Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

On behalf of the Berniard Law Firm, we'd like to wish all of our clients and employees a Happy and Safe Holidays and New Years.

The blog will resume postings in 2012!

As part of our Constitutional right to due process, an individual is allowed to bring grievances before a court. However, certain judicial policies may be enacted to deny plaintiffs from bringing suits that have already been litigated, are being brought with the intent to harass, or are frivolous. The purpose behind such policies is to make courts as efficient as possible by deterring such actions. A recent case out of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal shines a light on several of these deterrents.

In Mendonca v. Tidewater, Inc., the plaintiff sought to nullify several final judgments made by the district court. Mendonca's list of suits stretched over four years, with multiple appeals and pleas for annulment. However, none of Mendonca's nullity claims or his appeals were successful. In his final appeal for anulment, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down three restrictions that laid Mendonca's long line of cases to rest.

The first of these restrictions was the court's upholding of the defendent's plea of res judicata and failure to state a claim. When res judicata is enacted, the court declares one of two denials. First, that the claim has been subject to a final judgment and thus no longer qualifies for an appeal, or second, that the litigant cannot bring a claim against the same party in a second claim because all claims should have been brought against that party in the initial suit. The policy considerations supporting res judicata is to preserve court resources and protect defendants from being subject to litigation multiple times, with the possibility of having to pay damages more than once. A defendant's plea that a plaintiff has failed to state a claim goes hand-in-hand with res judicata. If res judicata is applicable, then all duplicitous claims cancelled. In Mendonca's case, this means that there were no new claims. Since there were no such claims, the court held that Mendonca's nu
llity actions were a failure to state a new claim.

A second deterrent to brining frivolous, harassing, or duplicitous suits is the possibility of monetary sanctions. Rules of civil procedure require that an attorney make objective inquiries into the facts of a case and the law that pertains to it. These inquiries are held to a high standard as they are seen as an attorney's duty. This means that one's subjective good faith inquiry is not sufficient. When an attorney files a claim, it is important that case history is analyzed to ensure that res judicata does not apply. A failure to inquire about previous claims is a failure to impose the applicable law and is essentially poor lawyering. This was the case in Mendonca's appeal. Any attorney who objectively analyzed the situation would have known that the claim was precluded through res judicata. Yet, Mendonca proceeded. The court interpreted this as an abuse of the judicial system and an attempt to harass the defendant. This abuse justifies the imposition of sanctions.

Sanctions are typically defined as an order to pay to the other party the amount of reasonable expenses through the employment of an attorney. Yet, "reasonable" is not confined to the actual expense accrued by the attorney. Instead, "reasonable" has been interpreted to mean additional costs that act to deter, punish, and compensate. When sanctions are imposed by a trial judge they are unlikely to be appealed. Appellate judges tend to give deference to the trial judge's intimate knowledge of the case, litigants, and attorneys. For these reasons, Mendonca was sanctioned in the amount of $10,000, all of which were upheld on appeal.

A third way that a court can punish an individual as a deterrent is to issue a sanction revoking in forma pauperis status. In forma pauperis is a legal termed used by a judge to allow a poor individual to file a legal case and/or represent oneself at trial. Allowing one to claim this status is to essentially cut most court associated costs for the needy individual in order to ensure due process. Mendonca qualified and was granted this status. However, courts have held that in forma pauperis status is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, any abuse of this status will result in revocation. The most common reason why in forma pauperis status is revoked is because one brings frivolous suits. Mendonca did this in his case and was punished accordingly.

Res judicata, sanctions, and other rules of civil procedure are complicated, requiring a full analysis of the facts and the law. Such situations should only be approached by a licensed practicing attorney.

Continue reading "Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal Punishes For Duplicitous Suits " »

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.

When a caller dials 911 to report an emergency, it is not uncommon for the operator to transfer the caller to the local service provider that is best suited to respond to the incident. For instance, a caller who reports an auto accident can expect to be connected with the nearest ambulance service. In the case of Willis v. Rapides Parish Communications District, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal examined the duty owed by an ambulance dispatcher when a transfer does not go through.

Johnny Willis was involved in a single-car accident on La. Hwy. 488 just outside of Oak Hill. The crash was discovered by a passer-by, Shirley Ponthieux, who called 911. The operator for the Rapides Parish Communications District (RPCD) answered her call, contacted the fire department, and then attempted to transfer her directly to Acadian Ambulance because of another incoming call. The operator did not think that taking the other call would affect the transfer, but in fact it failed and Ponthieux was cut off. Because of the phone confusion and because the fire department could not obtain a cellular signal to call Acadia Ambulance when it arrived on the scene, an ambulance did not arrive until approximately an hour later. Sadly, Mr. Willis died at the hospital. His wife, Carleen Willis, filed suit against RPCD and Acadian Ambulance. Her claim against Acadian cited its failure to "receive and respond to the emergency transmission" and that it "failed to establish and utilize a reliable communications system for the receipt of emergency transmissions." The trial judge granted Acadian Ambulance’s motion for summary judgment, holding that it does not owe a duty to an accident victim until it actually receives a call requesting ambulance service.

On appeal, Willis argued that Acadian Ambulance owed a duty to her husband to properly advise the RPCD of how to communicate with its dispatcher. Further, she cited a letter that Acadian had previously sent to the 911 office in Rankin County, Mississippi that explained the procedures that the 911 operators were to follow. Namely, an operator should remain on the line until Acadian Ambulance answered the call in order for the transfer to be completed, and further should briefly inform the Acadian Ambulance dispatcher of the nature of the call before disconnecting. The court disagreed that the lack of a similar letter to RPCD indicated Acadian's failure to exercise reasonable care. In fact, the court could point to "no statutory or jurisprudential principles that support the imposition of [a] duty" on Acadian Ambulance "to properly train the employees of the RPCD in the use of the RPCD equipment to communicate with Acadian Ambulance." Imposing such a duty, in the view of the court, would be inappropriate under the duty-risk analysis favored by the Louisiana Supreme Court. As soon as the Acadian dispatcher actually received a call that an ambulance was needed, he promptly sent one; this met the duty imposed under the law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Acadian Ambulance from the case.

As this appeal was taken following the trial court's dismissal of Acadian Ambulance from the case, it is not clear what resulted from her action against RPCD which presumably continued following this judgment. The court's decision to affirm the dismissal of Acadian Ambulance illustrates the flexibility of law to determine liability when speculation exists and demonstrates just how complex and difficult civil trials can be for plaintiffs and defendants alike.

Continue reading "Court Clarifies Duty of Ambulance Dispatcher in Dropped 911 Call" »

Unfortunate instances can occur when a wild animal is involved. The First Circuit Court of Appeal for the State of Louisiana ruled that defendants Mr. and Mrs. Rivett, who were sued in addition to their insurer, are not liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff when he was riding their horse. The plaintiff sued under an ordinary negligence claim under Article 2321 of the Civil Code of Louisiana (amended in 1996), which renders the owner of an animal liable for damage caused by the animal. For the owners of all animals except dogs, an ordinary negligence standard applies. For dogs, a strict liability standard was retained.

In order to recover under Article 2321, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the defendant had a duty to conform his or her conduct to a specific standard of care (the duty element); (2) the defendant failed to conform his or her conduct to the appropriate standard (the breach of duty element); (3) the defendant’s substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injuries (the cause-in-fact element); (4) the defendant’s substandard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries (the scope of liability or scope of protection element); and (5) actual damages (the damages element). If the plaintiff fails to show any of these elements, there is no liability. The First Circuit referred to this analysis as the duty/risk analysis.

On appeal, the plaintiff asserted that the trial court committed five legal errors. The First Circuit found that the trial court did err by not instructing the jury with the correct standard with which to evaluate the defendants’ conduct and therefore set aside the jury verdict finding for the defendants. The court reviewed the case de novo, without giving any weight to the factual findings of the incorrectly instructed jury as it usually would, and still found that the plaintiff had not been able to establish that the defendants were negligent for the injuries caused by the startled horse.

In this case, the defendants own four horses and keep them for recreational purposes. They had owned Breeze, the horse at issue, for approximately one year and had not experienced nor knew of any previous occasions when Breeze was uncontrollable. The evidence at trial was contradictory as to what the plaintiff told Mrs. Rivett about his previous riding experience and exactly when the horse began to run, against the plaintiff’s wishes. However, there was uncontradicted testimony by Mrs. Rivett that Breeze was the calmest of the four horses they owned and had never been uncontrollable or hard to handle. Mrs. Rivett rode Breeze frequently and never saw any indication that Breeze had a bad disposition or a mean spirit. In addition, an equine behavior expert examined Breeze and found nothing that would lead him to conclude that Breeze was uncontrollable or skittish.

Since the appellate court found that the plaintiff could not show that the Rivetts were negligent, it dismissed the plaintiff’s case and charged him with the costs of the appeal.

If you have been injured by an animal other than a dog, you must be able to show that the owner failed to comport with a duty of care. If you have been injured by a dog, the owner is strictly liable for the damage, and the standard the plaintiff must prove is not as high. Speaking with an attorney about this burden of proof, as well as financial compensation for harm suffered, is the best course of action when trying to remedy such an incident.

Continue reading "Pointe Coupee Parish Owners of Horse Not Liable For Injuries Sustained By Guest " »

The Berniard Law Firm is proud to announce the release of an innovative new iPhone application that can be considered a must-have for individuals in the Gulf Coast. With extensive versatility and options including multiple contact points for our attorneys, as well as consistent site updates that will keep you informed of legal developments as they become available. Released October 26, we recommend everyone download the application in order to stay abreast of a variety of issues that relate to them.

In the works for some time, and with an update already planned, the Berniard Law Firm iPhone app puts law matters that are important to Louisiana residents in the palm of their hands. Constantly refreshing, with updates relating to our website, this application is an effort by our firm to allow our friends and clients quick access and up-to-date information for their daily lives. Whether using the application to send our firm a legal question or to call our offices, we strongly encourage anyone that wants an attorney and a wealth of legal information at your fingertips.

Specifically, the Berniard Law Firm Injury Attorney iPhone App provides users
- Entry page to record important details in the event of an accident
- Minimal size installed (only 3.1 MBs)
- Practice area explanations
- Quick jumps to consistently updated blogs
- Fast contact information to speak with an attorney

One feature that is extremely important and valuable in the Berniard Injury Attorney App is the entry page. Composed of data input fields that target inherently important details of an accident, using this portion of the application can help you make sure you record all of the necessary information at a time in which it maybe be difficult to remember. Providing an easy, step-by-step accident guide, this application can even include a picture with the information report with a simple tap.

For more information on how to download this application, or to discuss your legal rights regarding an issue that you are facing currently, contact our offices today. The Berniard Law Firm would happily discuss with you what opportunities you may have within the realm of the law, as well as give you a free consultation in regards to how we can best get you the justice you deserve.

To download the application, click here.

In certain situations, a person that witnessed another get physically injured has a legal claim against the person that caused the physical injury—even when the witness suffered only mental anguish, without any direct physical injury. The rule allowing this recovery is known as the bystander recovery rule.

Louisiana’s bystander recovery is governed by Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315.6 and the Louisiana Supreme Court case of Trahan v. McManus. As stated in Trahan, the bystander recovery rule does not "compensate for the anguish and distress that normally accompany an injury to a loved one under all circumstances." Rather, the bystander recovery rule is more limited and has four requirements in order for a bystander to recover damages for his mental anguish from witnessing another’s injuries.

Those four elements are:

1. The bystander must be closely related to the injured person. Specifically, the bystander must be the spouse, parent, grandparent, child or grandchild of the injured person.
2. The injured person must suffer a significantly grave harm so that it’s reasonable to expect the bystander to suffer serious mental anguish or emotional distress from witnessing the incident.
3. "The bystander’s mental anguish or emotional distress must be severe, debilitating, and foreseeable," as quoted from Article 2315.6.
4. The bystander’s mental distress must immediately, or almost immediately, follow witnessing the defendant’s actions that caused the direct victim’s injury.

The best way to explain the basics of the bystander recovery rule is by example. A good example of failing to satisfy the bystander rule is the Trahan case. In Trahan, a child was in the hospital. The doctor negligently elected to not treat the child and told his parents that the child would be fine. The parents then took the child home, where he later died.

Although the first three requirements of the bystander rule were met, the fourth requirement was not: The parent’s mental anguish from witnessing their child die occurred well after the doctor’s negligent failure to provide medical treatment. "There was no observable harm to the direct victim that arose at the time of the negligent failure to treat, and no contemporaneous awareness of harm caused by the negligence."

Conversely, the following is a good example of satisfying the four elements of the bystander recovery rule. A mother is playing in her front yard with her eight year old son. A drunk driver veers off the road and into their yard, killing the child but leaving the mother untouched. Unlike the Trahan example above, here, the mother suffers from mental anguish immediately after the defendant’s action of crashing his car into her son.

If you’ve witnessed a traumatic event and, as a result, suffered mental anguish, it’s imperative that you seek legal representation. Cases involving bystander recovery involve many legal questions, such as whether the mental anguish was foreseeable, whether the mental anguish was sufficiently contemporaneous and more.

Continue reading "Understanding the Law: Bystander Recovery After Tragedy Strikes" »

A five year old and seven year old were injured in pit bull attacks in New Orleans March 30 and 31. Shockingly, these attacks both occurred within only 18 hours! First, a five year old girl was mauled in the Gentilly area. A mere eighteen hours later a seven year old was attacked in Algiers and suffered an injury to her ankle.

In Gentilly, the girl was playing basketball with other kids around 6:40 p.m. near the 55000 block of Warrington Drive. Three dogs charged the children. An intact pit bull (not spayed or neutered) chased the girl into a yard and cornered her, biting her on the head, ears, shoulder, and chest. A neighbor called police who arrived on the scene while the child was still under attack. The officers were able to lure the dog away before shooting and killing the animal. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) cited the dog owner for owning a vicious animal and having a roaming dog. The municipal violations could later be upgraded to criminal charges. An investigation has shown that someone may have let the dogs out of the owner’s possession. The owner was unaware his dog was involved in an attack.

The second incident involved a seven year old girl who was walking between two homes in her Algiers neighborhood when she was attacked by a brown pit bull. The girl was shaken up and unable to tell authorities what happened. Witnesses saw other dogs fighting with the pit bull shortly after the attack. The owner of the brown pit bull was cited for owning a vicious dog, allowing it to roam at large, and having no proof of a rabies vaccination. The dog will be held for ten days while a rabies test is completed before a judge decides its fate.

None of the dogs involved in the attacks were neutered, making them much more likely to attack. In fact, according to the article on New Orleans' Nola.com:

Statistics show that an unneutered dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite a person...about 97 percent of all dog-related human deaths involve unsterilized dogs.

Given the dangerous nature of dog bites and also risks involved for children, what are the legal ramifications here?

Owner liability for injuries in a dog bit case can be based on a couple of different legal theories. In a negligence claim the injured person must show that they were owed a legal duty by the owner of the dog and the duty was breached. The duty can arise from failing to properly secure the dog or leaving the dog with someone unable to restrain him. It can also exist if the dog owner violates a local ordinance, like those cited in this story.

States may also impose a more stringent standard of fault, strict liability. In those states (including Louisiana) liability automatically arises when an animal that is known to have a vicious propensity, bites, injures, or even just chases someone. Negligence of the owner does not need to be proven.

Regardless of whether the dog bite claim is based on negligence or strict liability whether the victim provoked the attack will undoubtedly be taken into account. Provocation occurs when a dog is incited or encouraged to bite a person. A person who knew that his actions would be painful or annoying to a dog is deemed to have provoked the dog. Even in strict liability states the dog owner may use provocation as a defense to reduce their liability or avoid liability completely.

The St. Mary’s Parish Council has recently voted unanimously to ban pit bulls within unincorporated areas of the parish.

As reported in Franklin’s Daily Iberian, the ordinancemakes it illegal to: 


own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport or sell any pit bull...in the designated areas of St. Mary Parish. It also provides restrictions and stipulations to any owner currently owning the breed as of the bill’s starting date of July 1.

According to District 6 Councilman Logan Fromenthal, the goal of the ban is to prevent dangerous pit bull accidents that can result in death or loss of limbs. The passage was not without controversy, however. Intense debate ensued prior to passage of the ordinance as well as at a public hearing on January 13th. Residents questioned the harsh restrictions of the ordinance in particular. The ordinance was amended to address some of the public’s concerns. For example, the annual requirement for people who own pit bulls to obtain a license was changed to a one time $50 licensing fee and the sign requirement for those with a pit bull was changed from “Beware Dangerous Dog” to “Beware of Dog.”

Restrictions in the ordinance apply to people who currently own pit bulls and are grandfathered in to the regulations. Additional restrictions for current owners include:

Pit bulls must be micro-chipped and have a license tag on their collar.

Pit bulls must be kept in a secure pen with a concrete floor at least 2 1/2 inches thick and a fence at least 6 feet high.

Any owner who violates the ordinance is fined no less than $500 for a first offense and $300-500 for a second offense. After a third offense a $500 fee is charged and the pit bull is impounded.

St. Mary’s parish is not the only part of Louisiana that is serious about the dangers of dog bites. Controversial ordinances aside, someone injured by an animal anywhere in the state can bring an action against the owner of the animal that has hurt them under Art. 2321 of Louisiana’s Civil Code.

Under the statute, "the owner of an animal is answerable for the damage caused by the animal," if it is shown that he knew or should have known that the behavior of the animal would cause damage and failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent that damage. If the owner of a dog could have prevented injury to another person and the dog was not provoked, the owner will be held strictly liable for damages such as the cost of medical expenses or compensation for pain and suffering.

A finding of strict liability is very important because it allows an injured party to bypass the duty and breach elements of a traditional negligence claim. As an example, if the owner of a dog violates Art. 2321 and another person is injured, the owner is liable without the injured person having to separately prove that she was owed a duty by the owner and the duty was breached.

If you were injured by an animal bite there could be a variety of vehicles under which you may be able to recover damages. Whether it be through an action brought under a local ordinance like this pit bill restriction or under state law, an excellent attorney is key to a successful liability claim.