Articles Posted in Car Accident

safe_road_safety_traffic-1024x683Car accidents can be distressing, and the aftermath becomes even more complex when multiple vehicles are involved. Such was the case with Lisa Watson, Shelley Tannehill, and Melissa Smith after a three-car collision on Interstate-10 in New Orleans. Determining liability in these situations is no easy task, as demonstrated in this legal battle revolving around whether summary judgment was warranted for the dismissal of claims against the driver of the middle car. Let’s delve into the intricacies of this case and highlight the significance of seeking professional legal advice when facing similar situations.

While driving on Interstate-10 in New Orleans, Lisa Watson was followed by Shelley Tannehill and a car driven by Melissa Smith. After Watson came to a complete stop, Smith’s vehicle hit the back of Tannehill’s vehicle, which then hit Watson’s car. Watson filed a lawsuit against Smith and her insurer and Tannehill and her insurer. Watson claimed Tannehill had been following her too closely and claimed she was hit from behind after the Smith car rear-ended Tannehill when Tannehill suddenly stopped. 

Tannehill filed a summary judgment motion claiming she was completely stopped when the Smith vehicle hit her. Therefore, the only time she hit Watson’s vehicle was because the Smith vehicle hit her. Tannehill provided excerpts from depositions and the police report to support her claim. Watson argued there was a factual dispute about whether Tannehill hit her car before Smith hit Tannehill’s car. The trial court granted Tannehill’s summary judgment motion and dismissed Watson’s claims against Tannehill. Watson appealed.

ambulance_ambulance_service_1666012-678x1024Medical emergencies call for swift and professional response from emergency medical personnel. However, what happens when a patient sustains additional injuries during transit due to unforeseen circumstances? The following case highlights the complexities of dealing with immunity laws for government employees and emphasizes the importance of seeking legal counsel to navigate statutory requirements and potential exceptions when considering legal action in such situations.

One morning, Clovina Stein felt like she was having a heart attack at her home in Gretna, Louisiana, so she requested emergency medical services. They took Stein to the hospital in an ambulance. While in transit to the hospital, the driver had to make a sudden stop. That caused one of the emergency medical technicians to fall on top of Stein. 

Once at the hospital, Stein was treated for a heart attack. Stein filed a lawsuit against the city of Gretna, the responding emergency personnel, and other defendants, claiming she suffered severe injuries when the emergency medical technician fell on her while in transit to the hospital. 

crosswalk_pedestrian_crossing_407023-1024x656People often assume that pedestrians always have the right of way. While this adage is partially true, pedestrians who avoid proper safety protocols can be found more at fault for an injury than the car that struck them. If avoiding physical trauma is not motivation enough to look both ways before crossing the street, the following lawsuit may encourage you to take proactive steps to avoid being hit.

Wilson Jolivette was walking on a service road near Louisiana Highway 90 when he was struck by a passing truck driven by Ray Hebert. Hebert was employed by Hanagriff’s Machine Shop and was driving a large flatbed truck owned by the Shop. Jolivette broke both his wrist and ankle due to the collision. Hebert’s driver’s license documents partial vision loss in one eye, and he testified that he did not see Jolivette walking on the road. 

Witnesses to the events described Jolivette walking into the road, being struck by the truck’s side mirror, and spinning into the air. Jolivette admitted that he did not look both ways before crossing the service road and consequently did not see the truck coming. Jolivette sued the Shop for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of earnings. The jury found him 70% at fault for the accident and the Shop at fault for the other 30%. The jury also awarded Jolivette $10,000 for pain and suffering and other awards. Both parties appealed their assignments of fault. Jolivette appealed the $10,000 ruling.  

new_zealand_accident_insurance_0-1024x768Vicarious liability in the context of work-related accidents is a complex legal issue that necessitates careful analysis of the state’s code. The case of Sarah Barber serves as a compelling example of the potential consequences when a government employee causes an accident while performing their job duties. Understanding the nuances of vicarious liability and the specific provisions governing such cases is essential to determine the employer’s liability for the actions of their employees.

Sarah Barber (Barber) was driving her car with passengers on Highway 107 in Pineville, Louisiana, when her car collided with Larry Jeane (Jeane), heading northbound on the highway. The collision occurred when Jeane’s car crossed the median and hit Barber’s vehicle. Mr. Jeane succumbed to injuries, while Barber’s passengers sustained severe injuries. The passengers in Barber’s vehicle filed a lawsuit against the City of Pineville, its insurer, and several other defendants. 

The primary issue discussed in this case was whether the State was vicariously liable for the accident caused by Jeane because he was on the job as a state Marshal when the accident happened. The Plaintiffs claimed the state was vicariously liable for Jeane’s actions since Jeane’s job is directed by the State Legislature. For the passengers to be successful in their vicarious liability claim, they needed to show the state was responsible for the Marshal’s actions under La. C. C. art. 2320 and La. R.S. 42:1441.4.

accident_car_accident_car-1024x683Being involved in a car accident is unfortunate, especially when it leaves you with long-term pain and suffering. If your injuries are a direct result of a car accident, you may be entitled to compensation from those who caused them. Rather than risk representing yourself in the legal process and walking away with little to nothing, you need to be represented by a qualified attorney who can assist in getting you the damages you deserve. 

Brenda Brown was stopped at a red light when she was rear-ended. The driver of the other vehicle was Homer Sargent, who had been employed by Evans Environmental and Geological Science and Management. Both vehicles were rentals from Enterprise Car Rental. 

Brown claimed the car accident caused her numerous personal injuries, entitling her to compensation for not only past, present, and future physical pain and suffering, but also past, present, and future lost wages and earnings. Additionally, she argued she was entitled to damages for her diminished quality of life as well as for severe emotional and mental anguish. 

school_bus_canada_highway-1024x1024It is well known that every court order contains a physical copy declaring what the verdict of the case is, otherwise known as a final judgment. However, the order must contain what we call “decretal language.” But what in the world does that mean?  The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal discusses this question and when a final judgment can be amended to contain all the necessary language crucial for the order.

Upon appeal, in the Third Circuit Court of Appeal in the State of Louisiana, Cedrick Laundry alleged that his son, Sengal, was injured when the school bus he was riding hit a curb and ran into a pothole. Defendants (the School Board and others) filed for summary judgment as they believed they were not responsible for Sengal’s injuries.

Summary judgment is when there is no genuine issue of material fact as it pertains to the case. Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the School Board cannot prove its case, the court will dismiss it. The trial court granted their motion for summary judgment but did not state the dismissal of any or all of the claims against the School. The judgment simply stated:

storm_damage_hurricane_wind-1024x768Borrowing a car from family or friends is a common occurrence. While you might think your car insurance protects you in the unfortunate event you are involved in a car accident while driving the borrowed car, it is essential to be aware of exclusions that might apply to your insurance coverage. This case involves a policy exclusion that applied to property damage caused to the borrowed car. 

Asha Sade Johnson had a car insurance policy from Geico. Johnson was involved in a car accident while driving a Jeep owned by her mother, Ruby Lee Lewis. The accident caused significant damage to her mother’s car. Lewis did not have her own collision or comprehensive coverage insurance for her car. Johnson owned a different car insured by Geico. 

Lewis filed a lawsuit against Geico seeking compensation under Johnson’s insurance policy for the damages caused to her vehicle from the accident while Johnson was driving her car. Geico filed a summary judgment motion, arguing Johnson’s policy did not include coverage for damage to property such as Lewis’ car. The trial court denied Geico’s summary judgment motion.

coins_currency_investment_insurance_0-1024x683Receiving compensation from the at-fault driver’s insurance policy after a car accident can bring relief. However, it is essential to be aware of the potential complications if the awarded amount exceeds the other driver’s insurance policy limits. This case serves as an example of what can happen in such situations and highlights the importance of understanding the legal implications.

Claudio Larios was waiting to find a parking spot at her apartment complex in Metairie, Louisiana, with Marlon Funez riding in her passenger seat. Lindsay Vehorn was stopped behind them in her car. A truck came around the corner and tried to get in front of Vehorn and her car, apparently not seeing Larios in her car. The truck hit the back left of Larios’ car. The truck passenger was drunk. Larios could see the driver of the truck before he drove off. Larios and Funez had to receive medical treatment due to the incident. 

The day after the accident, Larios encountered the truck passenger. She gave the passenger her contact information and asked that it be passed along to the driver of the truck. Julio Martinez, whom Larios recognized as the truck driver that had hit her car, subsequently contacted her and provided her with insurance documentation. Because Larios and Funez could not locate and serve Martinez, they voluntarily dismissed the claims against Martinez and brought all claims against Imperial under Louisiana’s Direct Action Statute, La. R.S. 22:1269. At trial, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs. Larios was awarded $21,318 ($6,218 for past medical expenses and $15,100 for past pain and suffering). Funez was awarded $21,267 ($5,267 in past medical expenses in $16,000 for past pain and suffering). The court ordered Imperial to pay the amounts. Imperial appealed. 

car_burning_wreck_fire-1024x683Assigning fault in a vehicle accident can be challenging, especially when witnesses present conflicting accounts of what transpired. The struggle to ascertain the truth becomes even more pronounced when there are discrepancies in testimony regarding the events leading up to the accident. But what happens when conflicting narratives emerge in court? The following lawsuit out of New Orleans helps answer that question.

Brenda Gaines and Laura Wilson were involved in a car accident on the ramp onto the Chef Menteur Highway in New Orleans, Louisiana. Gaines filed a lawsuit against Wilson and her insurers, claiming she had been injured and her rental car had been damaged. Both Gaines and Wilson testified at trial. 

Gaines claimed Wilson made a U-turn without warning and crossed into the far-right lane, where she collided with Gaines. Wilson did not deny making a U-turn but testified she had never changed lanes during the relevant period preceding the accident. Gaines claimed she had fully cleared the exit ramp when the accident occurred. She did not recall whether there had been a yield sign. She believed she did not have a duty to yield to traffic in the right eastbound lane but testified she had looked and did not see any traffic before proceeding. 

hammer_court_dollar_dollar-1024x768Every day, individuals rely on the court system to resolve disputes, to ensure due process, and to serve justice. Individuals who are victims of an accident and suffered injury often need the courts to be restored to their previous condition. However, when a court issues an unclear final judgment, you need an excellent attorney to assist in sorting through the confusion and helping you find relief.

Luis Espinoza-Peraza was involved in a car accident and sustained injuries after being rear-ended by a car owned and operated by Martha Alexander and Willard Belton. He brought this lawsuit in November 2012, seeking damages from Belton, Alexander, and their insurer, Allstate. Allstate immediately sought a peremptory exception raising res judicata, meaning there had already been a final judgment on the matter, and could not be re-litigated. According to Allstate, it had previously issued a check to Espinoza-Peraza in relation to the accident, and he cashed the check with full knowledge of it being a final settlement.

Even though the trial court maintained the peremptory exception at a June 2014 hearing, the trial court did not sign the written judgment until January 2016. In the meantime, Espinoza-Peraza had moved for a new trial, but that motion was denied in September 2014. Then, in March 2015, the trial court finally signed a written judgment denying Espinoza-Peraza’s motion for a new trial and dismissed Belton, Alexander, and Allstate from the suit. Espinoza-Peraza then filed an appeal for the permitted peremptory exception and the denial of his motion for a new trial.

Contact Information