has developed numerous measures designed to prevent explosions and fires, such as occurred in this litigation." One witness, the company's former Operations Manager for the state of Louisiana, testified that the procedures for
disconnecting gas service are "based on the inherently dangerous nature of" natural gas and are designed to "protect people from their own ignorance." He further expressed the view that Centerpoint has "an obligation to take every reasonable step to prevent its customers from tampering with its natural gas supply system." The court equated the risk of "catastrophic consequences" created by Centerpoint's conduct to Jones's action in reconnecting the gas supply. Had either party "not breached the applicable duties imposed upon them," reasoned the court, the accident would not have happened. Nevertheless, when comparing their relative conduct, the court concluded that "Centerpoint Energy’s fault far exceeds that of Mr. Jones." It considered Centerpoint to be the "superior actor" in the incident who failed--even in light of the gas industry's general awareness that "customers will attempt to steal gas"--to engage in a "rather simple task" that was designed to "prevent exactly the result which occurred." Thus, the court could "not find that the jury was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in apportioning fault equally" between Centerpoint and Jones.

The jury verdict in this case seems to strike a balance between the need for a utility company to prevent natural gas accidents and its inability to prevent all attempts at gas theft by customers. In fact, the court suggested that Centerpoint's fault was actually greater than Jones's, though it could not find error on the jury's part that would allow it substitute its own judgment and increase its share of the fault. Undoubtedly, the jury would have reached a different result if Centerpoint had followed its own procedure in shutting off and securing the gas line and Jones had nevertheless managed to turn the valve back on. Ultimately in the case, the court rejected all of Centerpoint's assignments of error and affirmed the jury's verdict in its entirety.

Continue reading " Opelousas Parish Natural Gas Explosion, Part 3: Assigning Fault " »

In our prior post, we observed the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's finding that the jury correctly held that Centerpoint Energy failed to meet its duty of properly securing the natural gas line and valve when it disconnected service at the Jones residence in Opelousas Parish. Establishing the duty owed by Centerpoint was one of several elements of the duty-risk analysis that Jones was required to establish in order to prevail. Another element that we will now consider is that of causation. Centerpoint argued that its failure to properly shut off and secure the gas supply was not the legal cause of the injuries sustained by the Jones family. Instead, in Centerpoint's view, Jones's "reconnection of the gas service constituted intervening conduct that was not only grossly negligent, intentional, and criminal, but also not foreseeable." Under Louisiana law, an intervening act will relieve the original tortfeasor of liability if it
“superseded the original negligence and alone produced the injury.” Adams v. Rhodia, Inc. However, if the intervening act is foreseeable to the original tortfeasor, it is considered to be "within the scope of the original tortfeasor's negligence." In short, Centerpoint argued it could not possibly have foreseen Jones's attempt to reconnect his gas line and, therefore, its failure to properly secure the line was irrelevant once Jones acted to steal the gas.

The court, however, found that Centerpoint's position was "defeated" by the testimony of its own wtinesses. One employee, the company's Operations Supervisor, explained that the security mechanisms were necessary because it was "common sense that people will try to steal natural gas after their supply has been cut off." Another, Centerpoint’s former Operations Manager for Louisiana, stated that the locking mechanisms were required because "people do not always understand the dangers associated with natural gas." Also, an expert in the field of natural gas operations testified that Centerpoint should have "no illusions" about the potential for people to steal natural gas. The court found that "Jones’s actions in leaving an uncapped gas line open in the house, breaking the plastic locking device and stealing natural gas, and negligently leaving the natural gas running into the house all night, are exactly the unsafe acts that Centerpoint Energy’s duty to properly terminate service is designed to prevent." Thus, it concluded, the jury's finding that Jones’s conduct was foreseeable was well supported, and it correctly determined that Centerpoint could not rely on Jones's intervening criminal act to relieve it of all responsibility for the explosion.

In a third and final post, we will revisit this case to review Centerpoint's argument on appeal that the jury erred in its apportionment of fault between it and Jones.

Continue reading " Opelousas Parish Natural Gas Explosion, Part 2: Determining Causation " »

On May 7, 2003, Centerpoint Energy disconnected the natural gas service at the house of Carl Jones, Sr. and his family because they were past due on an outstanding balance. A short time later, Jones and his son removed the gas stove from the kitchen and replaced it with an electric model. Unfortunately, Jones forgot to cap the gas line before installing the new stove. Late in the evening of June 15, 2004, after having been without a functioning water heater since the disconnection, Jones reconnected the gas line. He did so because he was expecting guests the following day and wished to have a supply of hot water that did not require stove-top heating. To make the reconnection, Jones used a wrench to snap off the red plastic locking device that the Centerpoint technician had installed on the line when he closed the valve. Unable to re-light his water heater, Jones assumed no gas was flowing and went to bed. By morning, the house was filled with gas, and as the family arose several large fireballs erupted. Jones, his wife, and their four children were severely injured in the explosion. Jones sued Centerpoint seeking to recover for his and his family's injuries. A trial was held in July, 2010. After the judge denied Centerpoint's motion for a directed verdict, a jury apportioned half of the fault to Centerpoint and half to Jones and awarded substantial sums to Jones's family members for their injuries. Centerpoint appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in permitting the case to go to the jury at all. In Centerpoint's view, its duty to reasonably disconnect gas service for non-payment did not extend to protecting Jones against the explosion caused "by [his] subsequent negligent, intentional, criminal and then grossly negligent conduct."

An appeal of a trial court's denial of a motion for a directed verdict requires the appellate court's de novo review because such a motion can be granted "only if the facts and inferences are so overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that the court finds that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict.” The Third Circuit began its analysis by noting that "[t]o prevail in their personal injury suit, the plaintiffs bore the burden of establishing that Centerpoint Energy was at fault in causing the accident, using a duty-risk analysis." Centerpoint argued that Jones failed to meet this burden, in part, because he could not establish that the utility did not conform to the appropriate standard of care when shutting off the gas supply. The court found two sources for the scope of duty imputed to Centerpoint. First, Louisiana case law takes the position that it is

"common knowledge ... that natural gas, being highly flammable and explosive in nature, is an inherently dangerous instrumentality. Those who handle and distribute it are charged with that degree of care commensurate with its dangerous character for the protection of the public from any foreseeable injury." Giordano v. Rheem Manufacturing Co..

In addition, the Code of Federal Regulations provides for three options for "acceptable compliance" when disconnecting natural gas service: (1) the valve that is closed to prevent the flow of gas to the customer must be securely locked; (2) a mechanical device or fitting that will prevent the flow of gas must be installed in the service line or in the meter; or (3) the customer’s piping must be physically disconnected
from the gas supply and the open pipe ends sealed. 49 C.F.R. 192.727(d). In this case, the Centerpoint technician installed an easily circumvented, red plastic locking device on the valve, but, in contravention to Centerpoint's own clear policy, did not install a "blind plate" within the meter that would have blocked the flow of gas even if the valve were to be re-opened. The court, after reviewing extensive expert witness testimony concerning the industry standards for preventing unauthorized tampering with a shut-off gas line, concluded: "reasonable men could find that installing the plastic locking device was not sufficient to comply with the standard of care, that Centerpoint Energy’s technician did not properly install a blind plate on the meter, and, therefore, Centerpoint Energy did not
comply with the applicable standard of care." Thus, the court determined that the jury's verdict, so far as it pertained to the element of Centerpoint's duty, was supported.

In a subsequent post, we will revisit this case to review the court's analysis of Centerpoint's argument concerning the causation element of the duty-risk analysis.

Continue reading " Opelousas Parish Natural Gas Explosion, Part 1: Exploring the Utility Company's Duty " »

Plaintiffs have the right judicially, to assert a legal action against a defendant that consists of operative facts giving rise to the plaintiff's complaint. The issue for the court may become whether the plaintiff does in fact, have a cause of action. If the law does not support the facts alleged, the defendant may have the opportunity to file a peremptory exception of no cause of action. This exception questions the basis of the plaintiff's complaint, does the plaintiff allege an injury, harm, or sustained damage that is able to be remedied under the law? Or, does the plaintiff's complaint lack the vital element of legal support in order to become "whole again" under the law? These questions were explored recently by the Second Circuit Court of Appeal in Louisiana. The Court reviewed the trial court's judgment finding that the plaintiff's had no cause of action against the defendants as a result of an apparent absence of legal support. However, the appellate court found differently, explaining in detail the reasons for which they reversed the trial court's decision and allowed the plaintiff's case to move forward against the defendants.

The plaintiffs in this case experienced every parent's worst nightmare, the death of their daughter. The question for the court was who should be ultimately responsible for the death considering the tragic circumstances. The facts include the victim and two class mates who allegedly bullied her severely, to the point the young girl transferred to a different high school in order to avoid the emotional distress. One day, while exiting the bus after school, the young girl was approached by the two former class mates she had tried so hard to avoid. A heated altercation ensued, in which the young girl was pushed in front of an oncoming school bus where she was quickly run over and died as a result of her injuries. The young girl's mother brought the suit against the school board, State Farm Mutual Insurance, the superintendent of the school board, the principal of her daughter's former high school, the bus driver that struck her daughter, the mothers of both of the involved former classmates, and three "on duty" teachers. The plaintiff argued that the defendants were negligent in numerous ways, including the failure to supervise, failure to timely respond to the fight and failure to adequately staff the bus are with teachers or school personnel. Further, the complaint alleged that the bus driver saw or should have seen the fight and failed to stop his vehicle, disregarding the safety of the children aboard the bus and the children in the school bus zone. However, the defendants asserted the plaintiff had no cause of action against the school board employees in their individual capacities under Louisiana Revised Statute 17:439 which reads,

"Except as otherwise provided in this Section, no person shall have a cause of action against any school employee based on any statement made or action taken by the school employee provided that the action or statement was within the course and scope of the school employees' duties as defined by the school board in which the school employee is employed and was within the specific guidelines for school employee behavior as established by that school board."

The trial court granted the exception of no cause of action as to the school board superintendant, the principal, and the "on duty" teachers, dismissing those parties at the cost of the plaintiff based upon the Louisiana statute. However, on appeal, the "no cause of action" judgment was carefully reviewed and reversed, the appellate court found that there was in fact an issue presented and the issue would be triable.

A petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action unless it appears beyound a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of any claim which entitles him to relief. In fact, the allegations set forth i a plaintiff's petition are accepted as true. The burden of demonstrating that a petition fails to state a cause of action is upon the mover. Here, the question is, did the defendants prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complaint lacked any legal support or basis? The answer is no. The statute provided at the trial level stated "no person shall have a cause of action against any school employee based on any statement made or action taken..." This fails to state that an employee may not be liable for any omission to act. In fact, the plaintiffs support their complaint with Louisiana revised Statute 17:416.4 that declares "If school board employees are sued for damages based upon any action or statement or the omission of any action or statement, the school board has the duty to defend and indemnify the employee." The plaintiffs claim that they allege at least 25 instances of failures or omissions on the part of school board employees which are clearly outside the specific guidelines for school employees behavior established by the school board. Thus, the legislature did not intend to limit or restrict causes of action against the school board employees for omissions of any action or statement by enacting the subsequent statute that protects school employees from liability from any actions or statements thereby made. If the legislature had intended that result, it would have included the omissions language in the subsequent statute in order to protect school employees from further liability. Yet, the newer statute lacks any such language, thus, the appellate court found that the teachers omissions to act under numerous circumstances prevented affirming the trial court's "no cause of action" ruling.

This case illustrates the oftentimes complicated legal issues that may arise even at the onset of a lawsuit. A skilled and knowledgeable attorney is necessary to help a client create the complaint against the defendant(s) and support the allegations with strong legal arguments.

Continue reading " Exploring a No Cause of Action Ruling Shows Power of Appeal " »

Louisiana law requires that the driver of a motor vehicle maintain a safe distance from other cars and that the driver "not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway." A driver who rear-ends another car is "presumed to have breached this duty" and, therefore, is assumed to be negligent. To challenge this presumption, the driver must prove he was not at fault for the collision by establishing two facts: 1) that he had his vehicle under control, and 2) closely observed the lead vehicle and followed at a safe distance under the circumstances. See Broussard v. Zurich American Ins. Co. The driver can also avoid fault by showing that the driver of the leading car "negligently created a hazard which could not reasonably be avoided. In the case of a multi-car accident, "the fact that the second driver is able to see and avoid an emergency situation ahead sets the standard of care applicable to the other following drivers." Anderson v. May.

A three-car accident was at the center of Ebarb v. Matlock, a case recently decided by Louisiana's Second Circuit Court of Appeal. On December 3, 2008, Yolanda Ebarb was driving her Kia Sorento in the left east-bound lane of I-20 in Bossier City. As she approached the overpass at Old Minden Road, she observed that the traffic ahead in both lanes had stoped. She applied her brakes and came to a complete stop safely behind the vehicle in front of her. A moment later, David Terry, driving his Jeep Cherokee also in the left east-bound lane of I-20, approached the same location. Terry noticed the stopped traffic and safely stopped his vehicle directly behind Ebarb's.Then, Terry's Jeep was hit from behind at high speed by a Ford F-250 pickup truck driven by Phillip Matlock. The Jeep pushed forward, rolled over, and collided with Ebarb's Kia. Ebarb suffered a serious spinal injury as a result. Matlock was cited for following to closely at the scene. Ebarb sued both Terry and Matlock. The trial court granted summary judgment against Ebarb in Terry's favor and against Matlock in Ebarb's favor. Matlock appealed. The Second Circuit reviewed the law on rear-end collisions in Louisiana and the presumption of negligence against the driver. The court applied a duty-risk analysis to the circumstances and to Matlock's conduct, which was bolstered only by his "self-serving statements" that he had his vehicle under control, closely observed the lead vehicle, and followed at a safe distance under the circumstances." The court concluded that Matlock failed to meet the standard of care "established" by Terry and Ebarb when they were both able to safely stop their cars after coming upon the stalled traffic. The court noted that "to rebut the objective evidence that two other drivers were able to safely stop and avoid a collision, Mr. Matlock has failed to offer any competent evidence." Because Matlock "failed to establish that he will be able to rebut the presumption of his own negligence at trial," the court affirmed the trial court's judgment for Ebarb.

The facts of this case left Matlock with little opportunity to rebut the presumption of his negligence in rear-ending Terry's Jeep. That Ebarb and Terry both managed to stop safely when they realized the traffic was stopped ahead suggests that any reasonable driver in control of his vehicle should have been able to do the same. Without evidence of any mitigating circumstances, Matlock's defense was overcome by the presumption of his negligence.

Continue reading " Court Reviews Driver's Duty of Care in Bossier City Car Accident " »

When you have kids, you know how painful it is to watch when they are sick, to worry about every scratch, every bite. What is worse is when one child is sick, but another's pain and suffering could have been prevented or alleviated with proper notice and tests. This is precisely what happened to Mickey and Amy Atkinson who consulted Dr. Young for treatment of their son Gabriel's deep-skin pigmentation condition.

During the visit, Dr. Young diagnosed Gabriel with idiopathic Addison's Disease but failed to test him to determine the cause of the disease, and this turned out to have reprecussions for the family. When Gabriel did not feel better, the Atkinsons sought a second opinion from another doctor, Dr. Janna Flint. To the family's great dismay, Gabriel tested positive for a potentially fatal case of Addison's Disease, which if left untreated, would result in death by age thirteen.

Upon finding this out, Dr. Flint recommended that the Atkinson's other two sons get tested for this disease. As a result of Dr. Young's failure to test the other sons, Evan and Luke, the Atkinsons filed suit alleging Dr. Young's failure to test and sought damages. The doctor, however, stated that this case falls into an exception set out by the Louisiana Patient's Fund Compensation Oversight Board because Luke was not a patient as defined within the meaning of the MMA (The Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act). Because of this exception, the claim is not subject to review by the medical review panel. Fortunately, the trial court heard the case and found that through Gabriel, Luke was a patient. Not only was the family dealing with the stress of two sick children, they were now preoccupied with the next steps to take in this matter.

There are ways for plaintiffs to file suit under this act, but there are also ways for the defendants to get around it. For example, if the patient fails to submit a claim to the medical review board before the institution of the suit, then remedy is the exception of prematurity. The MMA also has a narrow definition of the word "patient" which means a natural person who receives or should have received healthcare. But where does this leave parents like the Atkinsons and patients like Luke and Evan?

While Dr. Young alleged that there was no patient/physician relationship between him and Luke, Dr. Young was aware that this is a fatal, genetic disorder and a reasonable, careful doctor would have thought to test the siblings as well as the "patient." While Luke may not have been a direct patient as defined by the MMA, he was still a patient in the sense that his brother was just diagnosed with a rare fatal disease, the result of which could be coma or death. This is alarming enough to make sure all children in the family are safe because based on the stated physician/patient relationship with Gabriel, there are cases that fall into exceptions in situations like these.

If you think you may have claim for medical malpractice or just want to speak to a professional who understands your needs and rights, call a team of people who are happy to address any of your concerns and questions.

Continue reading " Parents File Suit When Minor Child Suffers as a Result of Physician's Failure to Test Brother " »

Car accidents are a common occurrence and when a car accident is caused by another party, you want to receive the appropriate relief for doctor's bils, aches, pains and other accruing expenses. Just because an individual has received damages owed to him from one car accident should by no means preclude him from getting the deserved amount from a subsequent accident.

John Clyde Deville was involved in a car accident as a result of being hit by a mail truck that ran a red light. From the scene of the accident, Deville was taken to the emergency room complaining of neck, shoulder and back pain. At the hospital he was diagnosed with both cervical and lumbar disc herniations. Upon seeing a family physician, Deville was prescribed pain medication and sent to physical therapy. With little success, he was then referred to an orthopedic surgeon who suggested that epidural steroid injections may be the only viable option to alleviate the pain. While the first round of injections produced a small round of relief, Deville began to feel a noticeable reduction in pain with the second round.

Just as things were getting better and Deville began to feel relief, he was involved in another accident where he was sideswiped by another vehicle. While the impact from this vehicle was not extreme, his car was still thrown from his lane of travel and onto the sidewalk. As a result of this accident, Mr. Deville began to feel an increased tightness and pain in his back, pain that had originally subsided from the previous accident. He chose not to seek medical treatment immediately because he had food in his vehicle which had to be delivered. When he finally saw his physician, the severe pain had returned and this time, the injections did not help. Finally, based on advice from his doctor lumbar surgery was performed. However, the results were mixed and Deville still complained of a gnawing pain in his lumbar spine.

Deville filed a petition for damages as a result of the second accident but at trial, the jury did not award him the appropriate damages. Even though the fault of the defendants was determined, as a result of his testimony about the damages awarded from the previous accident, he was initially unable to recover for the second accident. Defendants from the second accident elicited from Mr. Deville that he had previously received a settlement from the first accident, and the jury found that he was not injured as a result of the second accident.

Not only was Deville hit by another vehicle, but the pain which seemed to have subsided, returned. When he was unable to recover for the second accident, Deville appealed his case the court stated that letting the jury know the amount from the previous settlement was inappropriate. The second accident was a separate occurrence which was no fault of John's, and he should have been able to recover for the damages caused to him. Ultimately, the medical expenses Deville incurred since the first accident amounting to a total of over $93,000, but he was only awarded half this amount. While it was not clearly established which accident caused the majority of John's physical pain and suffering, it is clear that after the first accident John's pain had significantly subsided, if not eliminated completely. It was due to the second accident that John once again began to experience severe pain and discomfort.

If you or a loved one are owed damages or know someone who is, contact professionals who understand your pain and can help you get what you are entitled to.

Continue reading " After Two Car Accidents, Man Denied Damages Due to Testimony of Previous Settlement " »

If a company manufactures a defective product, and an individual is injured by that product, the manufacturer may be liable for the damages suffered by the product-user. The product, be it a cleaning supply or an automobile part, or any number of different items found in everyday life, bears an element of responsibility of reliability and worthiness when it is delivered by a manufacturer. When that responsibility is breeched, legal remedy is available.

As the Fifth Circuit described in the seminal case of Matthews v. Remington Arms Co., in order for an injured party to win an action against a product manufacturer, that party must prove: (1) that the party, or another "person or entity" was using the product in a manner reasonably anticipated by the manufacturer; (2) that an aspect of the product directly caused the damage(s) claimed; "(3) the product was 'unreasonably dangerous' either in construction, design, or warning; and (4) the characteristic rendering the product unreasonably dangerous either 'exist[ed] at the time the product left the control of its manufacturer or result[ed] from a reasonably anticipated alteration or modification of the product.'”

If a party can show that a product, used in a way reasonably anticipated, could harm a product-user, the manufacturer may have a legal duty to design its product in a manner which would avoid such harm. As explained by the Fifth Circuit, a reasonably anticipated use is a "use or handling of a product that the product’s manufacturer should reasonably expect of an ordinary person in the same or similar circumstances.” If it can be shown that a product was misused and that misuse resulted in the damages claimed by the product-user, then that user cannot collect against the manufacturer for his or her damages.

In the Matthews case, the plaintiff had borrowed a Model 710 rifle from another individual. The manufacturer designed the rifle to be fired with a bolt-assembly pin in place. Warnings were included in the rifle manual stating that the rifle should not be fired without the required pin. According to the Fifth Circuit, the defendant rifle manufacturer had not received any reports, prior to this lawsuit being filed, of its Model 710 rifle being fired without the required bolt-assembly pin. The Fifth Circuit found that someone had removed the bolt-assembly pin, and when the bolt-assembly pin was removed from the rifle in question and was not reinstalled, the rifle's bolt head did not lock with the rifle's barrel when later used by the plaintiff. This resulted in an uncontained explosion which caused the plaintiff's injuries.

In the proceedings below, the trial court had found that the plaintiff's injuries were not caused because the pin was defective, but rather because it had been removed from the rifle. The trial court also determined that the pin had been manufactured according to the applicable specifications. Therefore, the main issue before the Fifth Circuit in Matthews was whether or not it was fair of the trial court to find that the plaintiff had fired the rifle after the bolt-assembly pin had been removed and not reinstalled, as opposed to the plaintiff simply firing the rifle. The Fifth Circuit focused on whether or not the plaintiff had used the rifle in a manner reasonably anticipated by the rifle manufacturer to determine if the rifle manufacturer had a duty to the injured plaintiff, in this case, to design its rifle in such a way as to prevent the harm caused. After reviewing the case, and determining that the pin was missing at the time the plaintiff fired the rifle, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the trial court's finding that the defendant rifle manufacturer should not have expected that someone would fire its Model 710 rifle after its bolt-assembly pin had been removed and not reinstalled. The Fifth Circuit found that the pin could have been removed by the plaintiff or another individual.

As this case demonstrates, cases involving defective products hinge on the facts. Although the court found that the user in this case was the ultimate cause of the damages he suffered, there are many instances where products malfunction through no error on the part of the user.

Continue reading " Fifth Circuit Finds Rifle Manufacturer "Not Liable" for Injuries Sustained After Rifle Firing Resulted in Uncontained Explosion " »