Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
High speed police chases are sometimes dangerous, even for those not involved. The Louisiana Emergency Vehicles Statute essentially excuses emergency vehicle drivers, such as police vehicles, from obeying certain traffic laws while responding to a call or pursuing a suspect. This applies unless the emergency response driver endangers life or property with “reckless disregard”. La. R.S.32:24. Of course, the question remains of what types of behavior would make the difference. The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal recently answered this question in an unpublished opinion.
In April 2012, Gwendolyn Martin was a passenger in a car driven by her son at about 1:00 AM in the town of Eunice, Louisiana. When their car proceeded under a green light into an intersection, a police car driven by Officer Jacob Hanks collided with them. The officer had been responding to an emergency call that then developed into a high speed chase. The suspect, with officers in pursuit, had been driving over 90 miles per hour. As a result of the collision, Ms. Martin was injured. She thus sued the city and Officer Hanks. In 2016, the trial court found in favor of the defendants pursuant to the Louisiana Emergency Vehicles Statute. Ms. Martin appealed.
In order to determine whether or not the trial court had ruled correctly in this case, the Third Circuit considered the facts in accordance with the statute’s requirements. The statute specifically allows for emergency vehicles to proceed through red lights or stop signs, to exceed speed limits, and to disregard regulations regarding proper movement direction. These exceptions only apply when the emergency vehicle uses signals to warn others, such as lights or sirens. The statute also requires that the driver of the emergency vehicle drive in a relatively safe manner. La. R.S.32:24. The court considered testimony from other police officers that had responded to the emergency call. These statements showed both that the call had been legitimate and that all the responding officers, including Officer Hanks, used sirens and lights during the high speed chase. Officer Hanks also testified that he had attempted to stop at the red light in question, and he had ultimately slowed to about 10 miles per hour when the accident occurred. Officer Hanks stated that he had attempted an evasive maneuver when he saw the other vehicle driven by Ms. Martin’s son. In its decision, the Third Circuit considered other cases with similar situations including Lemonia v. Lafayette Parish Consolidated Government, 893 So.2d 925 (La. Ct. App. 2005). Based on facts similar to the ones in Ms. Martin’s case, the Third Circuit held that the exceptions in the statute had been satisfied.
If you and the opposing party in your lawsuit reach a settlement agreement, it might seem like your legal battle is over. However, trouble can arise if the other party does not do what they promised to do. This is the situation Cheri Gardner found herself in following a car wreck and the resulting settlement with State Farm. 
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (“DOTD”) has a duty to maintain safe and accessible transportation infrastructure for the state. One might think that because the DOTD is such a large entity, no damages could be recovered from an accident due to unsafe conditions on transportation infrastructure. However, it is possible for a plaintiff to recover damages against the DOTD.
Determining who is at fault in an accident is difficult, as everyone wants somebody to blame. Sometimes, the answer is not so crystal clear. Often, more than one person is to blame. When a court has to determine and assign fault to multiple parties in a car accident, it is using a theory known as comparative negligence to make the determination. 
Sometimes, car accidents happen. Someone speeds, gets distracted, or makes a mistake that causes an accident. Crashes can be unexpected. No one gets to decide what time of day it happens, where it happens, or who gets injured. Instead, you have to take the whole situation as it is. 
The “burden of proof” may be a familiar concept to everyone, even those inexperienced with the courts. The idea is that the party in a lawsuit holding the “burden of proof” is tasked with providing evidence that reaches the level of proof required to meet the burden. In car accidents, where amount of fault decides how damages may be determined, this burden is especially important. The evidence in some car accidents makes the division extremely obvious, both as to fault and to extent of damage. Other cases, however, especially when the accident is relatively minor, may not be so clear cut. In an unpublished opinion, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal considered such a case where the burden of proof was the main issue. 
When driving at night, it is always important to make sure your vehicle lights are working, not just so you can see, but also so others can see you. Not only can this simple task avoid an accident, but failure to do so can get you in trouble with the law.
When writing leases, it is important to pre-determine who is at fault if an accident or injury occurs on the rented land. Yet, this determination can become complicated when the border of the leased land comes into play. Other issues can involve the exact lease language which states whether one party is indemnified, or is free from having to pay damages. A case out of western New Orleans shows how damages and fee allocations for a horrific accident involving a loose metal gate depends on which lease governs, what clauses are met, and where fault should be allocated.
Freak accidents can happen in the most unexpected ways. When these life-altering events occur, it often affects more than the injured person. Depending on the circumstances, family members can receive compensation for non-physical injuries, such as loss of consortium (companionship).