Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

In our most recent post, we began a review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's application of the law of the case doctrine in a lawsuit that followed an auto accident in Vernon Parish. The plaintiffs, in opposing UUT’s motion for summary judgment, argued that UUT's no-coverage arguments had previously been heard in a "peremptory exception of no right of action" filed by UUT which the trial court had denied. Both the Third Circuit and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs of appeal in that ruling; thus, the plaintiffs argued that the law of the case doctrine should "preclude UUT from re-litigating those same arguments" in the instant case. The plaintiffs also argued that the federal case cited by UUT offered "no precedential value in this state court action." UUT's reply asserted that the exceptions previously heard by the trial court "dealt with procedural, rather than substantive, matters," and were not properly before the trial court at the exceptions hearing. In sum, UUT argued that the trial court's rulings on the exceptions were interlocutory and therefore "subject to revision by the trial court at any time prior to rendition of final judgment." The trial court granted UUT's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims based on the finding that there was no coverage under the UUT policy. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that UUT’s arguments had previously been heard and rejected in an earlier action (the peremptory exception) and therefore "the law of the case doctrine should have been applied because no new argument or evidence was produced by UUT."

The Third Circuit concluded that UUT showed that "the policy it issued to Olympic did not provide coverage for the plaintiffs’ claims." The truck Coronado wrecked was a vehicle leased from Olympic, and the UUT policy by its language excluded coverage for leased vehicles. Rather than refute UUT’s position on the merits, the plaintiffs simply "argued that the issue had already been litigated and that the trial court was bound to follow its earlier ruling." The court rejected that the law of the case doctrine applied. It noted that UUT did not raise coverage issues when it filed its exceptions in the trial court. Instead, "the plaintiffs brought up the issue of coverage in their opposition to UUT’s exceptions." In fact, UUT was not even made aware of the plaintiffs' position on coverage until the day of the hearing. "Clearly," the court concluded, "the issue of coverage under the UUT policy was not squarely before the trial court at the hearing on the exceptions." In the view of the court, "[t]he issues raised in the motion for summary judgment filed by UUT ... did not cause indefinite re-litigation of the same issue[s] as were raised in its [exceptions motion]." Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of UUT.

The Willis case is a stark reminder to litigants that the rules of civil procedure in Louisiana can be extremely complex. Even when the disputed issue in a case (such as whether an auto insurance policy covers a particular driver) is fairly straightforward, a plaintiff can face a complicated path to a resolution without the counsel of an experienced attorney.

Continue reading ""Law of the Case" Doctrine, Part 2" »

Under the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, judgments are either interlocutory or final. A judgment that "determines the merits [of an issue] in whole or in part" is a final judgment, while a judgment that determines "only preliminary matters" is an interlocutory judgment. Generally speaking, final judgments can be appealed, but interlocutory judgments cannot unless there is a statutory exception that permits the appeal. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 2083. If a court renders a judgment that addresses fewer than all of the claims or that concerns fewer than all litigants in a case, that judgment is not final and may be revised by the court at any time prior to a final judgment. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B). With parallel reasoning, if a court of appeal denies a writ of appeal, thereby declining to exercise its supervisory oversight of a trial court, the court of appeal cannot affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment of the trial court. This means that "any language in the court of appeal’s ... writ denial purporting to find no error in the trial court’s ... ruling is without effect." See Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc..

Related is the "law of the case doctrine." This principle pertains to:

"(a) the binding force of trial court rulings during later stages of the trial, (b) the conclusive effects of appellate rulings at the trial on remand, and (c) the rule that an appellate court will ordinarily not reconsider its own rulings of law on a subsequent appeal in the same case." Petition of Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans.

The doctrine is intended to avoid endless re-litigation of the same issue and to promote consistency of result in the same litigation. It also promotes efficiency by affording the parties a single opportunity to resolve the matter at issue.

The law of the case doctrine was reviewed by Louisiana's Third Circuit Court of Appeal in the recent case of Willis v. Gulf Coast Building Supply. The case centered on an auto accident on November 7, 2005. Steve Coronado was operating a tractor-trailer in Vernon Parish on behalf of his employer, Gulf Coast Building Supply, when he struck multiple vehicles. Six lawsuits were filed by various plaintiffs naming as defendants Coronado, Gulf Coast, Home State County Mutual Insurance Company, Gulf Coast's primary insurer, and Universal Underwriters of Texas Insurance Company (UUT), Gulf Coast's excess insurance carrier. UUT filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to have the plaintiffs’ claims dismissed because its policy did not cover their claims. The tractor trailer that Coronado was driving at the time of the accident was leased to Gulf Coast by Olympic International; the lease agreement specified that Gulf Coast was responsible for providing liability insurance and that Gulf Coast would name Olympic as an additional insured on its policy. UUT's policy covered Olympic, but Gulf Coast and Coronado were not named as insured parties. Also, no provision in the policy extended coverage to lessees of the named insured’s property. Therefore, UUT argued that its policy excluded coverage for the plaintiffs’ claims. To further support its position, UUT pointed the trial court to a decision rendered in a case arising out of the same accident that had been filed in federal court by a different plaintiff. In that matter, the federal court granted summary judgment in favor of UUT and dismissed the case on the basis that the UUT policy did not provide coverage for the claims. That decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

In a subsequent post, we'll examine the plaintiffs' response to UUT's motion and the court's judgment.

Continue reading "Exploring the "Law of the Case" Doctrine in Vernon Parish Car Accident Litigation" »

Paul and Anna Moreau thought they were buying a house with a 10-year-old roof. After they moved in, they learned that the roofing tiles were so old that they were no longer made. Their claim against the real estate agent, who represented both sides in the sale, failed at the trial court. In Moreau v. McKenzie, No. CA 11-197 (La. Ct. App. 3 Cir. 10/5/11), the court of appeal agreed with the trial court's dismissal of claims against Kelly Ducote, stating the real estate agent was not liable for failure to disclose defect in sale of house in Alexandria because the agent did not know the seller's statement was misleading.

The Moreaus purchased the home in Alexandria, La., from Mary McKenzie and Priscilla Goudeau. Ducote was agent for both buyer and seller. The property disclosure form that the Moreaus received said that the house's roof had leaked in the past, but it was replaced in 1998-99 with "all new decking & felt replaced with 70 yr. clay tile." A home inspection indicated that the roof was six to ten years old. The inspector found nothing serious. The sale closed. Sales documents warned that the sale was "as is" and without warranty, and Ducote made no warranty on the house or its condition.

When the Moreaus tried to repair a few broken roof tiles, "they learned that the tiles on the roof had not been manufactured for several decades, meaning the entire roof had not been ten years old as they had previously thought." Only the underlying deck and felt had been completely replaced. The old tiles had been reinstalled over the new deck and felt.

With a house that had a "new" roof with 70-year-old tiles, the Moreaus sued the sellers, real estate agent Ducote, and her insurer. The original claims sought damages and voiding of the sale ("redhibition"). The redhibition claim against the agent failed. Ducote moved the trial court to have the remaining claims dismissed. Ducote argued that "the Moreaus had presented no evidence to support the remaining claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation." Ducote succeeded before the Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides.

The duties of a real estate agent are not the same as the seller's duties, the court of appeal explained. The buyer is more limited in claims of fraud or negligent misrepresentation against an agent. Recovery is possible when an agent breaches a duty to provide accurate information that causes damages to the buyer. The agent does not have a duty to disclose what the agent does not know.

This was the case with Ducote. She did not know that the statement on the disclosure form was false or misleading and wrote what the sellers told her. The sellers signed and attested that the disclosure form was correct. The record contains no evidence of negligent misrepresentation, the court of appeal summarized, and the Moreaus admitted in deposition that they had no evidence to show that Ducote knew that the disclosure form was false or misleading. The Moreaus "have never even spoken to the seller to determine any culpability on the part of Ms. Ducote." The court of appeal found only speculation that Ducote breached a duty. That was not enough. No genuine issue of material fact remained, and therefore, the court of appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal.

The problem with the Moreau's claims could have been reduced. A thorough investigation of potentially liable parties would have narrowed the dispute to the people most responsible. That would have saved time and money. It also may have strengthened all their claims by revealing telling facts. The more facts about who knew what would have shown a court with more clarity the validity of the Moreau's thwarted expectations that justified a claim of misrepresentation. For any claim, an objective assessment of the value lost from 70-year-old tiles on a new roof, or physical damage caused by the broken and aging tiles, would have shown that the misrepresentation harmed the Moreaus and justify compensation.

Even claims that appear to be solid need to be scrutinized. A thorough investigation of potential claims will determine their worth, and later to improve chances of success. A lawyer will ask the right questions. Different parties to a sale may have different duties. An experienced lawyer will recognize those different duties and advise on the necessary investigation and parties to obtain just recovery.

Continue reading "Real Estate Agent Not Liable for Defect in Alexandria Case" »

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!

Previously on this blog, we have discussed at length the importance of filing a lawsuit within the period of time required by law. For medical malpractice actions, Louisiana statute

“sets forth two prescriptive limits within which to bring a medical malpractice action, namely one year from the date of the alleged act or one year from the date of discovery with a three year limitation from the date of the alleged act, omission or neglect to bring such claims.” Campo v. Correa.

Determining the date of discovery is based on a test of reasonableness: “[p]rescription commences when a plaintiff obtains actual or constructive knowledge of facts indicating to a reasonable person that he or she is the victim of a tort.” Constructive knowledge is considered whatever notice is sufficient to "excite attention and put the injured party on guard and call for inquiry.” However, even when the victim is entirely reasonable, it cannot be later than three years from the date of the original incident that the suit is filed.

Another topic we have often explored on this blog is the need for expert counsel to navigate the myriad of strategic and procedural challenges in litigation. This theme was evident in the recent case of Patin v. State of Louisiana. In 2006, Rita Patin sought treatment from Dr. Charles Norwood at the LSU Family Practice Center in Alexandria. During one or more visits in 2006, she believed that Dr. Norwood "administered inappropriate treatment which resulted in a stroke, heart attack, and other serious injuries." Patin sent a letter requesting a medical review panel to the Commissioner of Administration on December 11, 2009. The letter contained no details beyond her cursory allegation of wrongdoing by Dr. Norwood. LSU Center filed an exception of prescription in the district court. Patin, who represented herself, filed an answer that explained Dr. Norwood had “consistently mislead” her during telephone calls in 2008 in which he claimed her symptoms were a normal part of the healing process. The answer also alleged that Dr. Norwood administered excessive electromagnetic shocks which caused a stroke and heart attack. However, the answer included "nothing about when Patin became aware that she may have been the victim of malpractice." She did not indicate when she experienced the stroke and heart attack, or when she discovered that these conditions were related to Dr. Norwood's treatment. As a result, the court concluded that "Patin submitted no sufficient evidence upon which the ... court could determine whether her actions/inactions were reasonable." Thus, the Third Circuit upheld the trial court's judgment granting an exception of prescription in favor of LSU Center.

Continue reading "Self-Represented Plaintiff Waits Too Long to File Medical Malpractice Action " »

Everyone expects adequate, timely, and complete care from medical professionals in hospitals. However, unfortunately, times come when the expected level of care fails to come to fruition, and an action for medical malpractice arises. In March of 1993, a Tallulah, Louisiana, resident began a series of trips to doctors in hospitals in which his continued back, shoulder, and neck pain eventually led to lung cancer. The Tallulah, Louisiana resident, Mr. Kerry Scarborough, died 2 years later in March of 1995.

For a malpractice claim against a hospital, plaintiffs like Mr. Scarborough's mother, suing in her son's name, must prove by a preponderance of the evidence first, that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to protect against the risk involved, essentially providing a standard of care that the plaintiff was owed, second, that the defendant breached that duty or standard of care, and third, that the injury was caused by that breach. A hospital can be sued for its own negligence (such as failure to keep its facilities clean), or under a theory of vicarious liability, in which a plaintiff alleges that the hospital is liable for the negligence of one of its doctors. Of course, a medical malpractice action can be extended to any health care provider, including dentists, nurses, hospital workers, physical therapists, radiologists, and more.

Louisiana revised statute 9:2794 provides the statutory language laying out the plaintiff's burden for a general malpractice action:

A. In a malpractice action based on the negligence of a physician licensed under R.S. 37:1261 et seq., . . . the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving: (1) The degree of knowledge or skill possessed or the degree of care ordinarily exercised by physicians, . . . licensed to practice in the state of Louisiana and actively practicing in a similar community or locale and under similar circumstances; and where the defendant practices in a particular specialty and where the alleged acts of medical negligence raise issues peculiar to the particular medical specialty involved, then the plaintiff has the burden of proving the degree of care ordinarily practiced by physicians . . . within the involved medical specialty. (2) That the defendant either lacked this degree of knowledge or skill or failed to use reasonable care and diligence, along with his best judgment in the application of that skill. (3) That as a proximate result of this lack of knowledge or skill or the failure to exercise this degree of care the plaintiff suffered injuries that would not otherwise have been incurred.

Generally, expert testimony is required to establish the degree of care that the defendant must meet and whether that standard was breached, except where the negligence is so clear on its face that an expert is unnecessary. Whether an expert's particular testimony will be admissible depends on whether a trial judge finds them qualified to testify as an expert, analyzed under what is called a 'Daubert standard,' in which the court will look at a variety of factors regarding the expert's background.

In Mr. Scarborough's case, not all his expert's met this standard, and some testimony that could have potentially helped his case was barred and never heard. We understand these complex issues patients face in these types of lawsuits, and are here to help you get through those difficult times. If you feel you were the victim of inadequate medical care, picking experts that will be able to assist in winning your case is critical.

In Louisiana, medical malpractice suits like Mr. Scarbourough's can be brought against either qualified health care providers, or non qualified health care providers. There will be a cap on liability of $100,000 for what is referred to as a QHCP, but there will be no cap on a NQHCP. A QHCP has paid into a state insurance fund called the Patient Compensation Fund and, as such, limits their own liability. This difference is critical, as any medical malpractice actions brought against a qualified health care provider must first go to a panel consisting of three doctors and one non-voting attorney. This panel determines whether the evidence in a case like Mr. Scarborough's (assuming a qualified health care provider) demonstrate that a doctor or hospital failed to meet a given standard of care. The decision of the panel is treated like that of an expert's testimony and may be used during court proceedings.

Nuances such as these are important to understand, especially in the technical field of medical malpractice. The term "medical malpractice" is so broad, and includes things such as a doctor's failure to take adequate medical history, failure to prescribe correct medications, and other negligent acts or omissions by a health care provider that leads to an injury.

Continue reading "Inadequate Medical Care and the Legal Ramifications Capable of Causing Life-Changing Problems" »

On August 7, 2002, James Wilson was driving his car southbound on Essen Lane in Baton Rouge. When he attempted to make a left turn onto the on-ramp for I-10, Wilson pulled into the path of an oncoming car driven by Barbara White northbound on Essen. The crash left Wilson with serious injuries. Following the incident, Wilson filed suit against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development ("DOTD"). His complaint alleged that the DOTD negligently installed lane delineators on Essen Lane at the intersection with I-10; Wilson's negligence theory was based on his assertion that the lane delineators blocked drivers' view of oncoming traffic. Wilson asserted that the DOTD's negligence caused his accident because he couldn't see White's car when he attempted to turn onto I-10. After a trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the DOTD. It found that the DOTD was not negligent and that its installation of lane delineators did not cause the accident. Wilson filed a motion requesting a JNOV which was denied by the trial court. Wilson then appealed on the basis that the jury's verdict was not supported by the evidence.

The First Circuit began it analysis with a recitation of the standard of review for a challenge based on the jury's alleged manifest error. Because the determination of negligence is a factual one, an appellate court must apply a two part test to reverse the jury's finding. Part one involves the appellate court's deciding that a "reasonable factual basis" does not exist in the record for the jury's finding; part two requires the appellate court to determine that the record establishes that the jury's finding is "clearly wrong." Additionally, when
factual findings are based upon the jury's weighing of witness credibility, "great deference" must be given its decision. The rule of thumb is that where there are two or more permissible views of the evidence, the jury's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous.

The court, in reviewing the record, discovered that conflicting witness testimony was presented at trial. The most significant point of divergence between the witnesses' testimony concerned the presence of traffic in the northbound left-turn lane of Essen Lane which would have blocked Wilson's view of oncoming northbound traffic regardless of the lane delineators. Wilson himself testified that there were no cars in the northbound turn lane. However, an eyewitness to the accident testified that there were several cars in the lane, a fact he was certain of because he had to navigate around them when he entered the intersection to assist Wilson and White following the crash. There was also some dispute among the witnesses' testimony about whether the lane delineators' location obstructed the view of traffic. White asserted that she had no trouble seeing southbound traffic over the delineators, but the police officer who responded to the scene testified that, based on his experience with other crashes at the same location, he considered the lane delineators a hazard and the intersection unreasonably dangerous.

The court, after a "careful review of the evidence contained in the record," found that a "reasonable factual basis for the jury finding that DOTD was not negligent" did in fact exist in the record. Further, the court could not conclude that the jury was clearly wrong: "The jury was faced with conflicting views of the evidence regarding whether a person sitting in a vehicle in the southbound left turn lane could see ... cars in the northbound lanes and clearly chose to believe the testimony that either [Wilson's] view was not obstructed or was obstructed by cars in the northbound left turn lane." Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment and assessed costs to Wilson.

The particularly high obstacle to overturning a jury's fact-findings on appeal reflects the preference for factual disputes to be settled at the trial level rather than by an appellate court. Arguably, the jury has the best opportunity to consider all the evidence, including witness temperament and appearance, when resolving factual disputes. It is essential for a party who encounters an unfavorable jury verdict to retain experienced counsel before filing an appeal that is premised on a jury's commitment of manifest error, given the high level of deference afforded the jury.

Continue reading "Court Explores Standard of Review in Baton Rouge Car Wreck Case" »

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 " »

Although the substantive issues involved in a case are the entire reason litigants make their way to courts, the procedural rules can have a beneficial or detrimental effect upon your case depending on how you use them. For example, a defendant has a limited amount of time to respond to an intial suit brought against him. In most cases, a defendant has to respond within 20 days of receipt of notice of a lawsuit. If he does not respond, the case will likely be decided against him. In evidentiary matters, the rules of evidence can have a serious effect upon litigation strategy.

If a litigant's case rests on one piece of evidence, which for some reason cannot be admitted into evidence, the litigant's entire case will be doomed. Moreover, if the litigant introduces evidence incorrectly, his case could be reversed on appeal. This recently happened in a case out of Louisiana, Porter v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (LCPIC).

The basic issue in Porter was that Ms. Portner had settled her insurance claim with LCPIC in a settlement agreement after a car accident occurred. Two years after the settlement, Ms. Porter sued LCPIC alleging that part of her insurance claim was not covered under the original settlement agreement. At the trial court level, LCPIC filed an exception of res judicata with the court. An exception is a means by which the party using it claims that the claim of the other party is legally nonexistent. In the case of an exception of res judicata, the contention is that the claim has already been adjudicated before and therefore there is really no existing issue. LCPIC argued that because the settlement agreement already existed, Ms. Porter had extinguished her right to bring suit on the issue. Ultimately, the trial court decided in favor of LCPIC. Ms. Porter timely filed an appeal of the trial court's decision. She alleged that the trial court erred in making its decision and that it erred in not allowing her to have more time to submit and review evidence.

The appellate court agreed with the trial court that a settlement has a res judicata effect. However, the appellate court saw error in the way LCPIC admitted evidence. The issue was that LCPIC attached the settlement agreement to a memorandum, but did not formally admit it into evidence before the trial court. The appellate court cited to case law which indicated that appellate courts can only review a trial court's decision based on properly admitted evidence. Therefore, because the settlement agreement was not properly admitted, the appellate court could not properly review the issues decided by the trial court. This is true even if LCPIC provided a physical copy to the appellate court during the appeal. The appellate court was forced to send the case back to the trial court level to hold an evidentiary hearing. Ultimately, the settlement agreement will have res judicata effect. The real problem for LCPIC is that because the appellate court directed the trial court to hold a full evidentiary hearing, Ms. Porter will get the opportunity to submit and review evidence which she did not get to do at the trial court level. If LCPIC would have correctly admitted the settlement agreement at the trial court level, it would not have to retry issues it already dealt with. Moreover, LCPIC would not have to deal with any of the issues Ms. Porter is more than likely to bring up at the trial court level. In LCPIC's case, if it would have followed proper procedure, it would likely have been secure at the appellate level; instead, it finds itself treading the same path for the third time.

Please call the Berniard law firm for your legal questions.

In 2008, Debra Goulas worked as a bookkeeper for Sunbelt Air Conditioning Supply in Baton Rouge. Jessie Touchet, owner of Sunbelt, and Diane Jones, Goulas's manager, accused her of stealing over $500 from the company during February and April that year. Goulas was tried for felony theft and acquitted. Following the criminal trial, she filed suit against Touchet and Jones in July, 2010 alleging defamation. Specifically, Goulas argued that Touchet and Jones "intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress" upon her, and that their accusations were "founded in malice to damage her person and reputation." The complaint sought damages for medical expenses, physical and mental pain and suffering, and loss of wages. The defendants filed an exception of prescription. The basis of the exception was that Goulas's claims were based on the defendants' actions that allegedly occurred during February and April of 2008. By the time Goulas filed suit in 2010, more than one year had passed, thereby prescribing the claims. In October, 2010, the trial judge granted the defendants' exception of prescription and dismissed Goulas's claims with prejudice.

Goulas appealed, alleging error on the trial court's ruling that her defamation claim was prescribed. Goulas reasoned that she could not initiate her defamation action until her criminal trial was concluded in March, 2010; accordingly, she argued that prescription did not begin to run until Frederick Jones publicly accused her of theft when testifying at her trial. The First Circuit noted that Louisiana recognizes a qualified privilege that protects parties from charges of defamation related to statements they make during a trial. "It necessarily follows that, during this time, the one-year period that applies to the filing of a defamation action is suspended." However, the court explained, the suspension of prescription applies "only to allegedly defamatory statements made by parties to a lawsuit." In this situation, Frederick and Jones were not parties to Goulas's criminal prosecution, so the prescription suspension did not apply. The court concluded that "since there has been no suspension of the 2008 alleged defamatory statements," the trial court properly granted the defendants' exception of prescription.

This result was no doubt a painful lesson to the Goulas that prescriptive periods and other rules of Louisiana civil procedure can be complex and confusing. At worst, such as here, missing a deadline can prove fatal to a plaintiff's case. Accordingly, it is critical that victims who think they may have a claim should consult a knowledgeable attorney immediately. Time may very well be of the essence in order to secure a day in court.

Continue reading "Baton Rouge Plaintiff Loses Defamation Claim Due to Prescription " »

Everyone expects adequate, timely, and complete care from medical professionals in hospitals. However, times come when the expected level of care fails to come to fruition, and an action for medical malpractice arises. In March of 1993, a Tallulah, Louisiana, resident began a series of trips to doctors in hospitals in which his continued back, shoulder, and neck pain eventually led to lung cancer. This unfortunate victim of cancer, Mr. Kerry Scarborough, died 2 years later in March of 1995.

For a malpractice claim against a hospital, plaintiffs like Mr. Scarborough's mother, suing in her son's name, must prove by a preponderance of the evidence first, that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to protect against the risk involved, essentially providing a standard of care that the plaintiff was owed, second, that the defendant breached that duty or standard of care, and third, that the injury was caused by that breach. Louisiana revised statute 9:2794 provides the statutory language laying out the plaintiff's burden:

A. In a malpractice action based on the negligence of a physician licensed under R.S. 37:1261 et seq., . . . the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving:

(1) The degree of knowledge or skill possessed or the degree of care ordinarily exercised by physicians, . . . licensed to practice in the state of Louisiana and actively practicing in a similar community or locale and under similar circumstances; and where the defendant practices in a particular specialty and where the alleged acts of medical negligence raise issues peculiar to the particular medical specialty involved, then the plaintiff has the burden of proving the degree of care ordinarily practiced by physicians . . . within the involved medical specialty.

(2) That the defendant either lacked this degree of knowledge or skill or failed to use reasonable care and diligence, along with his best judgment in the application of that skill.

(3) That as a proximate result of this lack of knowledge or skill or the failure to exercise this degree of care the plaintiff suffered injuries that would not otherwise have been incurred.

Generally, expert testimony is required to establish the degree of care that the defendant must meet and whether that standard was breached, except where the negligence is so clear on its face that an expert is unnecessary. Whether an expert's particular testimony will be admissible depends on whether a trial judge finds them qualified to testify as an expert, analyzed under what is called a 'Daubert standard,' in which the court will look at a variety of factors regarding the expert's background.

In Mr. Scarborough's case, not all his expert's met this standard, and some testimony that could have potentially helped his case was barred and never heard. We understand these complex issues patients face in these types of lawsuits, and are here to help you get through those difficult times.

Continue reading "The Scary Prospect of Inadequate Medical Care and the Legal Ramifications" »

In a recent Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, a plaintiff successfully appealed an earlier dismissal of his case for failure to properly serve all of the correct parties.

After Hurricane Gustav, Mr, Preston was working on the Southern University campus removing debris, including trimming tree branches, when he slipped and fell into a hole in the ground. He sustained injuries and sued Southern University for negligence, claiming that the campus allowed an unreasonably dangerous condition to exist and it failed to warn him of the dangerous condition.

Under a Louisiana statute (La. R.S. 13:5107), when a plaintiff sues the State of Louisiana or a state agency, he must serve the Louisiana attorney general and the head of the agency. Furthermore, if the suit is a personal injury lawsuit (tort lawsuit), the Office of Risk Management must be notified and served as well, according to La. R.S. 39:1538.

Southern University asserted that although the lawsuit was properly served on the attorney general, it was not served on the head of the department and of the Office of Risk Management, as required by statute. It also asserted that the complaint was too vague because it failed to name the specific parish, state, or location of the Southern University campus where the incident took place. It asked that the plaintiff be required to properly serve all the parties and to amend his complaint to add more specificity.

Mr. Preston amended the complaint, which cured the vagueness defect, but he still failed to serve the head of the department and the Office of Risk Management. His case was then dismissed, but he appealed the dismissal. Southern University claimed that an earlier case, Burnett v. James Construction Group, rendered the appealed issue moot and asked that the case be remanded back down to the trial court. In Burnett, the Louisiana Supreme Court decided that under La. R.S. 39:1538, a dismissal of the case was not required even if the plaintiff had failed to properly serve all of the parties necessary. The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because of the Burnett case, Mr. Preston was entitled to more time to serve the proper parties; Southern University was not entitled to dismissal of the case until Mr. Preston was given an appropriate amount of time in which to serve the lawsuit and failed to do so.

Even in a chaotic environment, this case demonstrates that proper action by an attorney in a filing, as well as careful detailing in a lawsuit, are inherently necessary. If you have suffered a personal injury and need to make sure the lawsuit is done correctly, contact a lawyer at our firm today.

Louisiana law reflects the state legislature's interest in protecting the health and safety of residents of rental property. For instance, landlords are required to warrant that a house is "suitable for the purpose for which it was leased" and that it is "free of vices or defects that prevent its use for that purpose." La. C.C. art. 2696. The warranty extends even to problems that are not personally known to the landlord, though there is an obligation on the part of tenants to report any unsafe conditions. La. C.C. art. 2697. Some limited waivers of this warranty are permitted, but only by "clear and unambiguous language that is brought to the
attention of the lessee." La. C.C. art. 2699. So strong is the state's intent to protect tenants that the law imposes strict liability on a landlord for damages that arise from defects to the property. To prevail against a landlord, the tenant must only prove that the landlord had control over the thing that caused injury; the thing that caused injury suffered from a condition that created an "unreasonable risk of harm"; and that the condition caused the tenant's injury. In fact, the landlord's liability is based entirely on his status as the landlord, not his personal fault. Thus, a landlord's "lack of knowledge regarding a [particular] defect is inconsequential."

A case that recently came before the Second Circuit Court of Appeal demonstrates the operation of this statutory warranty. In 2000, Antonio Wells, Sr. signed a lease to rent a house on Julia Avenue in Bossier City from William Norris. Wells's family, who lived with him in the house, included his wife, Amanda, and three children: Amber, Antinio Jr., and Arquisia. When the family moved in, several electrical outlets were not working. Wells and his wife got into the habit of using extension cords to power lights and other appliances in the home that were not located near working outlets. Discovered later was the fact that many of the 20-amp fuses in the home's fuse panel had been replaced with 30-amp fuses to prevent overloads; this caused excessive heat to build up in the circuits. Around lunch time on July 1, 2001, the house caught fire when an air conditioner overloaded a circuit with an altered fuse and ignited. The Bossier City Fire Department responded and extinguished the fire, but, tragically, not before Arquisia was killed and both Amber Antonio Jr. were severely injured. Wells filed suit against the landlord, Norris, in June of 2002. Wells alleged that Norris was strictly liable for the damages sustained by him and his family in the fire. A trial was held in March, 2010 in which the trial judge, without oral or written reasoning, ruled in favor of Wells and awarded $207,572.79 in damages. Norris appealed.

Norris's primary argument on appeal was that the trial judge misapplied the Louisiana code related to landlord liability. He pointed to the provision in Wells's lease that required him to "keep and maintain the House and appurtenances in good and sanitary condition and repair during the term of this Lease.” Norris argued that this language was "clear and unequivocal" and therefore served as a waiver of strict liability on his part under La. C.C. art. 2699. The court disagreed. In its view, Wells’s agreement to “maintain the house in good repair” did not "equate to his assumption of responsibility for the condition" of the entire premises. In addition, the court found that "no language existed anywhere [in the lease] amounting to a clear and unambiguous waiver of the warranty against vices and defects." Accordingly, the court upheld the trial judge's award of damages to the Wells family.

A number of the cases we have examined on this blog have turned on the language of a controlling document, such as an insurance policy. Although the court's reading of the lease in the Wells case turned out favorably for the Wells family, it would not be difficult to imagine another, similar case where a landlord had inserted a provision that was sufficiently "clear and unequivocal" to waive his liability for life-endangering defects in the property.

Continue reading "Bossier City House Fire Tragedy Prompts Court's Review of Landlord's Duty to Tenants " »

Our previous post discussed the various principles of contract law at work in the Mendoza case, which can be viewed here. This case involved a dispute between an injured worker's employer and another company with which that employer had a contract. A provision of this contract provided for indemnification, the assuming by one entity of the liability of another.

Companies often assume the liabilities of other entities with which they hold contracts. This is seen as a cost of doing business. Indemnification makes up part of or the entirety of the consideration for some corporate contracts. Contracting away your liability can be extremely valuable. The dispute in this case was when the contract actually became effective. The court used various principles discussed in its opinion and the previous post on this topic to determine that the trial court was correct in denying summary judgment to one party and granting it to the other. Mid South, Mr. Mendoza's employer, was to be indemnified and held blameless by EXCO as per their 2008 agreement.

In general, this dispute really came down to an issue of timing. The two companies in question signed an agreement in December 2008. The incident that created Mr. Mendoza's cause of action occurred in October 2007. He filed suit in August of 2008. Mid South did not file an answer to the complaint until July of 2009. After this filing Mid South demanded defense from EXCO; this defense was promptly denied. Mid South again attempted to illicit indemnification and defense from EXCO in September 2009 based on a 2004 contract that Mid South held with Anadarko, a company whose interests were subsequently absorbed by EXCO. EXCO did not respond until after Mid South filed a cross-claim against EXCO. EXCO filed an exception and answer in April 2010 along with a motion for summary judgment. In July 2010, Mid South filed its cross-motion for summary judgment. The former motion for summary judgment was denied and the latter granted in August of 2010. When the trial court denied EXCO's motion to designate the judgment as appealable, EXCO sought aid from a higher court. The Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit of Louisiana granted EXCO's writ application but ultimately sided with the trial court.

The crux of the appellate court's decision was its interpretation of the "Effective Date" provision of the contract which indicated that the agreement was in full force and effect "on the date first above written or on the date on which CONTRACTOR (Mid South) first commenced the performance of any services for COMPANY (EXCO) or first provided goods, equipment or facilities to COMPANY, whichever first occurred, and even though this Agreement may not then have been reduced to writing." There was conflict among the parties whether this clause or the type-written date "December 16, 2008" should take precedence. The court determined after its de novo review of the trial court record that EXCO should have known that it was assuming liability for events earlier than December 16, 2008 because it drafted the 2008 Agreement. EXCO also alleged error because the type-written date was not given precedence over the pre-printed contract language. The court found this allegation to be without merit. The "Effective Date" provision of the contract was drafted with the potential of the occurrence of a situation like this one in mind. It specifically contemplates an incident like Mr. Mendoza's in its language. It was the opinion of the appellate court he phrase "December 16, 2008" being type-written was not as important as influential as the type-written provisions in the precedential cases making up the common law in this area.

A court's interpretation of a contract can make a crucial difference to the parties involved. EXCO tried to get out of a contract that it had drafted itself. This is a difficult position from which to argue. Almost all of the interpretation tools that a court may use will caution against giving undue deference to the drafter of the contract. Companies must strive to write contracts containing language by which they intend to be bound. Courts must strive to fairly and equitably interpret contracts but they do not have to interpret them according to unexpressed intentions for which the contracts contain no basis.

Continue reading "Second Circuit Case Demonstrates Importance of Proper Contracts" »

A well-written contract can not only solve most problems, it can prevent most problems from becoming problems in the first place. For a contract to have its maximum problem eliminating effect, however, all parties to the contract must agree as to what it mean. Contract law is filled with cases that could have been avoided if the entities involved had simply expressed their terms more clearly or asked the right questions before, during and after the drafting of the contract. While this ambiguity may be intentional by one side or both in the event they think a benefit can be attained, the truth is the best contract is often the one where both parties are simply looking to achieve the main goal fairly. Those instances where ambiguity dominates, however, cause problems. The case of Mendoza v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., discussed in an earlier post, is one such case.

The Mendoza case was two-fold. It involved questions as to whether and when one company assumed liability for another company. Several contract law principles were implicated in this dispute from which this opinion resulted. Contracts get drafted under the assumption that the parties have reached an agreement. This alleged agreement is nowhere to be found when there is a dispute over the meaning of a contract. When adverse parties give contradictory interpretations of the same contract language a suit often ensues. It is because of the relative frequency of this occurrence that the courts have come up with various rules for interpreting contracts when the parties themselves cannot.

The Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit of Louisiana applied Texas contract law in this case. This was due to an agreement between the parties which was most likely part of the contract itself; there was no dispute over this portion of the contract. For guidance, Texas law contains several well-established principles for evaluating disputed contracts:

First and foremost when interpreting the true meaning of a contract comes the intent of the parties. The parties to the contract presumably know best about what the contract was intended to accomplish and how. This cannot be the only factor in the analysis because when there is a dispute about the meaning of the contract, the parties likely had different intentions in entering into said contract.

The language of the contract is also important. Words can have a myriad of meanings in various different contexts. Courts seek to give the words in a contract one meaning that best suits the occasion. Texas courts seek to "harmonize and effectuate" all of the provisions of a contract. This aim towards harmony is shared in many jurisdictions. Disjointed and unwieldy interpretations of contracts serve none well and only exacerbate disagreements between contracting parties. Courts must seek to interpret the contract as a cohesive document in order to best achieve the ends of the parties. The signatories signed the entire contract so it follows that no portion of the contract was meant to be meaningless.

Theoretically, and in common practice, a court should not edit a contract under Texas law but must seek to enforce the contract as it is written. If a court was free to delete or add provisions to a contract it would be exponentially easier for that court to come to a conclusion as to what the contract was supposed to mean. Despite this added ease, the parties to that contract would be robbed of the contract that they intended. They agreed to the words on the pages of the contract, regardless of their current dispute, at one time. A court must come to a conclusion based on the language that was actually included within a contract, not the language that a court thinks, feels or believes should be included.

It might seem like it would not have to be expressed that a court should seek to avoid a construction for a contract that is "unreasonable, oppressive, inequitable or absurd" but the Texas Court of Appeals made it official. The law of contracts is, at its core, a law of fairness and equity. All language in a contract is supposed to be given its normal grammatical meaning unless otherwise stated in the contract. This too may seem like a meaningless pleasantry that should not bear expressing but in a world where jargon and technical terms are becoming increasingly common, words do not always mean the same thing. One particularly amusing contract dispute once arose out of the meaning of the word "chicken" for purposes of a contract for the sale of certain poultry products.

Our next entry will conclude coverage on this Mendoza principle as well as fleshing out the need for close review of contract provisions and stipulations.

Continue reading "Texas Contract Law Informs Second Circuit Decision" »

A defendant who wishes to challenge a jury's damages award can petition the court for a new trial. As this is often an undesirable path for both the defendant and the plaintiff, Louisiana law offers an alternative approach: when the trial court believes that the verdict is "so excessive ... that a new trial should be granted for that reason only,” La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1814, it can order remittitur. This option is available only if the plaintiff agrees to it, under the assumption that accepting a lower amount of damages may prove preferable to another trial. The trial court is permitted to order remittitur "only if the issue of quantum is clearly and fairly separable from other issues in the case." The recent case of Great West Casualty Co. v. AAA Cooper Transport offers an instructive example of Louisiana's remittitur statute as applied by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On November 27, 2006, a tractor-trailer which operated by Juan Rodriguez-Salas was struck by another tractor-trailer; the second truck was being driven by Ray Johnson and was owned by AAA Cooper Transportation. Rodriguez-Salas's truck rolled over, and he suffered injuries to his right shoulder as a result. Rodriguez-Salas sued Johnson and AAA Cooper in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. He sought to recover for his medical expenses and damages for pain and suffering and lost wages. After a trial, the jury awarded Rodriguez-Salas $38,000 for lost wages; $120,000 for pain, suffering, and mental anguish; and $10,000 for loss of enjoyment of life. AAA Cooper, objecting to the damages award, filed a motion for a new trial. The district court entered judgment on the verdict and denied AAA Cooper’s motion. AAA Cooper appealed, seeking a reduction in Rodriguez-Salas's $130,000 general damages award on the theory that Rodriguez-Salas's injuries were to only one shoulder and only required treatment for eight months; in AAA Cooper's view, $40,000 was an appropriate amount.

The Fifth Circuit, in applying Louisiana law, first reviewed the district court's finding that a new trial was unnecessary. The district court determined that sufficient evidence of Rodriguez-Salas’s "injuries, medical treatment and recovery, and the effect of both on his work and daily activities" had been presented at trial "to reach a fair determination of his general damages and lost wages.” The Fifth Circuit agreed, noting that the record included such evidence as Rodriguez-Salas's testimony about his injuries, testimony from doctors about Rodriguez-Salas's condition, and Rodriguez-Salas's medical records. Accordingly, in affirming the trial court's judgment, the Fifth Circuit concluded that "the district court did not abuse its discretion" and that "the award [was] not against the great weight of the evidence."

Although remittitur offers the parties in litigation a more efficient means by which to resolve a dispute over a damages award, it is still subject to many of the same limitations that apply to appeals in general -- that is, that great deference must be afforded a jury's award of damages. Only through a showing of abuse of discretion by the trial court can a defendant prevail on a remittitur action.

Continue reading "Tractor-Trailer Accident on I-20 Leads to Court's Consideration of Request for Remittitur" »

When apportioning fault between two or more parties in a negligence action, the finder of fact is given great deference on review. An appellate court may not set aside a trial court's finding unless there is "manifest error" or it is "clearly wrong." Cole v. Dept. of Public Safety & Corrections. In order
to reverse the trial court's apportionment of fault, the appellate court must "find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court and that the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong." The Louisiana Supreme Court has provided extensive guidance on the trial court's responsibility for allocating fault. The court is "bound to consider the nature of each party's wrongful conduct and the extent of the causal relationship between that conduct and the damages claimed." Watson v. State Farm. Furthermore, in assessing fault, the trial court can consider several factors related to a party's conduct, including:

"(1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the danger, (2) how great a risk was created by the conduct, (3) the significance of what was sought by the conduct, (4) the capacities of the actor, whether superior or inferior, and (5) any extenuating circumstances which might require the actor to proceed in haste, without proper thought."Watson

Although the allocation of fault is "not an exact science," and it is fairly rare for a trial court to commit reversible error in the process, it does happen. One example is the recent case of Burdine v. Robertson, in which the Second Circuit Court of Appeal modified the trial court's apportionment of fault in an auto accident.

Late in the evening on October 24, 2006, Garold Burdine, then 19, was driving his Ford Ranger pickup truck south on Woolworth Road in Caddo Parish. The road had no street lighting. At the same time, L.C. Robertson was driving a very large and heavily loaded log truck on a side road approaching Woolworth Road. When Robertson attempted to turn out into the southbound lane of Woolworth, he realized he was unable to complete the turn without backing up. As he began to make this maneuver, Burdine's truck struck Robertson's log truck. Burdine was injured in the crash, and Robertson was cited by the local policy for failure to yield while entering the roadway. In October of 2007, Burdine filed suit against Robertson and his employer, Bedsole Wood Corp., the owner of the log truck. The defendants responded that Burdine caused the collision and, at the very least, failed to mitigate damages. The trial court assessed 85 percent of the fault to Burdine and 15 percent to Robertson; Burdine's award of $37,985.71, therefore, was reduced by 85 percent. From this judgment, Burdine appealed.

The Second Circuit, mindful of its obligation of deference to the trial court, reviewed the record and performed its own analysis of the Watson factors. The court noted that Robertson "had an awareness of the danger caused by his actions in obstructing the entire road." The length of the log truck and the width of the road "required him to perform a complicated maneuver to enter the roadway." The risk created by this maneuver was "great, especially considering the diminished visibility" given the late hour of the day. In addition, the court found that, relative to Burdine, Robertson's "capacity was certainly superior," and that there were no extenuating circumstances requiring [Robertson] to proceed hastily and without thought." The court reasoned that Robertson could have made use of a safer procedure for entering Woolworth Road (he made "no attempt to warn motorists that he was blocking both lanes of traffic") and, accordingly, it found that "a greater degree of fault must be attributed to Robertson, a professional driver." The court did not relieve Burdine of all fault, though; it concluded that Burdine "failed to exercise sufficient caution and vigilance" when he realized there was "some activity" involving another vehicle in the roadway ahead. In the court's view, Burdine would have been in a better position to avoid the collision entirely if he had braked earlier. The court concluded that "the trial court was manifestly erroneous in its allocation of fault." Thus, it adjusted the percentages of fault by raising Robertson's responsibility to 60 percent and reducing Burdine's to 40 percent.

This case shows, once again, the importance of establishing a solid record of evidence in the trial court. An appellate court can rely only on the trial record when determining whether the trial judge committed error in apportioning fauly. For this reason, a skilled attorney will ensure that all relevant evidence is presented at trial.

Continue reading "Second Circuit Second Guesses Trial Court's Apportionment of Fault in Caddo Parish Car Wreck" »

One of the first things that must be determined in a potential medical malpractice claim is whether the statute of limitations bars the claim. An otherwise legitimate malpractice lawsuit may be invalid simply because the injured party waited too long to file the claim. In the State of Louisiana, the statutory period in which a claim must be filed is referred to as the "prescriptive period." If a case is "prescribed", it is beyond the statutory period. Louisiana statutory law (La. R.S. 9:5628(A)) states that malpractice suits must be filed "within one year from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect, or within one year from the date of discovery of the alleged act, omission or neglect."

In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeals Case, Amos v. Crouch, the court addressed the issue of what constitutes "discovery" of the alleged negligent act or omission. In the Amos case, Dr. Crouch, a Jackson Parish general surgeon, diagnosed a patient with severe hemorrhoids when in fact the patient had colorectal cancer. After receiving the hemorrhoids diagnosis from Dr. Crouch, the patient decided to see another doctor for a second opinion. After a brief examination, the second doctor ordered tests that ultimately revealed the colorectal cancer. The Court of Appeals concluded that it was at the time of his cancer diagnosis that the statutory period began to run. The Court declared, "Prescription begins when a plaintiff obtains actual or constructive knowledge of facts indicating to a reasonable person that he or she is the victim of a tort." It is important to note that knowledge only refers to "such information that ought to put the alleged victim on inquiry." Therefore, in certain circumstances, a correct diagnosis from a second physician can equate to "discovery" of the doctor's negligent act, triggering the prescriptive period.

However, the court refused to treat a correct secondary diagnosis as a per se reasonable belief that the original doctor committed malpractice. Instead, the court declared, "it depends on the particular circumstances of each case." But, the Amos case does infer that a correct secondary diagnosis, although not conclusive, acts as strong evidence toward proving that a reasonable person would have discovered the possibility of malpractice at that time.

Of course, a secondary diagnosis that proves a previous diagnosis to be erroneous does not necessarily equate to malpractice. It is certainly possible for doctors to maintain their duty of care while reaching an ultimately erroneous diagnosis. Even so, there is always the possibility that an erroneous diagnosis may have been caused by negligence. Therefore, it is important for all patients to be weary of the short prescriptive period in Louisiana (one year), and to understand that a correct secondary diagnosis may start the clock on the one year timer. Therefore, if you believe you may have been the victim of medical malpractice, your best chance of compensation is to contact an attorney as soon as possible to ensure the statute of limitations does not expire.

Continue reading "Statute of Limitations on Medical Malpractice Claims in Louisiana: Information Every Patient Should Know " »

A lawsuit can be resolved in many ways. Prior to formal court proceedings, the suit may be dropped voluntarily for one reason or another, or the parties might come to an agreement in mediation. If the case goes to trial, it may be resolved with the judge or jury entering a verdict after a full trial. It may also be resolved before the close of proceedings by way of dismissal. If a case is dismissed it can have serious repercussions for a suit, and often destroys the likelihood of recovery if a dismissal is entered against a plaintiff. There are many types of possible dismissals that can end a proceeding including the involuntary dismissal of a claim.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1627 governs involuntary dismissal. The plaintiff presents their case first, and upon the completion of the presentation of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant may make a motion for involuntary dismissal. The judge then reviews the evidence presented. If he finds the plaintiff has shown no right to relief, he may grant the motion for involuntary dismissal. On a motion for involuntary dismissal, the plaintiff’s testimony should generally be accepted as true. So long as the plaintiff has presented enough evidence to establish his argument by a preponderance of the evidence, a fairly low burden of proof, the case should be allowed to proceed and the motion denied. If the motion is granted, the plaintiff can appeal the decision. A decision granting involuntary dismissal is difficult to overcome on appeal but it is not impossible. The 2011 case of Settle v. Paul illustrates what can happen where a plaintiff successfully appeals an involuntary dismissal.

In 2009, James Settle sued Brenda Michelle Paul, his ex-girlfriend, in a dispute over the existence of a partnership agreement between the parties. Mr. Settle and Ms. Paul formed a construction company and took on several small projects in the company’s infancy. In 2003, Ms. Paul filed the necessary paperwork to have the company incorporated in Louisiana, forming the limited liability corporation Landmark Construction Company of Coushatta (Landmark). She was listed as the sole member of Landmark. Mr. Settle agreed that the parties decided Ms. Paul would be the sole member of the corporation because they wanted the company protected from seizure against Mr. Settle’s child support obligations. The company was profitable throughout the duration of its operation.

Mr. Settle and Ms. Paul’s personal relationship deteriorated, and they separated in 2008. Mr. Settle left the company, and Landmark ceased all operations. Ms. Paul refused to give Mr. Settle access to Landmark records or funds and took the position that she was the owner of the company and that Mr. Settle was merely an employee. Mr. Settle filed his suit seeking recognition as a co-owner of Landmark and a partition of the company’s assets. He argued that, as business partners, he and Ms. Paul each owned one-half of the company. The case proceeded to trial where Judge Peyton Cunningham of the Judicial District Court of Red River Parish granted Ms. Paul’s motion for involuntary dismissal of the case. The court held that Ms. Paul was the sole owner of Landmark based on documentation presented to the court.

Mr. Settle appealed the decision arguing that the court erred in granting the motion, because he had presented enough evidence to establish that a partnership had existed between himself and the defendant. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals of Louisiana agreed. It reversed the dismissal citing evidence presented by the plaintiff that Ms. Paul was listed as the sole owner of the company only to protect it against Mr. Settle’s child support obligations and that there was evidence of intent that the company be owned equally between the parties. The matter was sent back to the trial court for a completion of the trial on the merits. In other words, Mr. Settle was awarded a chance to have the case fully heard in court.

To ensure you receive a full and fair trial based on the merits of your case you need representation with knowledge of the possible outcomes of litigation. If you have a claim for personal injury or an insurance dispute, you need the services of an effective legal team to help you with your case.

Continue reading "The Complexities of the Involuntary Dismissal of a Claim" »

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.

A wide variety of events can occur to cause injury. The courts, when faced with a civil litigation involving a personal injury, are forced to narrow the cause of said injury in order to determine how much damage was caused by an incident. When a person has a series of injuries, or has a less than sterling claim, the courts are forced to decide just how responsible the incident was for the pain suffered.

A recent case involving a malfunctioning bridge and a questionable "victim" helps highlight this problem. The plaintiff in this case, Ms. Trahan, was stopped at the Highway 14 Bridge in Abbeville, Louisiana as a boat passed under. The bridge, owned and operated by the defendant Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development, failed to correctly fall in place once the boat had safety passed. The bridge incorrectly sat between 3 to 7 inches above the road’s surface. Ms. Trahan hit the raised area while traveling approximately 15 miles per hour. Ms. Trahan claimed that she had sustained severe back pain as a result of the collision. The state argued that they were in fact liable for the defect in the bridge, but the injury sustained by Ms. Trahan was not at all related to the defective bridge. The trial court agreed with the state department and dismissed the case. In its conclusion, the trial court found the credibility of Ms. Trahan to be highly suspect, and was presented with evidence that suggested alternative possibilities for Ms. Trahan’s injuries. Ms. Trahan’s sole appeal rested on the fact that the trial court erred when it failed to find that the injury to Ms. Trahan was a direct result of the bridge incident.

A necessary element to a claim of liability is not simply that an injury exists, but that the factual evidence sufficiently shows that the defendant was the actual and proximate cause of that injury. In ruling on questions of fact, like the one presented in this case, the appellate court follows the manifest error standard when determining whether to affirm or reverse the trial court’s decision. At the trial court, Ms. Trahan was required to show by a preponderance of the evidence that her back injury was a direct result of the bridge’s defect. Because the trial court determined that Ms. Trahan failed to meet that burden, the manifest error standard, as stated in Lewis v. Department of Transportation & Development, requires the appellate court to determine only if the trial court’s factual conclusion were reasonable. The decision is only reversed if it is found that the trial court’s finding was clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. The case of Orea v. Scallan puts the standard in perspective, stating that the appellate court may not reverse simply because it is convinced that, had it been determining the facts as they were presented in the trial court, it would have come to a different outcome. Additionally, when a trial court’s findings are based on the credibility of witnesses, Rosell v. ESCO establishes that the trial court’s reasonable evaluation of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review by the appellate court.

In following the manifest error standard, the 3rd Circuit affirmed the trial court’s conclusion by finding that the trial court had a reasonable factual basis for its finding. During the trial, it was revealed that Ms. Trahan suffered from spondylolysis, a congenital condition that causes structural weakness in the spine. Doctors close to Ms. Trahan testified that Ms. Trahan found herself in multiple situations prior to the bridge incident that could have caused the injuries. Throughout the trial, Ms. Trahan presented different accounts to different doctors about the nature of her back condition, leaving the trial court to determine Mr. Trahan’s credibility to be “highly suspect.” Ms. Trahan case shows the importance of an individual to not only show that an injury exists when filing a negligence claim, but also that the injury was the actual and proximate cause of the alleged negligent actor.

Injuries to yourself or a loved one should not be taken lightly. If you believe that an injury was the result of some defect, you should consult with a lawyer, as you might be entitled to compensation.

Continue reading "Court Dismisses Case Relating to Spine Injury on Abbeville Bridge" »

In a previous post, we discussed Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist ("UM") coverage provisions in auto insurance policies. In short, UM coverage is intended to protect the policyholder in cases of injury or loss inflicted by another driver who has inadequate insurance or no insurance at all. UM coverage is not without limitation, however, as most policies apply the coverage only to the named policyholder himself and in cases when the loss or injury occurs through use of the vehicle covered by the policy. But, an insurance policy is "a contract between the parties and should be construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth in the Civil Code." Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co. Thus, the policy language will control the details of UM coverage, so long as any limitations in the provision do not violate public policy.

The general rules of contract interpretation were applied by Louisiana's Second Circuit Court of Appeal in the case of Kottenbrook v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. On June 29, 2009, Jack Kottenbrook, an Ouachita Parish sheriff’s deputy, was involved in a car accident while riding as a passenger in a police cruiser. He suffered serious injuries in the crash and eventually settled with the at-fault driver and the driver's insurer. Kottenbrook then filed a lawsuit against Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, alleging he was covered under the underinsured motorist provision in a policy for which he was identified as an "additional listed insured." This policy was issued to Jack Armstrong, Inc., a corporation, and specifically covered a Ford Mustang owned by the corporation.

Shelter disputed that the policy's UM coverage extended to Kottenbrook, given that he was not "occupying" the "covered vehicle" at the time of his injuries. The Second Circuit declared that "the coverage extended to Kottenbrook is defined and limited under the policy." A reading of the definitions contained within the policy led the court to find that UM coverage "was limited to Kottenbrook’s use of the [Mustang,]" not any other vehicle such as the police cruiser. The court found nothing impermissible about this limitation from a public policy perspective, and affirmed the trial court's judgment for Shelter.

As we have seen in other cases involving insurance disputes, Louisiana courts are inclined to enforce insurance policies--including all lawful limitations to coverage--as written. Policyholders are therefore well advised to read their policies carefully so as to understand exactly the nature of the coverage offered in exchange for premiums paid.

Continue reading "Court Examines Limits of Uninsured Motorist Coverage in Ouachita Parish Auto Accident" »

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" »

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" »

In previous posts on this blog, we have discussed the elements that the victim of a car accident must prove in order to recover from an at-fault driver. Whether the defendant's negligent conduct caused the accident and the victim's injuries is a question to be resolved by the fact-finder. This role is usually assumed by the jury, but can also be left to the judge in the case of a bench trial. Much deference is given to a fact-finder's decision on such issues: the appropriate standard for appellate review of factual determinations is the "manifest error/clearly wrong standard." This high standard means that an appellate court can set aside the trial court's factual determination only if it is "clearly wrong in light of the record reviewed in its entirety." In order to overturn a factual finding, the appellate court must make a two-part inquiry: (1) the court must find from a review of the trial record that no reasonable factual basis exists for the finding; and (2) the record must establish that the trial court's finding was clearly wrong. It is important to note that the appellate court is not merely asked to determine whether the trier of fact was objectively right or wrong; instead the court must decide if the factfinder’s conclusion was reasonable in light of the evidence. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal's opinion in the recent case of Hopkins v. Nola provides an example of an appellate court's application of this analysis to overturn a critical factual finding of the trial court.

On January 17, 2008, Sharnetta Hopkins was involved in a car accident with Brian Nola near the intersection of Desoto Street and Cole Avenue in Monroe, Louisiana. In her complaint, Hopkins alleged that the accident occurred when Nola struck her car after executing an illegal pass. Nola countered that he did nothing wrong, but was actually struck by Hopkins's car when she ran a stop sign. At the bench trial in March, 2010, the parties offered conflicting testimony on the incident. Also, Shawn Maynard, an officer with the Monroe Police Department who responded to the accident and issued Hopkins a citation for running the stop sign, offered testimony as to Hopkins's fault. Nevertheless, the trial court entered a judgment against Nola, awarding Hopkins damages after apportioning 80 percent of the fault to Nola. In its decision, the trial court noted that it effectively ignored Officer Maynard's testimony because he "did not take any photographs, diagram the location of any debris from the accident, and did not talk to all of the witnesses."

On appeal taken by Nola, the Second Circuit reviewed the trial record according to the manifest error standard. The court found that "the trial court committed reversible error in its wholesale dismissal of Officer Maynard’s testimony due to deficiencies in his investigation of the accident." The court reached this conclusion because "the trial court’s articulation in its written ruling of perceived deficiencies is unfounded."
Officer Maynard testified with reference to photos of the accident scene in a manner that was consistent with the accident report he filed immediately following his investigation. Hopkins "did not attempt to offer the written report or cross-examine the officer directly on its contents to show that his memory of the accident at trial differed from the report," or for that matter impugn Maynard's credibility in any way. Additionally, the trial court did not indicate its dismissal of Officer Maynard’s testimony was the result of a credibility assessment based on a finding of bias or untruthfulness. In fact, the evidence clearly supported Maynard's assessment of the situation but was inconsistent with Hopkins's summary of events. Accordingly, the court found that "the objective evidence so contradicts [Hopkins's] story that a reasonable factfinder would not credit that story. The ruling of the trial court was therefore clearly wrong and manifestly erroneous."

The Hopkins case speaks to the critical nature of a plaintiff's ability to establish facts that are consistent with her theory of recovery. As the Second Circuit noted in its opinion,

"Although deference to the factfinder should be accorded, because appellate courts have a constitutional duty to review both law and facts, they have the right and obligation to determine whether a trial court verdict is clearly wrong based on evidence, or clearly without evidentiary support... Therefore, it is not the case that a trial court’s factual determinations cannot ever, or hardly ever, be upset.”

Thus, the court makes clear that findings of fact must be supported by solid evidence in order to survive challenge on appeal. If you have been injured due to someone's negligence, it is essential to seek a qualified attorney who is experienced at building the most favorable case possible based on the actual evidence to be presented at trial.

Continue reading "Appellate Court Reverses Factually Unsupported Judgment in Car Wreck Case" »

Louisiana law requires all motor vehicle liability insurance policies to extend coverage not only to the insured, but also to any other person with express or implied permission to drive the motor vehicle. Once the insured gives permission, coverage will be denied only if the driver deviates from the permissive use. Consequently, at issue in most lawsuits of this kind is whether the damages caused by the driver are covered by the policy.

A recent case involved Ellen Van, who was driving her car on McReight Street in the city of Bastrop on the same day that minor April Canada was driving a truck owned by the defendant, Steven Ferrell, her live-in boyfriend. April allegedly failed to stop at an intersection and collided with the Van's vehicle. Ellen and her husband, claiming that the collision caused injuries to her back and body, filed suit against Steven Ferrel and his insurer, Safeway Insurance Company of Louisiana. In Ellen T. Van and Ralph E. Van v. Steven Ferrell and Safeway Ins. Co., the lower court granted Safeway's motion for summary judgment on the basis of the affirmative defense of nonpermissive use. Safeway contended that April did not have permission to use the truck on the day in question, and, therefore, the damages caused by the accident were not covered by the policy.

On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the lower court's determination that there was no genuine issue of material fact in the case. Specifically, the plaintiffs contested that April's implied permission from Ferrell to drive the truck on the day of the accident was an unresolved, material issue in the case. The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeals, agreeing with the plaintiffs, reversed and remanded the lower court's judgment because the deposition testimony established that an issue remained in the case as to whether April had implied permission to drive Ferrell's truck.

Although Ferrell stated April did not have express permission to drive the truck, he conceded at the deposition that the keys and truck were at the house, which were readily accessible to April, and that he never explicitly told April she did not have permission to drive the truck. Moreover, Ferrell's mother Tracy, who also lived at the home, testified that April had occasionally driven the truck unaccompanied; however, she later stated that April only drove the truck with her or another licensed driver. Most significantly, April testified that she drove Ferrell's truck many times around the area where they lived with Ferrell and Tracy's permission. April further testified that since Tracy and Ferrell knew she had to report to work the day of the accident, she believed she had permission to drive the truck to town.

According to the appellate court, the trial court needed to resolve the credibility of the parties' accounts due to the inconsistent deposition testimony. Since a trial is the only appropriate legal forum to resolve issues in a case dependent on credibility determinations, the appellate court concluded that summary judgment was improper.

As this case demonstrates, it is important to have competent representation to successfully appeal an unfavorable judgment. The ability to challenge the court's rulings and force the proper judicial process is something a plaintiff, or defendant, needs to feel confident their attorney can handle.

Continue reading "Court of Appeals Rejects Insurance Company's Defense of Nonpermissive Use in Recent Case " »

From the Courts of Equity of the England of yore to Louisiana's Third Circuit, fairness is and has been for a long time an essential component of the law. Civil concepts of fairness still exist today, especially in Louisiana courts dedicated to making whole the victim of a crime.

Edward Signal, like many injury victims, acquired the right to sue at the time of his injury. This right is a commodity of sorts and can be bargained away in an agreement known as a release. Mr. Signal signed one of these agreements with BellSouth Telecommunications after a BellSouth employee, Jared Romero, struck Mr. Signal's vehicle on the on-ramp of Highway 90 from Willow Street in Lafayette. Mr. Signal received a check from BellSouth for the exact amount of the damage to his car. When he cashed this check, he failed to consider an important phrase in the letter that accompanied it. BellSouth indicated that this check was intended to be a "full and final settlement of [Mr. Signal's] claim." There was also language on the back of the check that indicated the check was for "property damages and/or bodily injury." After cashing the check, Mr. Signal discovered the check to not fully cover his damages and filed suit in this matter. In response, BellSouth raised the affirmative defense of res judicata claiming that Mr. Signal's claim was already settled.

The trial court determined that Mr. Signal, a 73-year-old man with a self-assessed third grade reading level, was not quite on even footing with the more sophisticated corporate defendant. In so concluding, the trial court found that Mr. Signal's behavior was reasonable. A reasonable man in his situation would assume that a check for the amount of damage to his car would not also be intended to cover personal damages. The State of Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit affirmed Mr. Signal's right to sue BellSouth for damages arising out of his personal injuries.

There were two essential values at stake in this case: 1) freedom of contract and 2) fairness. The corporate defendant, obviously having more resources and knowledge, was attempting to escape the full extent of its vicarious liability for the actions of its employee while on the job. Would this case have turned out the same if Mr. Signal were a corporate lawyer with a rich knowledge of the law surrounding contracts of adhesion and alternative dispute resolution? Probably not. Should it have? Fairness dictates that the outcome probably should be different.

Releases are an essential mechanism for both plaintiffs and defendants. They offer a kind of safety net for parties on each side of a dispute. A plaintiff exchanges his or her right to sue for the guarantee of some compensation while a defendant receives exemption from suit in exchange for a smaller payout. Both parties benefit if a fair bargain is struck. If one party is of considerably disparate sophistication, as was the case of Mr. Signal, then there is a fundamental, almost extreme aversion to such an agreement.

A potential plaintiff is fully capable of essentially selling his right to sue but should not be tricked by a potential defendant that outclasses him or her in almost all relevant parameters. This is a noble position summarized extremely poignantly by the trial court in this case. The court said flatly that "this is not acceptable to the Court" when referring to BellSouth apparently trying to take advantage of Mr. Signal's plight. This court and the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit struck a blow for fairness in reaching these conclusions. Decisions like this one and those cited within it enshrine a sense of fair play and justice that help protect future victims from unfair business practices.

Continue reading "Successful Appeal for Fairness in Iberia Parish Car Accident Payment" »

Over the course of the last century, products liability law has become more detailed and specific in terms of protecting consumers from injury caused by products. If a product is found to be defective, in most cases any sellers along the chain of sale can be held liable. This means that, from the manufacturers to the retailer, all parties can be held liable if damage is caused by a product. The reason for this trend in the law is to give the benefit of the doubt to the consumer because the consumer needs protection. Further, stricter laws force manufacturers to produce better products. If they know that a defective product could potentially results in a multi-million dollar law suit, they will make sure the products they produce are safe.

This protection is especially true as it pertains to young children. Because children have less experience in life, there is a higher chance that they can make a mistake which would be unreasonable to make if it were an adult. However, even the law does not extend such benefits fully to all actions by children and teenagers. In a recent case, Payne v. Gardner, the Louisiana Supreme Court identified a point at which even a teenager could not be protected.

In 2004, in Rapides Parish, Henry Goudeau was playing around an oil well pump. The oil well pumps on oil wells move back and forth like a pendulum. As Henry was playing around the oil well pump, he noticed the movement of the pump and decided to use the pump as a pendulum type swing for recreational purposes. Afer he jumped on the pump when it reached its highest point, his leg got caught in another part of the pump which unfortunately lead Henry to be seriously injured. Henry's mother decided to sue the manufacturer of the pump, Lufkin Industries. A serious battle arose as to whom the blame should fall upon. Should Lufkin have know that their pumps would be used as a ride? Should Henry have used better care in making a determination of whether it was safe to ride on the pump?

In situations like this there can be no simple answer. However, the determination must be made with insight into the facts that existed at the time, and their relation to the law. At the trial court level, the court agreed with Lufkin. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision. The case ultimately found its way to the Supreme Court. The products liablity act in Louisiana is as follows:

The manufacturer of a product shall be liable to a claimant for damage proximately caused by a characteristic of the product that renders the product unreasonably dangerous when such damage arose from a reasonably anticipated use of the product by the claimant or another person or entity.

Further, reasonably anticipated use is defined as, "a use or handling of a product that the product's manufacturer should reasonable expect of an ordinary person in the same or similar circumstances." Lukfin provided evidence that at the time the oil well pump was built, 50 years ago, the sole purpose of the pump was to extract oil. There was never any intent on the part of the company to make its pump available for recreational use. The Supreme Court agreed and stated that on the part of the company, riding the pump would not be a reasonable foreseeable use. Thus, Lufkin had met its burden of proving that it used care when creating its product.

Although Henry was unlucky in his tragic accident and his ultimate case, one can never know who is legally to blame for an injury caused by a product or a machine.

Continue reading "Oil Pump Injury Demonstrates Limits of Liability for Child's Injury" »

The term "venue" refers to the particular court where a plaintiff should file his suit. In the case of car accidents and other tort actions, the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure gives the plaintiff a choice of venue. The plaintiff can file the suit in the parish where the accident occurred or, alternatively, in the parish where the defendant driver resides. When a liability insurer is involved as a defendant, the suit can also be filed in the parish where the insurance company is registered. The case of Lopez v. Richard illustrates how the misapplication of the venue rules can have serious, undesirable consequences for a plaintiff.

On March 31, 2006, Gil Lopez was rear-ended by another driver in Lafayette Parish. The driver was Josette Richard, a resident of Lafayette Parish who was insured by Allstate. On the last day of the one-year prescriptive period (April 2, 2007), Lopez filed suit in Iberia Parish, which is the parish where he and his wife live. Richard and Allstate filed an exception for improper venue, and the parties agreed to transfer the case to Lafayette Parish in August of 2007. Once the case was transferred, Richard and Allstate filed an exception of prescription, arguing that Lopez's action was not properly filed before the expiration of the prescription period. The Third Circuit agreed, stating that "it is well settled that the transfer of an action to a correct venue, after prescription has run, does not resurrect the plaintiff’s lawsuit." In an attempt to preserve his cause of action, Lopez offered the novel argument that venue in his home parish was proper under the state's "joint obligor" statute. That is, Lopez argued that because he was a beneficiary under Richard's Allstate policy, he was also an "insured" under the terms of the policy which provided Allstate's connection to Iberia Parish and permitted suit there. The court deemed this theory a misapplication of the law which was intended for suits involving Uninsured Motorist coverage, but not a direct policy such as the one Allstate had issued to Richard. Instead, Lopez is merely a "claimant" who will "be paid by Allstate on behalf of their insured, Richard, if Richard is found liable" for the accident. Thus, because Lopez filed his suit in the wrong parish and did not transfer it to a proper parish before the running of the prescription period, his case was dismissed.

The lesson from the Lopez case is that proper venue should be identified as early as possible to ensure that the prescriptive period does not expire before the suit can be filed in the correct court. Misfiling a suit does not toll the running of the period. Had Lopez not waited until the very last minute to file his original suit, he may have been able to transfer to the correct venue and avoid losing his case on a mere (but critically important) technicality.

Continue reading "Poor Choice of Venue Following Auto Accident in Lafayette Parish Leads to Dismissal of Suit" »

A person's worst fear when undergoing an invasive surgery, is for something to go wrong. For one patient, this fear came true when his doctor operated on the wrong knee. This severe error was not disputed by the Doctor, who admitted he erroneously operated on the plaintiff's right knee when he intended to treat the plaintiff patient's left knee with arthoscopic surgery. What was at issue in this recent Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision, is whether or not the injured plaintiff was awarded an appropriate amount in damages. Numerous factors are weighed when determining damages. However, in Louisiana, as well as numerous other states, there is a cap on how much a person may recover in a medical malpractice suit. Patients who have been injured face a litany of complicated issues and standards that are difficult to understand, thus, obtaining legal representation as soon as possible is highly recommended in order to protect legal rights throughout the process.

In a recent Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the court explored the amount of damages a patient was initially awarded for damages they sustained from an erroneously performed surgical procedure. The plaintiff patient complained on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding inadequate damages for past lost wages, past medical expenses, as well as pain and suffering. Additionally, the victim contended that the trial court erred in failing to award future lost wages and future medical expenses for the patient plaintiff and loss of consortium for his wife. The appellate court affirmed the trial courts damages award for numerous reasons, many based on statutory limits that are in place restricting the amount a patient may obtain. Yet, the decision is in large part held by the jury. The jury has the duty to hear the evidence and determine a price that may "make the plaintiff whole again." In this case, the jury decided that the patient plaintiff had $40,000 in pain and suffering and $10,000 in loss of income. It may seem a harsh factor in the legal process, that despite the severity of a patients injuries, the numerical value given such injuries is designed to "fix" such issues. The plaintiff in this case felt that the jury's damages award did not adequately resolve any of the issues he was experiencing after having the botched surgical procedure. Since the accident, the victim of this botched surgery had been experiencing serious issues in almost every part of his life, including that the knee which was erroneously operated on was in constant pain, decreased his range of motion, his sense of instability caused him to limp, insomnia, impaired ability to work, back pain induced by the limp which resulted in a herniated disk, and loss of consortium with his wife. Thus, the problems went deeper then the categorical terms such as "pain and suffering and loss of income." The court however, explains and supports their decision by exploring the governing statutes at issue.

Juries factual finding decisions are highly regarded, and under Louisiana law such decisions may not be set aside unless the appellate court finds that it is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. The appellate court will review the witnesses testimony at trial in order to determine whether or not their may have been an erroneous decision. Here, the plaintiff alleged he had to undergo four surgeries due to the Doctor operating on the wrong knee plus a discogram of his back. To support the additional damages that were a result of the erroneous surgical procedure performed by the defendant doctor, the plaintiff offered the testimony of a doctor who contended that the plaintiff would need two back and neck surgeries and would have pain in his right knee for the rest of his life. Further, the plaintiff would have to get a total knee replacement at some point in his life. In consequence to the erroneous surgery, the plaintiff was declared disabled by Social Security and began receiving Social Security Income payments. Additionally, the plaintiff was unable to perform the part time work he was previously able to and the couple eventually went bankrupt. Despite these very sad consequences, the court has to abide by the regulations and statutes that are in place and govern medical malpractice issues.

For health care providers that are insured by the state, they have their liability limited to $100,000 as described in the Patient Compensation Funds and Physicians Insurance. The Patient Compensation Fund (PCF) is the cap of what any injured patient may recover from any one or more doctors. Under Louisiana Statute § 40:1299.44, the liability of each qualified health care provider is limited to $100,000 plus interest per patient per incident. Judgments, settlements, or binding arbitration orders in excess of $100,000 per provider are paid out of the fund. The total recovery a patient may receive is limited to $500,000 plus future medical costs. However, such future medical costs are paid as incurred from the PCF. In the case at hand, the plaintiff patient was facing two major difficulties in the appellate court. First, in order to overturn the trial court's decision, there must have been manifest error in the jury's determination and award. Secondly, the plaintiff offered numerous witnesses, some whose testimony was determined not to be credible and others whose testimony was credible. The appellate court explored the lower level decision in order to determine whether or not the Doctor was liable for additional damages or whether the PCF was available for additional damages. The record contained a reasonable factual basis for each factual finding from which plaintiffs sought relief on appeal. In fact, the appellate court could not find any clear wrong or manifest error. The jury and trial judge heard the testimony and were in the best position to evaluate variations in demeanor and tone of voice that influence heavily the listener's understanding and belief in what is said. Virtually, the jury's decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses and reject others is never considered manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. So, the fact that the defendant doctor was covered by the PCF protected him from paying any of the appellate court costs involved, or even having to pay any additional damages. Instead, the appellate court determined that the PCF and the plaintiff were to divide the costs attributale to the appellate court and pay in equal amounts. Therefore, at the end of the day, a jury's decision making ability is highly regarded, and it takes a substantial amount of error to overturn such a decision.

Thus, a medical malpractice case is a difficult and arduous process. An injured patient has to go through more than the physical pain sustained from a poorly performed surgery, but they also have to experience the complicated legal process that is involved. Having a competent legal representative is a necessity in such situations, someone who can protect your legal rights, answer all of your questions, and make a difficult process easier to handle.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice and the Patient Compensation Fund" »

As discussed previously on this blog, the primary duty of Louisiana's Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) is to maintain the public roadways in a condition that is reasonably safe and which does not present an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists who exercise ordinary care. As outlined in this recent post, a plaintiff must prove the following elements in order to hold the DOTD liable for damages arising from an accident on the roadway: (1) that the condition that caused the damage was in DOTD's control; (2) that the condition amounted to a defect that presented an unreasonable risk of harm; and (3) that the DOTD was aware or should have been aware that the defect existed. In addressing the extent of the risk of harm, litigants often rely on the standards established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ("AASHTO") which, while not mandatory in Louisiana, offer a point of reference for whether DOTD's design of a particular roadway presented an unreasonable risk. The AASHTO's standards have evolved over time, however, and in many cases they have become stricter and more elaborate as vehicular traffic volume has increased. In light of this, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that DOTD does not have duty to bring old highways up to modern standards unless a major reconstruction of the highway is undertaken. The question of what qualifies as a "major reconstruction" was at the center of the recent case in the First Circuit Court of Appeal, Davis v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Co.

On the evening of April 22, 2003 Nathaniel Davis, a flatbed truck driver for the Purpera Lumber Company, legally parked his truck in the northbound lane of La. Hwy. 308 so he could deliver a load of lumber to a residential construction site adjacent to the highway. Davis parked in the travel lane because there was no driveway at the site that would accommodate his truck and because the road, which was maintained by DOTD, had no shoulder. Davis was severely injured when his truck was rear-ended by an elderly driver who made no attempt to slow down before she collided with the truck. Davis filed suit naming DOTD as a defendant. His theory of recovery was based on the road's lack of a shoulder, a deisgn which violated the then-current AASHTO standards requiring an eight-foot extension of the highway. Presumably, the shoulder would have offered a safer location for parking his truck. Ultimately, the First Circuit reviewed a verdict in the trial court in which the jury determined that the lack of a shoulder posed an unreasonably dangerous risk to Davis. However, the jury also found that DOTD did not know (and had no duty to have known) about this condition and thereofre had no duty to cure the defect by constructing a shoulder. Davis argued that a resurfacing project undertaken by the DOTD some years prior to the accident qualified as "major reconstruction" which put DOTD on notice of its duty to upgrade the roadway to include a shoulder. The First Circuit court disagreed, noting that "there is no evidence from which to conclude that the roadway underwent a major reconstruction at that location or even that the State had obtained additional rights of way [necessary for such significant work] in the area of the accident site." Accordingly, the court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of DOTD.

This is another example in a long line of cases that demonstrates the challenge of winning a claim against DOTD under an ordinary negligence theory. The Louisiana legislature and courts have made clear that DOTD is not the "guarantor for the safety of all of the motoring public [n]or the insurer for all injuries or damages resulting from any risk posed by obstructions on or defects in the roadway." As a result, an injured plaintiff must have a skilled attorney who understands the nature of DOTD's responsibilities to those who use the highways.

Continue reading "Court Examines DOTD Liability for Lack of Road Shoulder in Ascension Parish Auto Accident" »

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be employed by a plaintiff to establish the defendant’s breach of duty in the absence of direct evidence of the defendant's negligent conduct. However, use of the doctrine "does not relieve the plaintiff of the ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence all of the elements necessary for recovery." To prevail in a negligence claim based on the "ruin, vice, or defect in things," the plaintiff must show that the defendant knew or should have known of the defect and that the harm to the plaintiff could have been prevented by the defendant's reasonable care. See Cangelosi v. Our Lady of the Lake Medical Center.
As the plaintiff in Shuff v. Brookshire Grocery Co. learned, the doctrine cannot be invoked to circumvent this fundamental burden.

On October 15, 2006, Ashley Shuff entered the Super One Foods grocery store in Bastrop with her two children. Upon arrival, Shuff placed her 20-month-old daughter, Cloe, into the child seat that was built into one of the store’s shopping carts and fastened the seat belt. Shuff admitted that the belt mechanism appeared to be working properly when she buckled Cloe in. A short while later, Cloe fell from the seat to the store's concrete floor and broke her arm. A store patron who observed the incident later inspected the seat and discovered that a prong on the belt's snap was broken. Shuff sued the grocery store on behalf of her daughter on a negligence theory for damages caused by "ruin, vice, or defect in things." In the trial court, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Shuff argued that the store's liability for the incident was governed by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur becuase it had responsibilty to maintain the seat and its safety belt. The court denied Shuff's motion and dismissed her claims.

On appeal, the Second Circuit explained that res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable to Shuff's claim because ample direct evidence on the elements existed. In fact, on the element of whether the store knew or should have known of the problem with the belt snap, the direct evidence worked against Shuff's negligence argument. The store's assistant manager testified that no store employees had any knowledge of the problem with the snap prior to Cloe's fall. Further, Shuff's own testimony that the snap was functioning properly at the time she buckled Cloe into the seat "demonstrate[d] a lack of constructive knowledge of the defect" by the store employees. Essentially, the court determined that if Shuff did not obtain actual knowledge of a problem with the snap at the time she placed her daughter in the seat, it could reasonably not impute constructive knowledge of the problem to the store. Thus, the court concluded that "[s]ince actual or constructive knowledge is an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action," Shuff failed to prove her claim. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the action.

The Shuff case demonstrates that basic negligence principles govern the outcome of most disputes. Although certain doctrines like res ipsa loquitur exist to address unusual situations (such as when direct evidence is truly unavailable), courts prefer to rely on traditional burdens of proof and to avoid presumptions of fault whenever possible.

Continue reading "Court Weighs Applicability of Res Ipsa Loquitur in Morehouse Parish Grocery Store Mishap" »

According to Louisiana law, a landowner "owes a duty to a plaintiff to discover any unreasonably dangerous condition, and either to correct the condition or warn of its existence." However, the courts have consistently held that landowners generally have no duty to protect against "open and obvious" hazards. If the facts show that the condition that caused a plaintiff's injury should be "obvious to all," the condition is less likely to be considered unreasonably dangerous; in such a situation, the landowner may owe no duty at all to the injured plaintiff. The determination of whether a crack in a Shreveport sidewalk was unreasonably dangerous was at the center of the recent case of Williams v. Rubens Residential Properties, LLC.

On the morning of May 4, 2006, Marion Williams was walking with her friend on Line Avenue in the Cedar Grove neighborhood. Williams tripped on a buckle in the concrete sidewalk, fall forward, and shattered her right wrist. After seeking immediate medical attention, Williams returned to the scene and took several photographs of the buckle. Over the next several months, she required several significant surgeries which left her with pins in her wrist and lingering pain which is expected to get worse over time.

Williams sued the City of Shreveport, which filed a motion for summary judgment in which it argued that it was obligated to provide a sidewalk in reasonably safe, but not perfect, condition and that it was not liable for the "open and obvious hazard which should have been observed by anyone in the exercise of reasonable care." The City relied on the deposition testimony of its Superintendent of Streets and Drainage, Ernie Negrete, who explained that the City does not perform routine inspections of all its sidewalks because doing so would be too costly. Instead, the City takes corrective action based on the roughly 6,000 calls it receives from citizens each year to report problems. The City had no record of any calls about the particular location where Williams fell. Williams's cross-motion urged that the sidewalk posed an "unreasonable risk of harm" of which the City did have notice, given that the buckle apparently had existed for over 15 years. The trial court denied the City's motion and the matter went to a bench trial in February, 2010. The trial judge found Williams's testimony and the testimony of her friend and husband "extremely credible" and accepted her assertion that she simply could not see the buckle in the sidewalk. The court awarded Williams almost $340,000 in damages including lost wages and medical expenses. In its appeal, the City argued that the trial court committed manifest error in failing to find that the defect in the sidewalk was open and obvious. The Second Circuit noted that the trial court's decision was based on the testimony of three witnesses who claimed that from the pedestrian's vantage point, the buckle was not apparent. Also, the City did not put on any evidence as to the height of the buckle or whether it was obvious to a pedestrian. Thus, the court concluded that the trial judge "was entitled to find that the condition was not open and obvious to a person walking straight down the sidewalk in the exercise of reasonable care." Finding no manifest error, the court affirmed the trialc court's judgment for Williams.

Although Williams was successful in her claim against the City, one wonders if the outcome would have been different if the City had put on any evidence to refute her assertion that the buckle could not be seen by pedestrians on the sidewalk. Given that the City's liability turned on the very issue of whether the defect was open and obvious, it seems possible that the trial court could have sided with the City if it had offered some evidence on the question.

Continue reading "Court Mulls Open and Obvious Defect in Shreveport Trip and Fall Case" »

An employer takes a worker as he finds him or her, and a worker who is more susceptible to injury is entitled to no less protection under the Louisiana Workers Compensation Act than a healthy one. This holding comes from a Louisiana Appellate decision that supports the concept that employees, who are injured in the course of employment, are to be provided appropriate compensation and medical care. A recent 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Decision explored workers compensation in Louisiana, and the elements necessary to obtain compensation, despite underlying health risk that may have helped create the injury in question. In Lloyd v. Shady Lake Nursing Home, the nursing home sought for the court to apply the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Act, in order to avoid having to pay higher damages to the surviving spouse and family under a negligence or tort based remedy.

Margaret Caldwell was the focus of the Court's analysis, and her suffered injury and subsequent death. Mrs. Caldwell, was a fifty-four year old woman, known to be suffering from morbid obesity, worked as a Certified Nursing Assistant at the Shady Oaks Nursing Home for over twenty years. One day, as she was cleaning her station, mopping the floors, she spotted a patient out of his room. She asked him to return to his room and it was at this point he attacked her, striking her in the face. Immediately following the attack, Mrs. Caldwell experienced elevated blood pressure levels and was taken to East Carroll Parish Hospital, where only a few hours later she was pronounced dead. The autopsy found the immediate cause of death to be hypertensive heart disease and coronary artery disease, with the underlying cause of death being a physical blow to the face. This last portion became the ultimate point of controversy between Mrs. Caldwell's family and Shady Oaks, as her employer attempted to rely on a specific Louisiana Revised Statute that negates workers compensation benefits for heart related illnesses or death that arises during the scope of employment. The court explores the meaning behind each element of workers compensation and definitional terms in order to formulate their decision.

To begin with, the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Act, provides medical help and/or compensation or injuries or possible death that occurs during the course of employment. However, breaking this down into sections, one must understand what injury/accident legally means, and how it is measured in order to determine whether one is afforded such relief. An accident is defined by La. R.S. 23:1021(1) as follows:

"[A]n unexpected or unforeseen actual, identifiable, precipitous event happening suddenly or violently, with or without human fault, and directly producing at the time objective findings of an injury which is more than simply a gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration."

Such types of injuries are thus, protected and covered by the Worker's Compensation Act. However, there are limitations applied to certain accidents that occur under certain circumstances, even if they occur during the course of employment. of specific relevance is La. R.S. 23:1021(8)(e), which provides,

"Heart-related or perivascular injuries. A heart-related or perivascular injury, illness or death, shall not be considered a personal injury by accident arising out of an in the course of employment and is not compensable pursuant to this Chapter unless it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that:

(i.) The physical work stress was extraordinary and unusual in comparison to the stress or exertion experienced by the average employee in that occupation, and (ii.) The physical work stress or exertion, and not some other source of stress or preexisting condition, was the predominant and major cause of the heart-related or perivascular injury, illness, or death."

The Court denied Shady Oaks attempt for summary judgment, based on the tenuous argument that the patient's act of striking Mrs. Caldwell should be considered an accident that aggravated her preexisting condition resulting in her stroke and heart attack. The defendants had not shown by the required "clear and convincing evidence," that the work environment was extraordinary and unusual or that the physical stress or exertion she had to perform in the course of her employment, was higher than other types of employment related duties. Thus, the court next had to evaluate the work environment, and whether the incident in question was extraordinary or whether it was a normal happening for Mrs. Caldwell during the course of her employment.

The tragic incident that Mrs. Caldwell experienced shortly before her death, was thoroughly explored by the Court. The specific patient who attacked her did not have a history of attacking nurses, however, testimony given declared such incidents of physical assault were not rare for certified nurse's or staff to experience. The court ultimately determined that reasonable minds could disagree as to whether or not Mrs. Caldwell experienced extraordinary or unusual physical work stress and whether that stress, versus her pre-existing conditions, was the predominant and major cause of her heart-related death. Yet, the court does not end their discussion there, the court desiring compensation for the loss Mrs. Caldwell's family incurred, explore an alternative avenue that is available.

Where an employee is not entitled to a remedy or compensation under the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Act, then there is no immunity in tort for the employer. Remember, that when one is afforded the worker's compensation benefits, they have traded their right and ability to sue the employer in tort for negligence. Thus, if worker's compensation is not available or obtainable, than a tort remedy is available. Thus, her family is able to pursue an intentional tort, such as battery and assault against Shady Oaks for the acts of the patient performed against the late Mrs. Caldwell.

Therefore, there are many available legal routes and avenues to pursue if the unfortunate occurrence happens that one is physically injured or is killed during the course of their employment. Louisiana affords protection to its residents, desiring compensation for losses in order to promote the public policy of having an efficient administration of justice. Thus, if Louisiana Worker's Compensation Act is not available to one who is injured or killed, than tort remedies may be available, thus, providing relief to those who would otherwise be prevented from receiving anything.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently provided guidance on the jurisdictional limit for proper filings in Louisiana civil courts. At issue in the case of Thompson v. State Farm was the jurisdictional limit required for proper filing in city court. While filing may seem to the unknowing person on the street like a minor issue, a failure to file a case in the correct district can have dire consequences for the case of a well-intending plaintiff.

In Thompson, the plaintiff sought damages from injuries she sustained in a rear-end chain reaction collision allegedly caused by a driver insured by State Farm. In her filing, she named the driver at fault and State Farm as defendants. Thompson's husband joined the suit and sought damages for loss of consortium, medical expenses, and loss of his wife's income due to the injuries she suffered. In their petitions, which were filed in Alexandria City Court, the plaintiffs explicitly demanded an amount "less than the jurisdictional maximum of [the] court." The Alexandria City Court entered judgment for the plaintiff, awarding her $50,000 in general damages and her husband $20,000 for loss of consortium and $30,000 for past and future medical expenses on behalf of the community. Subsequently, State Farm filed an exception for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that it was improper for the city court to have heard the case since the amount of damages awarded exceeded the court's jurisdictional limit of $50,000. The appellate court agreed, vacating the judgment and remanding the case to the lower court in order to transfer the action to a court of competent jurisdiction.

The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the ruling, finding that the test for subject matter jurisdiction of a city court is the amount in dispute, or the amount demanded by the plaintiff. According to the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, the Alexandria City Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in civil cases where the amount in dispute does not exceed $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Since both plaintiffs unequivocally limited the amount demanded to "an amount less than the jurisdictional maximum of... yet within the jurisdictional limits of [the Alexandria city] court," the Supreme Court concluded that the city court had proper subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's judgment but remanded the case on another issue.

Thompson v. State Farm demonstrates the importance of filing suit in a proper court, which entails filing the case in a court with subject matter jurisdiction, or power to hear the case. When filing a lawsuit, plaintiffs must initially determine where to file the claim since there are several state trial courts that have jurisdiction over civil cases. As shown by Thompson v. State Farm, if jurisdiction is ever challenged and upheld, the consequences are costly to a plaintiff who may end up losing a favorable judgment or relitigating the matter on jurisdictional grounds. Issues like this demonstrate why hiring the proper attorney, who can navigate these very tricky pitfalls, is essential when trying to receive justice for damages suffered caused by someone else.

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 " »

Previously on this blog, we examined the concept of a "substitute vehicle" for purposes of extending insurance coverage for an auto that is used only temporarily and in place of a policyholder's usual car. In this situation, the insurer is required by state law to extend the same coverage to the substitute car as was in place for the regular vehicle. This requirement, however, does not necessarily apply to a vehicle that a driver simply borrows from another ownerin addition to the vehicle covered by his policy. A vehicle under this arrangement is known as a "non-owned" auto and, as the plaintiff in Burns v. Couvillionlearned, coverage is determined by the language of the owner's policy.

On October 12, 2005, Linda Burns was driving on Highway 1 in Simmesport when she was rear-ended by a bean harvester farm vehicle operated by Burton Dupuis. At the time of the accident, Dupuis was engaged in work for his employer, Victor Lachney. The bean harvester was owned by Ted and Don Couvillion and had been loaned to Lachney for use by Dupuis that day. Burns filed a lawsuit for damages against the parties and also Progressive Insurance, alleging that Progressive had issued a policy to Lachney which applied to the bean harvester. Progressive admitted that it had issued a policy to Lachney that provided coverage on a different vehicle but denied that coverage extended to the bean harvester. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the trial court granted judgment in favor of Progressive.

On appeal, Burns argued that coverage should apply to the bean harvester because the Progressive policy included an "Employer's Non-Ownership Liability Endorsement," which stated that “[t]he definition of insured auto is modified to include a non-owned auto when you or any of your employees use the non-owned auto in your business.” Progressive countered that the policy had not been modified by the Endorsement because, although it was among the various endorsements and other forms that accompanied the policy, it was not listed on the policy's Declarations Page which specifically identified the forms that modified the policy. In fact, the policy contained the following language:

"All forms in the endorsement section may not pertain to your policy. Please refer to your Declarations Page for form numbers associated with your policy. All other parts of the policy that have not been modified by an endorsement will remain unchanged."

The Third Circuit, applying "ordinary contract principles," noted that the "policy reveals clear and unambiguous language... [and] expressly notes in bold language that not all endorsements pertain to a given policy." Finding that the Employer's Non-Ownership Liability Endorsement did not apply to the policy because it was not among the endorsements and modifications listed on the Declarations page, the court concluded that "Dupuis was not an insured under the Progressive policy and that the [bean harvester] vehicle was not an insured auto under the Progressive policy."

The Burns case reveals a common but potentially troublesome practice among insurers. Many policies are drafted using a standardized, boilerplate template where certain portions may or may not apply to the policy depending on whether they are specifically referenced in the appropriate sections. This can lead to considerable confusion on the part of the insured unless he or she understands the requirements for adding or removing provisions within the policy. This case suggests no hesitation on the part of the court to enforce these types of agreements, so policy owners are well advised to review all insurance documents and confirm they reflect the level of coverage that is expected.

Continue reading "Simmesport Auto Accident Reminds Insurance Policy Holders: Read Your Policy Carefully!" »

Under Louisiana law, an issuer of a property insurance policy is required to follow certain procedures when renewing the policy. Essentially, an insurance company must give a property owner 30 days' notice of either 1) its decision not to renew a policy, or 2) the homeowner's option to renew when it expires. La. R.S. 22:887(G). Case law adds the stipulation that, in most cases, an insurer's failure to provide this notice will result in an automatic renewal of the policy. If there is a dispute, the insurer faces an initial burden to prove that it mailed the required notice, which creates a presumption the insured received the notice. The property owner may rebut this presumption by offering evidence that the notice was never delivered. The ultimate factual determination must be made by the trial court.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this approach in the case of Nolan v. Mabray. On June 18, 2005, Wilson Mabray and Marsh Nolan were shooting off fireworks at Mabray's family farm in Union Parish. Wilson shot a bottle rocket which struck and severely injured Marsh. Wilson's father ("Mabray") maintained a farm-owner's policy issued by Shelter Insurance Company. When March sued for his injuries, Shelter disputed that the policy was in effect at the time of the accident, arguing that the policy had lapsed: Shelter asserted that it mailed Mabray a renewal notice on April 28, 2005 which stated the premium was due on June 2, 2005. However, the company did not receive payment until nearly a month late, on June 29, 2005. At trial, a Shelter employee offered testimony about the company's computer-generated renewal notices and automated mailing process. The employee produced records of the company's April 28 letter and also a separate "lapse letter" mailed on June 20 that warned Mabray his policy had been cancelled. Mabray's local agent, who was copied on the lapse letter, personally contacted Mabray on June 29 and collected payment the same day. On the issue of whether he ever received the renewal notice, Mabray testified by way of deposition that he did not remember receiving it, and that if he had, he would have paid the premium right away. However, Mabray testified it was possible he overlooked the notice as April through June were especially busy months on the farm during which he "might have stuff sit on [his] desk for a couple of weeks before it gets opened.” Mabray further stated that “[he] could certainly not swear that it did not come to [his] mailbox and actually get on [his] desk." He also admitted that several other insurance policies with Shelter had lapsed in the past because he did not pay the premium on time. Based on this evidence, the trial court found that Shelter did mail the renewal notice to Mabray on April 28, 2005 and, therefore, the policy was not in effect at the time of the bottle rocket incident because it had lapsed.

The Second Circuit reversed, finding that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that the renewal notice had been mailed. This decision was based primarily on the fact that Shelter did not introduce evidence of any person's actual knowledge that the notice was mailed. The Louisiana Supreme court disagreed. Applying the manifest error standard of review, the Court held that

"the issue of mailing is a factual issue to be decided by the trial court, and testimony from the person who actually mailed the notice is not required. Our Code of Evidence expressly permits the use of records of regularly conducted business activities as exceptions to the hearsay rule."

The Court continued, "while a factual determination on the notice issue may not be appropriate for summary judgment, it is prime for trial on the merits, where the factfinder’s determination is entitled to great weight." With obvious frustration, the Court admonished the Second Circuit for failing to defer to the trial court's finding:

"The evidence cited by the court of appeal to reverse this factual finding was merely evidence in support of its own evaluation of
the facts, and, as we have instructed courts of appeal numerous times, that is not a
permissible basis to overturn a trial court’s factual finding. Merely because there is
some factual support in the record for a contrary view does not permit an appellate
court to overturn a trial court’s factual finding under the manifest error rule."

. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision and reinstated the trial court's judgment.

The Nolan case reminds litigants that the time to settle factual disputes is in the trial court, particularly where the case largely turns on circumstantial evidence. An appellate court must find serious error on the part of a judge or jury in making determinations of fact to substitute its own judgment, even if it feels after reviewing the record that its version of the events in question is more likely.

Continue reading "Union Parish Bottle Rocket Injury Results in Dispute Over Insurance Policy Renewal" »

Car accidents occur every day, and the first question that is usually asked is who was at fault for the accident. This determination is not easy, however, a Louisiana second circuit court of appeal's case explored fault in order to allocate liability to the parties respectively. In Gentry v. State Farm, the Court held that both parties were at fault, the defendants were found to be 75% at fault, while the plaintiff, Gentry, was 25% at fault. The court came to this conclusion after looking at both drivers duties while driving, analyzing whether the drivers breached their duties, looking into the rules of the road, determining whether the duties of the road were breached, and looking at the duties that were found to be breached by each driver in order to find the ultimate percentages of fault in order to allocate damages. Thus, it is not always an either/or situation (one party may not be wholly responsible for the car accident) but, rather, partially responsible, so the analysis takes on a more in depth review of the circumstances that existed at the time of the accident.

An appellate court must give great deference to the allocation of fault determined by the trier of fact. Consequently, the allocation of fault may be determined within an acceptable range and any allocation by the fact finder, or trial court within that range, cannot be clearly wrong. The only way an appellate court may disturb the trial court's fault determination is if the apportionment of fault is clearly wrong, allowing the appellate court, only then, to disturb the trial court's award. Here, both parties were seeking a finding of 100% fault for the opposing party, asking the appellate court to reverse the apportionment determination found by the trial court in order to dismiss the percentages of fault that were initially determined. If the trial court's determination of fault is found to be clearly wrong, the appellate court is then permitted to adjust the award, but only to the extent of lowering or raising it to the highest or lowest point respectively which is reasonably within the trial court's discretion.

After reviewing both party's evidence put forward at the trial court level, the appellate court determined that manifest error existed in the record, and allowed for a reframing of liability findings, but only to the minimum extent to achieve reasonableness. So, it is not unheard of for appellate courts to find error of fault determinations held at the trial level, if the trier of fact proves to be clearly wrong, the appellate court may proceed to adjust accordingly.

In the instant case, each side requested the appellate court to assess the other party with 100% fault. But, after reviewing the facts, the appellate court determined they were each at fault at varying percentages. The car accident involved a son driving his father down the right lane of West Bern Kouns four lane highway. At the same time, leaving his plumber and pipefitter's school, the plaintiff apparently came to a stop before entering the highway. It was at this point that the accident occurred, with the defendant's vehicle crashing into the plaintiff's. Here is where the facts become complicated; the defendants stated that the plaintiff pulled his vehicle out in front of them, causing the accident. However, the plaintiff states that as a result of his injuries incurred from the accident, he could not recall anything except stopping before the crash. The accident report assessed the plaintiff's inattentiveness as a cause of the accident, although no one was formally cited with a violation. Also, a witness, who was behind the plaintiff when the accident occurred, stated that the defendant's care traveling at 60-65 miles per hour, struck the plaintiff, and that he never saw the plaintiff's brake lights go out before the crash. This would indicate that the plaintiff did not pull his vehicle out in front of the defendants as they maintained. However, the fact that the plaintiff could not recall any specifics in relation to the accident may have hurt his case. The defendants on the other hand, were determined to have had the right of way and high quality evidence, including:

- The father and son's testimony,
- The accident report's finding that the plaintiff's inattentiveness was a cause of the accident, and
- the witnesses admission that he was unsure whether or not the plaintiff was intruding on the highway or not at the time of the crash.

The appellate court concluded that manifest error was in the record, and permitted them to reframe the liability findings, but only to the minimum extent to achieve reasonableness. The ultimate determination was the plaintiff at 75% fault, and the defendant to be 25% at fault, with costs of court to be assesses on the same basis. The strong evidential support the defendant's offered outweighed and ultimately helped them reduce the fault determination initially made by the trial court.

Fault is not something that can be determined in an "all or nothing," type fashion. Rather, it is a careful weighing of the facts in order to determine how each party may have added to the ultimate fault, the car accident. Both parties here put forth evidence to support their side; however, one the defendant's evidence simply outweighed the plaintiff's. Thus, the appellate court, after reviewing the record, determined that the initial fault determination was clearly wrong, and reallocated the fault percentages to better illustrate the evidentiary findings. Thus, fault is a step by step analysis that requires exploring each piece of the puzzle in order to accurately assess who is at fault, and for how much.

In civil litigation, the defendant is responsible for the damage caused to the plaintiff(s) when found responsible for causing harm. This damage may be either physical or property damage. If a defendant is found to be at fault, the next question is usually to what extent the defendant is liable for any resulting injuries. In normal circumstances, experts provide testimony concerning physical and property damage, and any intangible damages such as lost wages, mental distress, etc. In some circumstances, the plaintiff may have a preexisting condition. This preexisting condition may make the damages the plaintiff suffers more likely. Further, the injury or accident may exacerbate the preexisting condition. There is a civil law maxim that "the defendant takes the plaintiff as he is at the time of the accident." This is commonly referred to as the eggshell rule. In a recent case, Miriam Dyess vs. State Farm Insurance Co. ET AL., the Court describes how the eggshell rule relates to an award for damages.

In this case, Dyess was driving in Alexandria, Louisiana, when another car pulled in front of the plaintiff's car. The result was that Dyess ran into the back of the other vehicle. The driver of the other vehicle was insured by State Farm Insurance. Plaintiff was insured by Farmer's Insurances (Farmers). As a result of the injury, Dyess suffered injuries to the neck, shoulder, hand, back, right leg, and has headaches, foot pain, and numbness. The plaintiff was also awarded $103,000 in damages. Farmers appeals the decision stating (1) there was only $1,500 worth of damages, (2) plaintiff denied any injuries at the scene of the accident, and (3) plaintiff's injuries were as a result of a pre-exisiting carpal tunnel syndrome and fibromyalgia. Farmers appealed to set aside or reduce the $103,000 award as manifestly erroneous, and that the court erred in awarding damages and medical expenses for injuries other than those to plaintiff's neck.

The basis of the award that the trial court gave plaintiff was the eggshell rule. The trial court stated that plaintiff was an eggshell victim who already had some medical problems. But, as such, you must take the victim as you find them. The Appellate Court's applicable standard of review is that it cannot set aside findings of fact unless it is manifestly erroneous or unless it is clearly wrong. Where the jury's findings are reasonable, in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse. Although, there was some inconsistent evidence, plaintiff provided uncontroverted evidence that her preexisiting condition was exacerbated due to the accident. Defendant's liability is not mitigated by the fact that plaintiff's preexisting physical infirmity was responsible in part for the consequences of plaintiff's injury by the defendant. It is clear that the defendant takes his victim as he finds him and is responsible for all natural and probable consequences of his tortous conduct. However, plaintiff fails to carry the requisite burden of proving causation if the pre-accident and post-accident conditions are identical in all meaningful respects. Thus, because the plaintiff provided uncontroverted evidence that the injuries exacerbated any pre-existing condition, she has met her burden.

These are the facts upon which the trial court awarded $103,000 in damages. The role of the appellate court is not to fix an award that it deems appropriate to the case, but, instead, to determine whether, based on the effect of the partiuclar injuries on the particular plaintiff in the particular circumstances which plaintiff finds himself in, the award is an abuse of discretion of the trier of fact. The eggshell rule and exacerbated symptoms were reasonable enough factual and legal reasons to find that the trial court's award was within its discretion.

Continue reading "Appellate Court Outlines Standard of Review for Damage Awards" »

A gangway is a pathway that connects the ship to the dock at which it has stopped. It is the means by which the crew and cargo of a ship are moved onto and off of the ship. Usually ships have detachable gangways that the ship crew put on the side of the ship when the ship is docked. Other times, docks have policies that require the ships to use gangways that are provided by the dock owner. As in any other legal field, the use of gangways are subject to rules of negligence and duties of care. The question in a recent case, Landers v. Bollinger Amelia Repair, was whether a dock owner was liable for a gangway provided to a ship under the stated policy of the dock owner that all ships must use gangways provided by the dock.

On June 12, 2006, the M/V Roseanna docked on the Bollinger Amelia Repair (BAR) dock. The reason for docking there was that the Roseanna's hull had been breached, and it needed repair. The Roseanna had a gangway on its ship, but it was full of cargo and could not be used to access the dock. In any case, BAR had a policy of requiring all docked ships to use a BAR provided gangway. Thus, Landers, an employee of the Roseanna, and another Roseanna employee got a gangway from BAR and installed it.

The gangway was inspected by a Roseanna employee and was found to be in good condition. The gangway was used many times that day. The crew of the Roseanna discovered that the hull of the ship could be fixed without the aid of BAR and proceeded to do so. At the end of its use, the gangway was removed by Landers and another member of the Roseanna crew. Upon removal, the gangway sprung up hitting Landers in the back and causing injury. Subsequently, Landers brought suit against BAR arguing that due to BAR's stated policy of requiring the use of BAR gangways, BAR was liable for the injury caused to him under general Maritime negligence law.

Landers' argument was essentially that due to BAR's policy, BAR stepped into the vessel owner's shoes and thus assumed a maritime duty to provide a gangway free from hidden defects. The issue with Lander's case was that there was no case law that backed his claim. There were two ways in which Landers could have brought his claim. The first way was under general state negligence law. The problem with this approach was that the statute of limitations to bring this suit had already run. The other means was under general maritime negligence law. As stated above, there was no precedent upon which Landers rested his case. He essentially was asking the Court to expand the law with his claim. Although there was no case exactly on point, it is a well established that the gangway of a ship comes under general maritime law. Further, it is well established that the vessel owner has a fundamental duty to provide its crew members with a reasonably safe means of boarding and departing from a vessel. Furthermore, this duty of the vessel owner, that the vessel owner provide a seaworthy ship, is absolute and nondelegable. Thus, under general maritime law, if the dock owner is held liable for the gangway, the dock owner would also have to be the ship's owner. General maritime law is a law which relates to the vessel. Thus, it would be illogical to extend the protection of the crew members, which belongs to the vessel owner, to a dock owner unaffiliated with the ship or its crew. Thus, the Court held that there was no relationship between Landers and BAR to create liability under maritime law. Landers could bring suit under a state law theory, but Landers was out of luck on that claim because the statute of limitations had already run.

There may be many theories under which a case can be brought. Further, there may be different areas under which cases may fall. In Landers' case, he could have brought a state law and maritime law claim. However, because he waited too long to seek legal counsel, his state law claim expired and he was left with only a maritime law claim, which ultimately failed. Filing under both areas of law would have increased his chances of success. If you have been injured on the job, it is important that you seek legal counsel.

Continue reading "Court Outlines Responsibilities of Dockowner in Employee Injury" »

In Louisiana, there are certain steps that need to be taken in order to file a case for medical malpractice. In order to get a case to trial, a plaintiff must first submit a malpractice petition to a medical review board. The board reviews the facts surrounding a case and compares health care providers with a basic standard of care required for those practitioners in the locale in which they practice. If the board decides in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff can take the case to a judicial proceeding. A civil case in Louisiana must be filed or settled within a year.

This is the basic fall-back provision of how long a case can remain in effect. The legislature has the authority to add to this period for certain causes of action, in certain circumstances. For example, a medical malpractice claim must usually be filed within one year from the negligent treatment. However, if the plaintiff did not know that the medical malpractice occurred, the plaintiff can file within one year of discovering the malpractice. In any case, no claim can be filed more than three years after the alleged negligent treatment. Thus, even if the negligent treatment is not discoverable until four years have gone by, the plaintiff will be out of luck and the time for filing the suit will have expired.

The medical review board takes a great deal of time to make a decision. Thus, while the review board is making a determination, the one year prescription period is stopped to allow the board to make its decision without taking away the plaintiff's time to bring a case. However, once the review board has made a decision, the plaintiff only has 90 days plus any additional time left over from the one year prescription period to file a claim.

In Beverley Blake v. Dr. Warren Maley, a Louisiana court discussed how these different time frames interlock. Mrs. Blake brought a suit on her behalf and on behalf of her two children due to alleged malpractice by Dr. Maley, when the doctor was treating her husband. As a result of alleged mismanagement of medical treatment, Mr. Blake suffered amputated fingers, feet, and hands. Mrs. Blake brought the matter before the board on June 2, 2004. The alleged malpractice occurred on June 22, 2003. At this point, Mrs. Blake brought the matter before the review board in a timely matter. The board made its decision on March 15, 2007, unanimously ruling in favor of all defendants. On November 3, 2009, Mrs. Blake filed suit against Dr. Maley in court. She stated that the review panel did not make an informed decision and that she was still entitled to file her case before court. She claimed that after her husband died, and after the board made its determination, she fell into an extreme depression and was unable to make determinations. She argued that she had three total years to file her suit. However, in Louisiana, in order to get three years to file a medical malpractice claim, a party must not know, and should not be able to know, that malpractice occurred until a later date than when the malpractice occurred. Mrs. Blake never alleged that she was unaware that malpractice occurred. In fact, her taking the case to the medical board showed that she believed that there had been negligence. Therefore, this argument did not work.

She further argued that since she was in a state of depression she had no idea what was going on. She argued that the one year time period should be stalled during the period when she had fallen into a state of depression. Louisiana law states,"Prescription runs against absent persons and incompetents, including minors and interdicts, unless exception is established by legislation." There is no law in Louisiana that excuses a violation of the prescriptive period due to depression. The period continues to run regardless of the plaintiff's mindset.

Mrs. Blake was unfortunate because she lost her legal representation right before she fell into a state of depression. She failed to hire new legal counsel and had thus let the prescriptive period expire without a fight. Acquiring legal counsel gives a party an objective non-emotional partner in a law suit. Even if the party is depressed, sad, or angry, competent legal counsel will remain objective and committed to finding a solution to a problem.

Continue reading "Disastrous Results for Plaintiffs that Wait Too Long to File Suit" »

Asbestos-related illnesses have impacted many families throughout the nation. The impact of asbestos exposure can lead to serious terminal illnesses. Partly as a response to such illnesses, the federal government created the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (LHWCA). The act provides injury and occupational-disease protection for those who work on the navigable waters of the United States.

In the past, the Louisana shoreline was home to many companies that were involved with the direct use of asbestos. Those individuals who were impacted by the use of asbestos in such areas are potentially protected by the LHWCA. The act provides for a set of procedures that must be fulfilled prior to any case reaching a court of law. At first, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reviews the facts of the case and decides whether the LHWCA provides relief for any party. If this decision is appealed, it will go to the Benefits Review Board (BRB), which will have to conclude whether the ALJ's order was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and is in accordance with the law. After this stage, if the decision of the BRB is challenged, the case will find its way into court.

In a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in Louisana Insurance Guaranty Association Baton Rouge Marine Contractors Inc. vs. Director Office of Worker Compensation, the process through which claims under the LHWCA proceed is clearly outlined. Plaintiff in the case worked on the Lousiana shoreline from 1965 to 1977. During the 60's he worked directly with asbestos by unloading bags of asbestos. From 1970 to 1977 plaintiff worked on cranes for the same company. This position did not require direct contact with asbestos. However, he worked in and had to continuously walk through warehouses where asbestos was dealt with and stored. During the plaintiff's employment, the company that he worked for was insured by Employers' National. It provided insurance coverage from 1972 until 1982. However, it was declared insolvent and placed in receivership in 1994. Louisiana Insurance Guarantee Association (LIGA) appeared in its place as a substitute party in this proceeding.

Based on the facts provided, the ALJ granted relief under LHWCA. The BRB, then found the ALJ's decision to be supported by substantial evidence. The insurance company appealed the decision to the fifth circuit. The case is broken down into factual questions and legal questions. The fifth circuits only job was to correct errors of law and make sure that the BRB did not substitute its interpretation of the factual issues for those of the ALJ. The first factual issue in the case was whether LIGA was subject to the LHWCA's last employer rule. LIGA argued that plaintiff could not have been injured by asbestos exposure after 1970 when he moved from working directly with asbestos, to working on the cranes. The Court held that the ALJ had sufficient evidence to determine that plaintiff was indeed exposed to asbestos due to the storage of asbestos in warehouses in which he worked in and walked through. Second, defendants argued that plaintiff was not forced to retire because of any asbestos related injury. Plaintiff testified that he had trouble walking up and down stairs and that the asbestos injuries and sickness are at least in part the cause of his retirement. The Court stated,"the ALJ as sole factfinder is entitled to consider all credibility inferences and [his selection] among inferences is conclusive if supported by evidence and the law." The BRB explained in its review that,"if the claimant's work related injury played a role in causing his retirement, the retirement is involuntary." The Court decided that since both determinations were made within the bounds of law and the evidence provided, the decision made by the ALJ, that plaintiff was involuntarily forced to retire due to asbestos exposure, should stand. Third, plaintiff was granted the status of total disability. Under the LHWCA, to establish a prima facie case claimant must show that he is unable to return to his regular or usual employment. Thus, the question posed is not whether any claimant can work anywhere else or do anything else, the question is whether the claimant can continue to do the same or similar things as he or she did prior to the disease or injury. Since the plaintiff testified that he had a hard time walking up and down stairs, there was sufficient evidence that plaintiff had total disability as defined under the act.

The legal issue in the case was whether LIGA should be held liable for the insurance that was provided by Employers' National, which was declared insolvent. The "last responsible employer" rule was a policy decision on the part of the acts administrators. Eventually, it was judicially adopted by courts. Under the act, insurance liability would fall onto the shoulders of Employers' National. Employers' National insured plaintiff's employer during the last years of his employment. Under Louisiana law, the law responsible employer rule would also subject the last insurer. The rule applies to Employers' National, and in turn to LIGA, as a substitute party in this case. Thus, under the law, and Federal law as applied in Louisiana, LIGA is liable to plaintiff for his injuries and medical expenses.

Although, nothing can take away the pain and anguish associated with a debilitating disease or the loss of a loved one, there are law that were created to protect those who have been impacted by disease associated with asbestos. It is essential that if you or a loved one have been injured due to asbestos exposure, you should contact an attorney who may be able to help. Laws like the LHWCA have been enacted to help people in such difficult and trying time.

Continue reading "Legal Remedy for People With Mesothelioma Due to Asbestos Exposure " »

Accidents are a common occurrence for automobile drivers. In fact, in 2009, there were 73,900 injuries caused by automobile accidents in the state of Louisiana. However, when one is injured in such an accident, liability is often difficult to assign. In other words, it takes a fact-finder to determine who is at fault for the accident and who is liable for damages incurred by any injured party. In a recent Louisiana court case, a passing motorist was found to be 100% liable for injuries sustained by an individual while the other motorist involved in the accident was not liable for payment of any damages.

On August 18, 1999, William Boyd was injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on Louisiana Highway 14 in Jefferson Davis Parish. Boyd, who was an inmate assigned to highway clean-up at the time of the accident, was a passenger in the prison van driven by Joseph Deville. A sixteen-foot trailer, used to carry tools and supplies needed for the work detail was attached to the rear of the prison van; also, a dump truck followed the van. The driver of the prison van was in search of a clear spot on Highway 14 to pull over and allow the inmates to eat lunch. Mr. Deville located a clear, shady spot on the left of the Highway and, as the prison van began to exit to the left, a passing car driven by Rosalinda Broussard hit the rear left side of the van. As a result of the accident, Mr. Boyd sustained injuries and brought suit against Mr. Deville, Wackenhut prison facility, Ms. Broussard and the insurance companies for the parties. Before trial, Mr. Boyd settled his claims against Ms. Broussard and her insurer. However, he proceeded with his claims against the three remaining defendants arguing that Mr. Deville began to make his left turn well after Ms. Broussard began her passing maneuver. In the bench trial, the trial judge found Ms. Broussard to be 100% liable for the injuries and dismissed the case against the other defendants. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals.

In order to reverse a trial court's findings, "a reasonable factual basis [must] not exist for the finding of the trial court" and "the record establishes that the finding is not clearly wrong." Otherwise, the decision would be reversed. When imposing liability for an automobile accident, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to exercise reasonable care while driving on the road and that duty was breached by failing to act like the average reasonably motorist. This failure must have proximately caused the plaintiff's damages. While duty and breach are questions of law and determined by the court, causation and damages are questions left for the fact-finder to determine. In Louisiana, courts have found that allocating fault "is not an exact science nor is it a search for a precise ration. Instead, the courts must determine if the "allocated fault falls within a certain range that does not violate the manifest error rule. While finding that Mr. Deville was not at fault for the accident, the court quoted a Louisiana statute, which provides specific instruction for motorists in the left lane attempting to pass other vehicles, entitled "Limitations for passing on the left." Since Ms. Broussard did not comply with this statute and Mr. Deville used his turn signal and began to turn before Ms. Broussard began her passing maneuver, she was found to be solely responsible for the accident.

In personal injury suits, it is the responsibility of attorneys to maximize the amount of damages the injured plaintiff may recover or to minimize the liability of the defendant. Thus, it is crucial that an individual involved in such a lawsuit consult a seasoned attorney, such as those from Berniard Law Firm, to assist them with their claims.

Continue reading "Passing Poses Problems: Automobile Accident Liability for Passing Vehicles on the Roadways" »

In late 2010, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, shed some light on how the sale of a company may impact claims made by employees against the successor company in Pichon v. Asbestos Defendants AG. The plaintiffs in the case were the wife and children of the deceased Mr. Pichon. The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Pichon was exposed to asbestos between 1955 and 2004. Mr. Pichon died in 2006 from Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer, which the plaintiffs argue was as a result of his exposure to asbestos. One of the defendants in the case was Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC). DDC filed for summary judgment stating that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The Court broke its discussion down into two time periods: (1) Pre-1988 exposure by Mr. Pichon, before the creation of DDC, under which plaintiffs argued that DDC is liable under the theory of successor liability and (2) Post-1988, after the creation of DDC, under which plaintiffs argued that Mr. Pichon was exposed to asbestos as a result of DDC manufacturing.

In 1970, GM merged its Diesel Division with its Allision Division to create the Detroit Diesel-Allision Division. This division manufactured marine engines at Halter Marine. In 1988 GM and Penske formed DDC as a joint venture. Subsequently, DDC purchased the assets of most of the division that produced the marine engines. The sales agreement between DDC and GM stated that DDC would not be liable for GM's conduct or for claims relating to products manufactured, distributed, or sold by GM prior to closing. The Court stated that there were three ways in which a successor company could be held liable for the actions of the selling company: (1) When the successor company clearly assumed the liability or obligations (2) When the buying company was merely a continuation of the selling company or (3) Where is it found that the transaction occurred only to avoid liability. The Court stated that it was clear that DDC expressly denied any pre-sale liability for the actions of GM. However, the plaintiffs argued that DDC's liability was as a result of test number two, namely that DDC was a continuation of GM's Diesel-Allision Division.

In response to plaintiffs argument concerning the second test for successor liability, the Court cited to a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that successor liability could be found on the basis of the buying company being a mere continuation of the selling corporation where the sale was for all of the company's assets. The issue for the plaintiffs in this case was that DDC clearly did not purchase all of GM's assets. Further, DDC did not even purchase all of GM's assets concerning manufacturing of marine engines. DDC only purchase those assets relating to the Redford Operations. Because the plaintiffs were unable to provide evidence that DDC purchased all of GM's assets, the Court granted DDC's summary judgment on this claim and plaintiffs thus lost on this point.

The Court next turned to the claim that Mr. Pichon was exposed to asbestos after the creation of DDC. DDC provided the Court with evidence that GM had put in place a policy in 1980 that called for the eventual elimination of the use of asbestos. Further, DDC provided the Court with evidence that the use of asbestos by GM was completely eliminated by 1987, prior to the creation of DDC. DDC argued that there was no evidence that there was a continuation of the use of asbestos after the creation of DDC. The plaintiffs put forth evidence showing that there was a gasket specification sheet from 1986 that called for the use of asbestos. The plaintiffs argued that since there was no evidence of a gasket specification sheet subsequent to 1986 that showed that asbestos was not used, that it should be assumed that the use of asbestos continued post-1986 and into the period after DDC was created. The Court held that the indirect evidence provided by the plaintiffs did not negate the direct evidence provided by DDC that showed that there was a policy implementation and eventual phase out of the use of asbestos prior to the creation of DDC. The Court granted DDC's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs lost on this point as well.

The Pichon case is a good example of the precautions that workers should take in the workplace. If you have worked in an environment where asbestos was used, it is imperative that you seek medical and legal advice. If you work in any environment in which you deal with hazardous chemicals or materials you should frequently visit your doctor to make sure that you remain healthy. If the company for which you work is being bought, or is purchasing another company, or its division, you should seek legal advice as to how your rights will be impacted by the sale. Further, if you or a loved one suspects they have been exposed to asbestos, consulting with an attorney about their legal rights is a must.

In August 2007, Dwight Phillips was dropping off his step-son, Joseph Shelvin, at school. The school’s principal, Louella Cook, noticed that Phillips’ vehicle was in the school’s bus-unloading area. After noticing Dwight’s vehicle, Phillips approached Dwight and informed him that he was unloading the child in the wrong area. She then directed him to the car drop-off area. According to Cook, Dwight then began screaming at Cook. During this screaming, Dwight told Cook that he would return and "get her." Cook contacted the police because she feared for her safety as well as for the safety of the staff and visitors of the school.

When the police arrived, the investigating officer interviewed both Cook and Dwight. According to the officer, Dwight admitted that he threatened Cook and Dwight was subsequently arrested for disturbing the peace by threats. Sometime prior to this incident, a bus driver reported that during a bus stop, a man, who was talking loudly, got on the bus and refused to get off. Cook and her staff questioned the students who were on the bus during the incident including Joseph Shelvin, Dwight Phillips’ step-son. After speaking with the students, Cook and her staff learned that the man was Dwight Phillips. After Phillips’ arrest, Shelvin, Phillips and his wife Joy filed suit against the Lafayette Parish School Board and Dr. Louella Cook. On appeal to the fifteenth judicial district court, the court only examined the claims against the Board and Cook for Dwight Phillips’ defamation and Shelvin’s emotional distress.

To successfully assert a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), the person bringing such a claim must show an (1) intent to cause (2) severe emotional distress by (3) extreme and outrageous conduct. According to Louisiana courts, "[t]he conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Because tortious or illegal conduct does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous, "[t]he distress suffered must be such that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it." Essentially, one cannot be liable for IIED for "mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities." In this case, the Phillip’s and Shelvin failed to successfully assert a claim for IIED. There was no evidence that Cook’s conduct was extreme and outrageous or that she intended to cause Selvin severe emotional distress. In relation to the "drop-off" incident, Cook never spoke to Shelvin about it. When Shelvin and the other students were questioned about the incident where the man refused to get off the bus, Cook was never alone with any of the students. Moreover, none of the interviews lasted over ten minutes.

Louisiana courts have consistently held that IIED claims must deal with extremely outrageous conduct and not just offensive behavior. Thus, it is important for persons interested in pursuing IIED to an attorney to evaluate the viability of such claims and examine the nature of the complained of conduct.

Continue reading "Understanding Claims Involving Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" »

On the evening of August 2, 2005, Latiffany Dunn slowed her car as she approached the intersection of Pearl and Washington Streets in Homer, Louisiana. As she came to a stop, a vehicle driven by Latonya Harris pulled up beside Dunn's vehicle. Shatara Harris, Latonya's sister, was a passenger in Latonya's vehicle. Shatara got out of the car and approached Latiffany's vehicle. The two women argued, and Shatara took a swing at Latiffany. As Shatara walked back to Latonya's vehicle, Latiffany drove off and then circled back. As it passed by, Latiffany's car clipped the open passenger door of Latonya's vehicle. Shatara, who was attempting to get into the car at the same time, was injured when the door slammed closed against her. Latiffany did not stop her car, but instead drove to the Claiborne Parish Sheriff's Department where she filed a report about the incident. A sheriff's deputy interviewed Latiffany, transported her to the Homer Police Station, and then arrested her on a charge of aggravated second degree battery. Latiffany later pled guilty to simple battery. Shatara filed suit against Latiffany and her auto insurance carrier, U.S. Agencies Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. for damages arising from her injuries. U.S. Agencies filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Latiffany intentionally struck Latonya's vehicle, which would have excluded coverage by the terms of the policy. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed U.S. Agencies from the suit; Shatara appealed.

Under Louisiana law, an insurer may limit the coverage it provides by the terms of its policy, but the insurer has the burden of proving that the facts and circumstances support the exclusion. Furthermore, "a summary judgment declaring a lack of coverage under an insurance policy is not appropriate unless there is no reasonable interpretation of the policy, when applied to the undisputed material facts, under which coverage could be provided." The policy provision that U.S. Agencies pointed to excluded coverage for bodily injury or property damage "caused by an intentional act" or "caused ... while engaged in the commission of a crime." U.S. Agencies argued that Latiffany committed a crime (as established by her guilty plea to the battery charge) and also that she intentionally struck Latonya's vehicle to injure Shatara.

With respect to the crime exclusion, the Second Circuit noted that the policy defined "crime" as "any felony or any action to flee from, evade or avoid arrest or detection by the police or other law enforcement agency" (emphasis added). The court concluded that the crime exception was inapplicable because Latiffany's guilty plea to simple battery--a misdemeanor offense--did not fit the policy's definition. Furthermore, the court explained that Latiffany's guilty plea was not determinative as to her intent to strike Shatara. While a guilty plea from a criminal matter is admissible in a civil case, it is not conclusive evidence. The court acknowledged that "summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no factual dispute as to intent," which, after reviewing the trial record, was "not the case here." The court reasoned, "we cannot say as a matter of fact that the record shows [Latiffany] intended to hit either Latonya's vehicle or Shatara with her vehicle... Even though Latiffany pled guilty to simple battery, we find that the record shows that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Latiffany's actions constituted an intentional act." Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court's granting of summary judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

The Harris case reflects Louisiana's position that "exclusionary provisions are to be strictly construed against the insurer with any ambiguity construed in favor of the insured." Presumably, this is to help protect consumers who purchase insurance by preventing insurance companies from attempting to avoid coverage through vague language in the policy. Insurance companies will nevertheless put forth whatever arguments may be available to avoid payouts, so a plaintiff should always obtain experienced counsel when pursuing an auto accident or other claim where a defendant's liablility policy is in place.

Continue reading "Homer Car Wreck Case Examines Insurance Policy's Treatment of Intentional Injury" »

A Union Carbide Corporation plant facility in Taft, Louisiana, leaked a toxic chemical compound for at least seventeen hours on September 10th and 11th in 1998. Rainwater accumulation from Tropical Storm Frances caused partial collapse of the floating roof on a large tank storing liquid naphtha. Consequently, a tank seal broke allowing escape of liquid naphtha which volatilized and exposed workers and surrounding residential areas to naphtha fumes including the towns of Montz and Killona. An estimated 4.6 million pounds of naphtha vaporized before application of a chemical foam to the tank roof effectively stopped the volatilization hazard.

In the case of Howard v. Union Carbide Corporation, the Supreme Court of Louisiana reduced to negligible amounts the already decided damages awarded to plaintiffs exposed to the naphtha fumes. Specifically, original damages awarded were $3,500, $2,500, and $1,500. However, the Supreme Court reduced these damages to amounts of $500, $250, 150, and $100 based on proximity to the leak with higher awards to those within the plant and lower awards to those in the surrounding residential areas.

Exhibiting a controversial impression of the dangerous chemical involved, as well as defining exposure injuries, the Court concluded "simply no reasonable relationship" exists between the injuries and the original damages awarded. Assuming all fumes are equal regardless of the vastly different compounds which any given chemical leak may constitute, the Court cited other negligible awards in other cases despite the fact that the other cases involved unrelated chemicals.

In fact, the Court categorized exposure injuries to the vaporized naphtha as "mere annoyances." Acute naphtha exposure symptoms may include irritation of the eyes (stinging sensation in the eyes, tearful eyes), nose irritation (stinging sensation in membranes lining nasal passages), sore throat, and coughing. Notably, the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that immediate exposure symptoms are the only consequences of exposure to toxic chemicals. On the contrary to some specialists, forms of naphtha may be carcinogenic. In addition, naphtha has been determined to be a central nervous system depressant, which is the mechanism for the reported headaches, nausea, dizziness, and the sensation of being inebriated (drunk). Further, components within the naphtha often possess additional harmful qualities.

Finally, the Louisiana Supreme Court uses as support for reducing damage awards the lack of professional medical attention and evacuation, noting that, oftentimes, acute exposure symptoms were self-treated because plaintiffs were not provided with adequate nor accurate exposure details.

If you have faced a similar situation, it is important that you contact an attorney immediately to get the legal advice you deserve. When facing a situation like this, an individual who has been injured must be careful with the lawyer you select because it can mean the difference between recovering your losses and being left in the dark. Call our offices today for a free consultation on your legal rights.

Falling victim to a sexual assault is a nightmare that too many people in the Gulf Coast, and across America, are forced to fear. While most people think of such an incident in the realm of criminal charges, there are very real civil elements to such an event that are important. When a variety of individuals, or in the rare case businesses, are involved, civil liability exists that allows the victim to receive compensation for the various damages they suffered. However, hiring the proper attorney can be very important in such complex cases.

In the case of Piligra v. America's Best Value Inn, Susana Piligra attended a nightclub located inside of the America's Best Value Inn. There, Ms. Piligra consumed an excessive amount of alcohol. She eventually lost consciousness and was escorted by a nightclub employee to a hotel room. On the way to the hotel room, an unknown male offered to assist the nightclub employee and Ms. Piligra to the hotel room. Unfortunately, the hotel employee left Ms. Piligra in the care of the unknown male and, when Ms. Piligra's friend went to check on her, she found the hotel room locked and the curtains closed. Her friend opened the door but the security chain was latched. When the friend moved the curtain, she did, however, see an unknown male climbing off of Ms. Piligra with his pants down. After Ms. Piligra was transported to a local hospital, it was determined that she was allegedly raped by the unknown male while she was unconscious.

In response to this incident, Ms. Piligra filed suit alleging that the owner of America's Best Value Inn, Dhan Laxmi and their insurance company Evanston. In her suit she claimed that both parties negligently took her to a hotel room without her consent, failed to attend to her responsibly as required by an innkeeper or as one who assumed a duty of care and that she was left alone with an unknown male subjecting her to rape and other injuries. Upholding the lower court's decision, the Court of Appeals refused to hold the insurance company, Evanston, responsible for any of Ms. Piligra's injuries. Interpreting the insurance policy as it would any other contract, the court held that the policy exclusions found in the policy were unambiguous and prevented Ms. Piligra from recovering from the insurance company.

In its ruling, the court discussed the (1) assault and battery exclusion, (2) sexual abuse and/or molestation exclusion and (3) Restaurant, Bar, Tavern, Night Clubs, Fraternal and Social Clubs Endorsement. Under the assault and battery exclusion provision, Evanston would not be responsible for any injuries arising from any assault or battery occurring on the premises or those caused by the actions of Dhan Laxmi employees. The sexual abuse and/or molestation exclusion prevented Ms. Piligra from recovering from the Evanston because Louisiana courts have held that the term "sexual molestation" includes rape and the general definitions of "molest" implied some degree of unwanted touching. Finally, the court found the Restaurant, Bar, Tavern, Night Clubs, Fraternal and Social Clubs Endorsement clearly prohibiting recovery for injuries resulting from alcohol consumption.

Louisiana courts have consistently held that, with these unambiguous policy exclusions in place, insurance companies do not have to cover injuries arising from assault, battery and rape on its policy holder's property. These provisions highlight the importance of consulting experienced attorneys to examine potential claims against insurers and review the policy provisions that limit coverage for ambiguity as well as any conflict with the law or public policy.

After having faced a significant heart-related scare and receiving a stent implant, many patients are now facing a rather unbelievable reality: it has been discovered that doctors across the nation have been performing unnecessary surgical procedures in order to financially benefit. Doctors, implanting the device intended to unblock clogged heart vessels, are now accused of recommending the procedure in order to bill private and government health insurers for unnecessary medical procedures. A stent is essentially a mesh tube that is inserted most commonly inside the heart and then expanded, using a small balloon to open blocked arteries that prevent blood flow to heart muscle. Despite the fact that stents are a medical breakthrough, it seems as though many individuals are having these devices implanted without having any need for them. While some might believe this does not have any significant drawbacks, the reality is that the procedure implanting them, and the devices themselves, expose patients to a risk of future medical complications due to the fact they have an unnecessary foreign device inserted into their body.

As a result of these discoveries, numerous doctors all over the United States are currently being investigated or indicted, even sentenced to prison for performing unnecessary procedures on individuals. The main criminal charge these medical professionals face is health care fraud. Many times, this situation would go unnoticed if it were not for the hundreds of patient complaints pouring into the hospital boards, motivating investigations into why the doctors have performed so many of these specific procedures on individuals. One investigation of Dr. Mark Midei, of Maryland, led the Maryland Medical Board to hold that Medei was involved in "gross overutilization of health care services... and willfully making a false report or record in the practice of medicine." One statistic in particular leads some to believe that Dr. Midei is not alone in this practice: the number of stent procedures has almost tripled within the past ten years. What's more, the number of patients receiving this type of implant has increased steadily every year since 1993, and continues to rise.

Additionally, in Lafayette, Louisiana, in 2009, Dr. Mehmood Petel, formerly of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital and Lafayette General Hospital in Louisiana, was convicted of 51 counts of fraudulent medical procedures and received the maximum sentence of ten years in a federal state penitentiary. Over 75 patients charged Dr. Patel with fraud and of performing unnecessary heart stent procedures on them. Testifying experts, as well as the Department of Justice, revealed that the majority of the patients who received such implant had little or no disease. Patel was also found to have falsified patient symptoms in medical records, including specific symptoms such as heart pain. The amount of money that Patel billed insurers was astronomical; between 1999-2003, Patel billed Medicare and provate insurance companies more than $3 million, pocketing more than $500,000.

In order to prove health care fraud, a certain set of facts need to be proven. Specifically, to convict a "defendant of health care fraud, the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly and willfully executed, or attempted to execute: a scheme or artifice --

(1.) To defraud any health care benefit program; or

(2.) To obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any health care benefit program in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items, or services."
(United States v. Refert, 519 F.3d 752, 758 (8 Cir. 2008).

The issue many courts are facing is that the Medical Review Boards have expressed the desire to handle these situations themselves, absent the legal system. This presents patients with the dilemma of communicating what they have gone through and not receiving adequate compensation or justice at the end of the day. In fact, many Medical Review Boards feel that peer review solves any potential problems such as the unnecessary heart stent procedures. However, it has not been until recently that the sting procedures were investigated and/or prosecuted. The New York Times recently reported that stents are a profitable, big business within the medical field — manufacturers such as Johnson & Johnson (who are currently facing legal problems over their recalled hip implant devices) sold over $3 billion worth of stents last year alone. That number has steadily increased along with the incomes of the Doctor's who consistently utilize them.

If a person has had a heart stent implanted within the last ten years, exploration into their medical history and condition may be necessary. The old adage, "It is better to be safe than sorry," may be applied to individual's going through this situation. Instead of experiencing the fear that the heart stent may not have been necessary, allow a legal representative to explore the situation and clarify what is going on. However, they do not have to rely on the Medical Review Boards alone, having legal representation may help to protect their rights as well as ease a stressful situation into a manageable one.

Continue reading "Heart Stent Procedures Done Without any Need" »

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.

Car accidents oftentimes are not simple, clear-cut events that lend a clear idea of who was right and who was wrong. Instead, many times it is left to a court to decide what the circumstances were that led to the collision and the amount of responsibility each party had for it occurring. As a result, because no court is perfect, individuals who have been harmed due to another party's acts are left out in the cold because they could not prove their case. However, each year new technology comes out that provides a better opportunity for plaintiffs, and their attorneys, to prove their case and receive the compensation they deserve.

One firm, Advanced Research and Technology (ART) Corporation, works with the very technology required to prove cases. Utilizing Finite Element Analysis (FEA), commonly referred to as computer simulations, the company provides compelling engineering evidence to explain the cause of a crash-related case. FEA's due this by calculating the kinematics of the investigated accident (speeds, relative motion, different parts of accident) and structural analysis (where the cars collided and relevant stresses, strains, failures, energy displacements, etc.). By analyzing this information, FEA can help plaintiffs win cases related to auto and motorcycle crashes, airbag and seatbelt related problems, structural analysis relating to accidents or blasts, slip and fall cases, fuel tank and pipeline pressure analysis and a variety of others.

FEA simulations are widely recognized by the engineering community as a reliable and advanced tool for solving structural dynamics, crash, blast and impact-related matters. Automotive companies often use FEA for car testing in the same way that highway safety systems are designed using the technology. The reliability of FEA comes down to the simulator being able to develop accurate formulations or equations to explain how the millions of small elements involved in a collision react when variables are at a certain set. Because of its ability to determine how a car will behave in a collision and the effects of a collision, technology experts are able to move backwards and determine what variables were in place to lead to the results suffered.

Being able to go backwards and determine the cause is crucial in cases where the alleged cause of the problem/accident has been removed from the scene. For example, should a faulty guardrail cause a fatality, a simulation may be required should that guardrail be removed along with the wreckage of the cars and be discarded. What's more, the simulations done and formulas executed by the computer are not something easily, or affordably, done by hand. What's more, there are a plethora of court cases where FEA techniques were used as evidence in a court. This admissibility, coupled with the cost-effective manner it can determine an accident (often 20% of the cost of a single crash test), makes this technology incredibly important.

Technology like the one described above is a key component of complex litigation and it is important that you hire an attorney willing to use state of the art techniques to help prove your case. To speak to an attorney about how to best prove your car collision case, call our offices today. For more information on this technology, head to www.artengineer.com.

In June 2007, Chadwick Dukes and his daughter, Skylah, were driving on La. Hwy. 983 in West Baton Rouge Parish. Their car was struck by a vehicle driven by Paul Declouette and owned by Sheryl Rogers. The following May, Dukes filed a lawsuit on behalf of Skylah seeking to recover damages for the injuries she sustained in the crash. Dukes named as defendants Declouette, and the Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, which was Declouette's as-then unknown insurance carrier.

Shortly thereafter, Imperial Fire was identifed and admitted that it had issued an auto liability policy to Declouette that was in effect at the time of the accident. Dukes added Imperial Fire as a named defendant and then signed an agreement to release Declouette and Rogers from the suit. As a result, on November 20, 2008, the trial court entered a judgment to dismiss Dukes's claims against Declouette. Imperial Fire immediately filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it could not be found liable because Dukes released its insured customer (Declouette) by agreement without a reservation of rights. Imperial Fire relied on the language of the insurance policy, which obligated the company to pay damages for any injuries for which

An insured person becomes legally responsible because of an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered vehicle.

Imperial Fire reasoned that Declouette could never be found liable for the accident because he was specifically released by the agreement with Dukes; given that Declouette could never be legally responsible for the accident, neither could his liability insurance carrier. The trial judge granted the motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims against Imperial Fire, and Dukes appealed.

In the case styled Dukes v. Declouette, No. 2010 CA 0045 (La. App., 2010), the First Circuit Court of Appeals examined the language of the release agreement between Dukes and Declouette. The court concluded that "although Dukes did not specifically reserve the right to proceed against Imperial Fire in the settlement, it is evident that [Dukes] intended to release ... Declouette in his capacity as an insured under that policy." Because Imperial Fire was not even involved in negotiating the release, the court reasoned, the company should not be able to benefit from the release.

In addition, the court affirmed that "Louisiana law has consistently held that a liability insurer and its insured are co-debtors in solido," a term that means that two or more parties are each completely and equally responsible for what is owed. Further, under modern law, "a reservation of rights is not required to be included in a release to protect a settling plaintiff's right to pursue claims against non-settling solidary obligors." In essence, the court concluded, it was not necessary for Dukes to include a statement in the release agreement reserving his right to sue Imperial Fire even after releasing Declouette. Thus, the court reversed the summary judgment in favor of Imperial Fire and sent the case back for a full trial.

Although the Court of Appeals sided with Dukes in this case, it is clear that the outcome could have been vastly different if the language of the release had been drafted in some other way. The courts are not sympathetic to plaintiffs who agree to release potential defendants from liability only to turn around later and attempt to sue. And inadvertence does not get far with the courts. For this reason, it is critical to have an experienced attorney on your side through every step of the litigation process to ensure that any settlement agreements or releases you may enter into are as strategically beneficial as possible.

Continue reading "West Baton Rouge Parish Car Accident is a Cautionary Tale for Plaintiffs Who Sign Releases " »

On May 7, 2010, the Donaldsonville community was saddened when 20 year-old Ryan Johnson was killed in a car accident when his car flipped after he collided with a semi-truck on LA 70. While this loss is tragic, it is also a reminder that accidents involving semi trucks should be treated differently that regular car accidents and usually require assistance from an attorney who has experience resolving these cases.

In a typical fender bender with another car, an attorney may not be required. After the collision, both drivers make sure they don't have any injuries, call the paramedics if needed, exchange contact and insurance information, have the police make a report if necessary, and they settle the cost of damages through their insurance companies. Often in these situations, especially in small communities, the drivers know each other and can easily call the other if they need any additional information that they didn't get immediately after the accident. It is a fairly straight-forward process.

Accidents between a car and a semi truck are different and require the driver of the car to be informed and consult an attorney soon after the accident. Truck drivers haul cargo across the country for a living. When they are involved in an accident, you are not just dealing with the other driver, but the company they work for. Trucking companies have similar liability insurance as the average driver; however, these companies are better equipped to handle accidents because they have already prepared for this situation. Trucking companies also have attorneys working to protect their assets that may only work on these types of cases. Trucking companies and their insurance providers are both business and have the goal of giving you the least amount of money for your settlement. It is important that you have someone fighting equally as hard on your side.

Since truck driving is an occupation, truck driving companies are required to ensure that their drivers meet specific obligations. First, professional truck drivers are required to have a specialized truck driving license and have the training, knowledge, and experience to safely drive their massive vehicles. Second, there are laws that limit the number of hours a driver can be on the road each day. These laws attempt to prevent the number of accidents that are caused by fatigue. Your attorney will request a copy of the driver's log book to see if they were complying with this law. Third, trucking companies are required to properly maintain their vehicles and maintain a record of when their trucks are services. Your attorney will request a copy of the service records for the truck involved in the accident to see if the trucking company contributed to the accident by not performing the required maintenance. Semi trucks are also equipped with Electronic Control Module (ECM) devices similar to "black boxes" on airplanes. The ECM device can provide information like how fast the truck was traveling when the accident occurred. It is imperative to have this information preserved; therefore your attorney needs to request it soon after the accident. The sooner you hire an attorney, the sooner they can request these records, and the less likely it is that these records will be lost or misplaced.

Given that a semi truck is as much as 25 times bigger than the average car and can weigh over 80,000 pounds, it is imperative that your collision be closely inspected by a legal expert. In doing so, an individual can have claims of negligence, traffic violations, comparative fault and a wide variety of other avenues examined. By limiting the amount of time between the accident and an investigation, evidence is more readily available. What's more, an attorney will often employ an expert of these types of accidents who can help testify and explain what happened in the unfortunate event. In having a lawyer set to all of these various legal mechanisms, the victim of an accident can focus on other issues and allow their legal representative to do all the legwork for them. Whether by pursuing a more fair settlement than the extremely low one offered by the insurer or taking the trucking company to court, hiring an attorney is the best option when facing the daunting task of achieving justice for such an accident.

Amber Bridges was driving her parents' 2002 Hyundai Sonata without their permission when she was involved in an accident with a 1992 GMC pickup truck owned by Tommy McClain at the intersection of Millhaven Road and Highway 594. She was attempting to turn left onto Millhaven road and was issued a citation and later found by the trial court to be solely responsible for the accident. Amber had received her offical driver's license just two weeks before. The car she was driving was owned by her father, Terry, and insured by American through Advanced Planning Insurance Company.

Although both cars were insured, American denied coverage for the liability of Amber. When Terry obtained the automobile insurance in 2006, Amber was 16 years old and had a driver's permit. However, Terry failed to disclose that Amber was a resident of the household over the age of 14. State Farm, the insurer of McClain's car, paid the fair market value of the totaled pickup truck. State Farm and McClain then brought a civil suit for damages against Terry, Amber, and American.

La. R.S. 22:860 states:

A. Except as provided in Subsection B of this Section and R.S. 22:1314, and R.S. 22:1315, no oral or written misrepresentation or warranty made in the negotiation of an insurance contract, by the insured or in his behalf, shall be deemed material or defeat or void the contract or prevent it from attaching, unless the misrepresentation or warranty is made with the intent to deceive.
B. In any application for life or health and accident insurance made in writing by the insured, all statements therein made by the insured shall, in the absence of fraud, be deemed representations and not warranties. The falsity of any such statement shall not bar the right to recovery under the contract unless either one of the following is true as to the applicant's statement:
(1) The false statement was made with actual intent to deceive.
(2) The false statement materially affected either the acceptance of the risk or the hazard assumed by the insurer under the policy.

When seeking insurance, the purchaser has a duty to inform the insurer of all the facts relevant to a decision about writing a policy. An insurance policy may be voided if (1) the insured made a false statement in the insurance application, (2) the false statement was material, and (3) it was made with the intent to deceive. The insurer carries the burden of proving that the insured misrepresented a material fact with the intent to deceive.

Despite the omission, the trial court found and the appellate court affirmed that the policy could not be voided. Bernice, the representative of Advanced who completed the application for insurance, knew Terry, his background, his children and their ages, and was informed by Terry that the vehicle in question would eventually be driven by Amber when she was a senior in high school. Terry mistakenly believed that Amber would not have to be on the policy until she was allowed to drive the vehicle. Bernice had Terry sign the insurance application using an electronic signature pad without presenting the application to Terry for review. If an agent by mistake, fraud or negligence inserts erroneous or untrue answers to the questions contained in the application, those representations are not binding on the insured. The courts determined that Terry could not have intentionally withheld the information with the intent to deceive because he trusted the representative to prepare the application, had no intention of hiding the fact that Amber would eventually drive the car, and was not shown the application to review its accuracy.

Disputes like this arise quite often with insurance companies. By carefully analyzing the situation and consulting with a legal expert, you can make sure your rights aren't violated by a company looking out for their bottom line.

Imagine the following scenario: you are involved in a fender-bender in the parking lot of the grocery store. Your car is taken to the body shop for repairs. Since you need transportation to get to work and other places in the mean time, you rent a car from the local agency. When picking up the car, you'll no doubt be offered liability insurance through the agency--at an additional cost, of course. There may also be coverage available through the credit card you use to pay for the rental. And then there is the policy you maintain on your regular car. Does it extend coverage to the rental?

Louisiana law recognizes a "temporary substitute vehicle," which is commonly defined by insurance companies as a short-term substitute for a car that is out of service due to breakdown, repair, servicing, theft, or destruction. State statute requires automobile insurance companies to "extend to temporary substitute motor vehicles ... any and all such insurance coverage in effect in the original policy." La. R.S. 22:681. In other words, the auto insurer must provide the same coverage to the rental car as was already in place on the regular vehicle.

The recent case of Smith v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, No. 45,013, Ct. of App. of La., 2d Cir. (2010), explored the definition of "temporary substitute vehicle" in detail. On the morning of May 28, 2005, Brian Smith was driving a 2003 Nissan Altima on U.S. Highway 425 in Morehouse Parish. At the same time, Joshua Pruett was driving a 1998 Dodge Ram pickup truck on the highway in the opposite direction. Pruett's truck was pulling a utility trailer containing crawfish and ice that had been loaded in Crowley. The ball on the truck's trailer hitch was too small for the trailer and Pruett did not use any safety chains to ensure that the trailer remained attached to the truck. The trailer eventually disconnected from the truck, at which point it crossed the highway's center line and collided with Smith's Altima. Smith died at the scene from the severe trauma he sustained in the accident.

Ordinarily, Pruett hauled crawfish for his employer, Broubar, Inc., in a larger Dodge pickup truck that is equipped with a refrigeration cooler biult into its bed. However, on the day of the accident, the larger truck was being repaired, so Pruett's employer substituted the smaller truck. The smaller truck could not hold a cooler for the crawfish in its bed, and so the utility trailer was used instead.

One of the issues before the court on appeal was whether Pruett's truck and trailer, together, would be considered a "temporary substitute vehicle" for purposes of insurance coverage. The insurance carrier who issued the policy for Pruett's usual truck argued that the trial court erroneously treated the truck and trailer as a single unit. However, the Court of Appeals noted that

in order for the [smaller] Dodge to function as a temporary substitute vehicle for the [larger] Dodge, it needed to pull a trailer that could hold a cooler to keep the crawfish refrigerated... Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's conclusion that the [smaller] Dodge truck and the trailer together constituted a temporary substitute vehicle operating as a single unit.

The Smith case demonstrates the willingness of Louisiana courts to interpret the "temporary substitute vehicle" concept broadly in a way that can significantly benefit plaintiffs. If insurance coverage is not extended to temporary substitute vehicles, a motorist who is injured by a driver operating a substitute vehicle could seek damages only from the vehicle's owner. Even in a situation like the Smith case, where a corporation owned the vehicle, the owner may not have sufficient assets to fully compensate the victim. By extending insurance coverage whenever possible, the courts make it more likely that an accident victim can be made whole.

Continue reading "Tragic Auto Accident in Morehouse Parish Illustrates Insurance Coverage Requirements for Substitute Vehicles" »

As research has revealed more about the dangers of asbestos and the mechanics of how it causes certain types of lung disease and cancer, medical and social opinion of asbestos has changed. Likewise, the law of asbestos-related injuries has changed in the last half century. For example, one of our blog posts recently discussed how workplace asbestos cases are now typically addressed through workers compensation proceedings rather than traditional personal injury tort law. A decision issued by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1992 illustrates another change in the law related to asbestos injuries.

Background

The background and procedural history of Cole v. Celotex Corp, 599 So.2d 1058 (1992), is complicated. However, knowing the case is important when trying to understand the significance of asbestos litigation. The plaintiffs in the case suffered asbestos exposure in the course of their work duties and filed suit against twenty individual defendants. The defendants included manufacturers of the asbestos materials the plaintiffs encountered on the job as well as officers of their former employers. Additionally, the plaintiffs added as a defendant Insurance Company of North America ("INA"), the primary liability insurance provider for the officers.

The lawsuit proceeded and moved toward trial. Just before the trial commenced, the plaintiffs and the defendant-manfacturers reached a settlement agreement. As part of the agreement, the manufacturer-defendants admitted legal fault and paid a monetary sum to each plaintiff. Thus, the trial proceeded against the officers and INA, their insurer. At trial, the jury found the officers responsible for the plaintiffs' injuries and awarded each plaintiff monetary damages. As the officers' insurer, INA would be responsible for paying all amounts due as a result of the officers' legal liability.

Multiple Defendants' Liability

Because asbestos cases involve both long-term exposure and a period of latency - or development of the disease - it is not uncommon to see changes in the applicable law during the relevant time period of a case. The Cole case is no different. At issue was a change in how Louisiana law treats multiple defendants' liability for injuries caused.

Prior to 1980, defendants shared financial liability under what is referred to as virile share doctrine. This doctrine divides financial liability equally among all defendants who are found to be at fault. A plaintiff may seek his entire damage payment from any or all defendants. However, any defendant required to pay more than his equal share could seek reimbursement from those who had not paid. In 1980, Louisiana enacted Act 431, which replaced the virile share doctrine with a comparative fault doctrine. Under comparative fault, each defendant is assigned a percentage of fault, and that percentage corresponds to the percentage of the damages each defendant must pay to the plaintiff. (See LSA-C.C. 2323.)

Each scheme has practical consequences for all parties in a lawsuit. For a defendant, comparative fault obviously limits the amount of money he could be forced to pay. If a plaintiff is owed $100,000 from 5 defendants, under virile shares, one defendant may be forced to pay the entire sum and then seek reimbursement from the other defendants. Under comparative fault, if each defendant is assigned 20% fault, the plaintiff may only collect $20,000 from each individual defendant. That is regardless of the plaintiff's ability to collect from the other defendants. (See LSA-C.C. 2324.) This example illustrates a plaintiff's implications as well. He may or may not be able to collect his entire damage award under comparative fault, even if one defendant has the financial ability to pay the entire award.

In the Cole case, a major issue was determining which one of these fault doctrines applied. The Court determined [link to post # 1] that issue based on when the when the exposures to asbestos occurred, legally speaking. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs' injuries occurred before 1980, the year the comparative fault doctrine took effect. Thus, the virile share doctrine applied. For INA, this had a tremendous impact. The jury in the case had found the officers INA insured to be 95% at fault for the plaintiffs' injuries. Once the case was altered to apply virile share, INA's ultimate responsibility was only 9/20ths of the plaintiffs' award. (Of the twenty defendants, INA insured nine of them; hence, INA is responsible for nine of the twenty virile shares.)

The Cole case demonstrates that, even though the timing of the plaintiffs' injuries are difficult to pinpoint, the legal consequences of that timing are significant. The legal framework that applies to a case may increase or limit the amount of damages a plaintiff will actually be able to recover. In order to fully protect and preserve their rights, persons affected by asbestos exposure should be sure to retain an attorney that is familiar with the complexities of asbestos cases.

Medical malpractice insurance is a big expense for health care providers. The average award in 2006 for medical malpractice claims was $521,560. To alleviate the financial burden on individual providers, the State of Louisiana created the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund.

Under Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:1299.44:

State health care providers are automatically entitled to be covered by the fund. Private health care providers are eligible for coverage as well. The liability of each qualified health care provider is limited to $100,000 plus interest, per patient, per incident. Any judgments, settlements, or arbitration orders in excess of $100,000 per provider are paid out of the Patient's Compensation Fund.

To illustrate how the fund works, we look at a 2003 Court of Appeals case involving the Southwestern Louisiana Hospital Association in DeRidder, Louisiana. Divorced parents brought individual actions against a doctor for his negligence in causing their son's death. The doctor admitted fault and paid $100,000, the maximum amount he is individually responsible for. The Compensation Fund then paid $250,000 to the father, and an additional $400,000 to the mother, bringing the total damages to $750,000.

The total amount awarded in this case actually exceeds the $500,000 maximum damages amount in a medical malpractice case. Section 1299.42 states:

The total amount recoverable for all malpractice claims for injuries to or death of a patient, exclusive of future medical care and related benefits as provided in R.S. 40:1299.43, shall not exceed five hundred thousand dollars plus interest and cost.

The single $500,000 cap applies collectively to all claims which flow from one act of malpractice resulting in a victim's injury or wrongful death. Future medical costs are paid as they are incurred from the Patient's Compensation Fund.

Because the $750,000 award in the above case was well beyond the limit, the damage award was reduced to reflect the $500,000 limit on medical malpractice damages. The mother's award was subsequently reduced from $400,000 to $150,000 to reflect the limit.

Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund Recap:

(1) Medical Malpractice awards limited to $500,000
(2) $500,000 cap applies collectively to all claims which flow from one act malpractice
(3) $100,000 maximum liability for individual health care providers
(4) Future medical expenses are covered by the fund

While a plaintiff may have the best case possible, things do not always work out the way they should. Lawsuits don’t just fail on their merits. Sometimes not following procedural deadlines or simply not taking action at all can spell doom as well. In an April 2010 decision, the First Circuit Louisiana Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Shirley W. Fleischmann of Baton Rouge's claim against Keith Henderson and his insurance company. They did this because three years had gone by with no action taken to move the claim forward, thus bringing into play the Louisiana Abandonment Statute.

The claim arose when Henderson’s car (driven by Jennifer Parker) struck and killed Thomas E. Fleischmann while he was walking along the roadway. Ms. Fleischmann was the victim’s widow and included Henderson and his insurance company as parties in her wrongful death lawsuit filed in April 2002. The State of Louisiana (Department of Transportation) was named as a party as well but was dismissed in 2005 because effective request for service was not made within 90 days of commencement of the action.

In September 2008 Ms. Fleischmann filed a motion for a status conference to declare she intended to move forward against Henderson and his insurance company. In December of that year both parties filed a motion and order to be dismissed from the lawsuit as well because pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 561 no action had been taken for three years. The trial court granted the order. Ms. Fleischmann filed a Motion to Reconsider the Ruling and the matter was heard in court in February 2009. The district court affirmed the dismissal and Ms. Fleischmann appealed claiming that the hearing previously held on the Department of Transportation’s Motion to Dismiss was a step in the prosecution or defense that interrupted tolling on the abandonment of her lawsuit against the other defendants. The Court of Appeals disagreed.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 561 (1) provides “that an action is abandoned when the parties fail to take any step in its prosecution or defense in the trial court for a period of three years.” The application of the statute is automatic and does not require action by either party.

The record of this case indicates that no sufficient action was taken from September 2002 to June 2005 when the Department of Transportation moved to dismiss.
The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that the actions of one un-served defendant can preclude abandonment claims as to other defendants. However the Court found that principal case where that occurred is distinguishable from this one in that Fleischmann did not continuously take part in discovery or given any depositions. In fact, nothing whatsoever occurred between the filing of Henderson’s insurance company’s Answer and the Motion to Dismiss. “The failure of a plaintiff to have a party served is not moving the case forward to hasten the matter to judgment.” As such, the action of an un-served party to obtain dismissal is not a step towards prosecution either and does not preclude the application of the abandonment statute.

As this case demonstrates, lawsuits that have a good legal basis may fail if plaintiffs do not take appropriate action to move forward in a timely manner or if parties are not served as required under the law. Here, Ms. Fleischmann may have been successful, or at least gotten her case to trial, if she was properly informed of procedural rules and had been able to follow them. An experienced attorney will help you not only analyze possible legal claims but also ensure that rules are followed to the letter if you choose to file a lawsuit.

In Mallett v. McNeal, 939 SO.2d 1254, 2005-2289 (La. 10/17/06), the Supreme Court of Louisiana held that an unconditional payment of a property damage claim constitutes an acknowledgement sufficient to interrupt prescription. Thus, for example, an insurance company's tender of an unconditional payment to an injured third-party claimant is an acknowledgement, and this acknowledgment interrupts prescription. In appropriate cases, Mallett may be of assistance to plaintiffs' attorneys, who file actions to help injury-victims recover against tortfeasors and insurance companies after the victim's case has prescribed on its face.

The Court's holding in Mallett was based upon two consolidated cases. In the first case, plaintiff Jason Mallett ("Mallett") suffered injuries on January 8, 2004, when his vehicle was struck from behind by defendant Paola McNeal ("McNeal"). McNeal carried an automobile liability policy issued by defendant United States Automobile Association ("USAA"). In November 2004, USAA issued two checks to Mallett: the first for payment of property damage, and the second for additional repairs. On February, 2005, more than a year after the accident, Mallett filed suit against McNeal and USAA, claiming damages for injuries. Because the one year prescription period had run on its face, Mallett's claim would have been barred, unless USAA's November 2004 payments interrupted the prescriptive period.

In the second case, plaintiff Charles Richey ("Richey") was involved in an automobile collision with defendant Kameron Dixon, who was driving a car owned by Keith Dixon ("Dixon"). Dixon was insured by defendant Infinity Insurance Company ("Infinity"). Following the collision, Infinity issued a check to Richey and stated that the check represented payment for the total loss of Richey's vehicle. Before the end of the prescriptive period, Richey filed suit in an improper venue. Under Louisiana law, if an action is commenced in an improper venue, prescription is interrupted only as to defendants served with process within the prescriptive period. Unfortunately for Richey, no defendants were served before the end of the prescriptive period. Therefore, Richey's claim would have been barred, unless Infinity's issuance of checks had interrupted the prescriptive period.

In resolving the issue of prescription, the Court had to resolve two questions of law. First, the Court held that an unconditional payment constitutes an acknowledgement sufficient to interrupt prescription. Second, the Court had to determine whether this holding conflicted with La. R.S. 2:611. La. R.S. 2:611 provides:

"No settlement made under a motor vehicle liability insurance policy of a claim against any insured thereunder arising from any accident or other event insured against for damage to or destruction of property owned by another person shall be construed as an admission of liability by the insured, or the insurer's recognition of such liability, with respect to any other claim arising from the same accident or event."

After reviewing case law, the Court held that an unconditional payment is not a "settlement" within the meaning of the statute. The Court then applied this holding to the cases before it.

In regards to the first case, the Court noted that there was no evidence that Mallett 1) took the checks subject to any conditions, 2) released USAA from any further obligations, or 3) signed a document evidencing a settlement. Because these facts indicate that USAA's actions constituted unconditional payment, and not settlement, the Court determined that USAA's actions constituted an acknowledgement sufficient to interrupt prescription.

As to the second case, the Court remanded, reasoning that the issue of improper venue may have caused the defendants to be "surprised" by the plaintiff's exception to prescription theory.

Continue reading "Understanding Property Damage Claims and Amount of Time to File Suit" »

Louisiana law requires motorists to carry liability insurance on any automobile they own. This coverage pays for property damages or personal injury for which you may be legally responsible. Unfortunately, not everyone on the road has insurance. However, insurance companies have built in protection for drivers that are injured by an uninsured/underinsured motorist.

In 1999, Carol Tedeton was injured during her employment with an automobile service station. She was hit by a minor without adequate car insurance. To recover for her injuries, Carol argued that she was covered under the garage's uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM") policy.

Under La. R.S. 22:1406(d), any person who enjoys the status of insured under a Louisiana motor vehicle liability policy which includes uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage enjoys coverage protection simply by reason of having sustained injury by an uninsured/underinsured motorist.

So who qualifies as an insured under either the liability or UM portions of a auto insurance policy?

Most policies, like the one in the Tedeton case, are separated into two sections: Liability and UM. Liability insurance protects the driver in the case of their own fault. Those considered "Insured" under this section typically include the policy holder while operating a "covered auto" and anyone using a covered auto with the policy holder's permission.

A "covered auto" is a vehicle covered by the insurance policy and ordinarily designated by codes in the policy. In the case of Mrs. Tedeton, her employer's policy listed codes "21-any auto" and "22-owned auto's only". To qualify as an insured under the liability portion of a policy, the driver must be operating a covered auto as defined in the policy.

Whereas liability insurance covers the driver's own fault, UM insurance coverage pays benefits to you if your car is hit by a driver who has no insurance or too little insurance to pay for the full amount of your injuries. Qualified insureds under the UM section include the policy holder, any "family member of the policy holder", or any individual occupying a covered auto.

"Occupying" means in, upon, getting in, on, out or off. To receive UM protection, you must be in, getting in, getting on, or getting out of a covered auto as listed in the liability section of the policy.

While each policy is different, the basic guidelines listed above can be helpful in determining who is covered under your policy. In a 2009 report by the Insurance Research Council, the number of uninsured drivers in Louisiana was 12%. That number is expected to rise as a result of the economic downturn. Because of this, it is very important that drivers understand the protection provided by their auto insurer so that they do not find themselves in a complex situation with little room to receive the financial resolution they deserve.

In 2005, Dale Spires of DeRidder was in a car accident that was caused by April Roberts. He sued Ms. Roberts and her insurance company paid out $10,000, which was the limit under her insurance policy. The suit was dismissed in 2006.

In 2007, Spires filed an additional lawsuit against his uninsured motorist carrier, State Farm, and alleged that Ms. Roberts was underinsured and as such he was entitled to additional recovery for the damages he sustained in the accident as well as for his emotional distress. State Farm argued that under Louisiana law, Spires had to assert all causes of action in the first suit against Ms. Roberts and was precluded from collection additional damages from state farm since the action arises from the same accident. As such, Stare Farm argued, because Spires did not bring the claim against State Farm when he sued Ms. Roberts he could no longer do so. The trial court agreed and dismissed the claim, leading to the Spires appeal.

In a 2008 decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court judgment and found that the Spires were entitled to pursue a claim against State Farm for additional damages. The case hinged on the court’s interpretation of La.Code Civ.p. art 425 which states, "A party shall assert all causes of action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation." According to the Court, art. 425 is merely a reference to the broader principle of res judicata.

When the Court of Appeals applied the res judicata principles to the Spires case they found in favor of Spires because res judiciata only applies to actions between the same parties. The first case was between Mr. Spires and Ms. Roberts and the second case was between Mr. Spires and his insurance company. The court also made the practical observation that a plaintiff who files a lawsuit against the party at fault in an auto accident may not know at the time whether his underinsured motorist insurance carrier will be implicated because at the time the extent of the damages, the limits of the at-fault parties insurance, and how the court will determine fault is unknown.

Res judicata is a very important legal principle that is applied to ensure that parties cannot re-litigate issues that have already been fully and properly decided by a court.
Under res judicata a valid and final judgement is conclusive between the same parties (except on appeal) and:

when a judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, all causes of action arising out of the same occurrence are merged into the judgment.

when a judgment is in favor of the defendant all causes of action arising out of the occurrence are extinguished and no further action may be taken on them.

a judgment in favor of either party is conclusive in any subsequent action between them with respect to an issue that has been litigated and determined in the judgment.

Any party that brings a lawsuit should make sure they have the assistance of an attorney who fully understands legal rules and their implications so that their claim will not be barred by the court.

Continue reading "DeRidder Man Successful Against Insurance Company: Court Explains Principle of Res Judicata " »

Although it has been half a decade since the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, the dangers Louisiana residents face from both unruly weather and their insurance providers are far from over. A new study released Monday reveals that New Orleans is one of the gulf cities most at risk for hurricane related damage. The study, available here, also reveals that the damage done by Katrina was primarily attributable to storm surges.

A "storm surge" is simply the rise of water caused by a storm. Storm surge damage refers to the harms caused by the flooding that results from this rise of water. This type of damage is distinct from the wind damage that may also be associated with a massive storm. The difference between flood damage and wind damage is important for a few reasons.

Primarily, the difference is important to insurance providers and their willingness to cover a claim in the event of damage to a home or property. Oftentimes general home insurance traditionally does not cover flood damage. As a result, separate insurance to protect against flood damage commonly must be retained by a home owner in order to cover storm surge damage. This is important because when a catastrophic storm hits there is no way of knowing what specific aspect of the storm will cause the eventual damage to a property or home. If a homeowner has failed to secure flood insurance they must prove that the damage their home suffered was as a result of wind (and not the storm surge) to recover under their insurance policy.

According to the article, and to the thousands of homeowners in New Orleans who faced similar battles while trying to collect on their claims, this problem is so serious because insurance companies will try to blame water damage on flooding and not the potential wind damage that led to flooding. Insurance companies may even require that homeowners acquire flood insurance before they are given coverage for wind damage in a homeowner's policy because it is so difficult to distinguish between the two and trials often ensue that are a battle of expert testimonies. Sadly, in the wake of Katrina, many people who had lost their homes found themselves in court with the burden of proving that wind was responsible for the destruction of their house.

Further, it may be nearly impossible to prove what precisely was responsible for a home's damage. Storm damages often occur so fast that it is extremely difficult to tell which aspect of the weather caused the harm. Also, once the house is destroyed most of the evidence will be lost - should there have been an evacuation of the area and nobody was around to witness the timeline of the damage, it is nearly impossible.

Although some federal judges in Mississippi have ruled that certain Gulf Coast homes were destroyed by wind, there is no way of knowing whether a similar ruling would be handed down in response to a similar disaster. Further, many insurance companies have taken every opportunity to delay payment to their clients when storms hit. For example, many victims of 2008's Hurricane Rita are still awaiting their day in court as their insurance company refuses to pay for their property losses.

The article cited above lists the 70005 and 70003 areas of Metairie as the 14th and 15th cities most in danger of suffering extreme damage from storm surges. The article also says that both areas could suffer over $2 billion in damages each. With insurance companies looking at a bill of over $4 billion it is reasonable to expect, as they have done in the past, that they will do whatever it takes to reduce the money they must pay out to homeowners. These companies may delay payments for years or they may seek to target those without flood insurance.

What does this all mean to you? First, it is necessary that all Louisiana residents prepare themselves as best as possible for any major weather events. These precautions include the need to protect themselves, their property, and their loved ones in the legal system. In additional to the physical dangers presented by the storm, Louisiana residents are also threatened by the legal maneuvering of insurance companies. It is an unfortunate reality that getting the coverage necessary to protect your home or property is not always enough to get the claim you deserve.

Continue reading "One if by land, Two if by Sea: Different Types of Insurance Needed to Protect Against Storms" »