Articles Posted in Semi Truck Accident

trucking-in-snow-1357665-1024x681The viewing of a dead body can be traumatic for many people. If that viewing is caused by the negligence of another an excellent attorney may help you secure compensation for the emotional anguish experienced from that event. Shortly after midnight on February 4, 2011, Ronnie Rodd Davis was operating a tractor-trailer, owned by Superior Carriers, on eastbound Interstate 10 near the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge in Baton Rouge. Mr. Davis noticed that a collision had recently occurred in front of him and was able to stop before joining the other cars in the collision. Due to the abrupt stop to avoid the collision Mr. Davis’ tractor-trailer was rear-ended by another tractor-trailer operated by John V. Scott, and owned by Service Transport Company. The collision caused Mr. Davis’ tractor-trailer to move forward and strike a Ford F-150 pickup truck that was involved in the initial collision. Mr. Davis exited his tractor-trailer and upon exiting saw the deceased driver of that Ford F-150, Jonas T. Richmond, under or near Mr. Davis’ trailer axle.

Mr. Davis filed a lawsuit for damages and named John V. Scott, Service Transport, and Service Transport’s insurer, National Interstate Insurance Company (National Interstate), as defendants. The defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment and sought to dismiss Mr. Davis’ claims of mental anguish and/or emotional distress due to Mr. Davis’ viewing of the deceased body of Mr. Richmond. After a hearing, the Trial Court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. This dismissed any claims Mr. Davis had related to any alleged mental and/or emotional injuries.

Mr. Davis then filed a motion to designate the judgment as final so he could immediately appeal. The defendants opposed this motion. After a hearing, the Trial Court designated the judgment as final for purposes of immediate appeal and determined there was no just reason for delay. On appeal, the Appellate Court had both procedural problems and issues of causation regarding the accident. First, the Appellate Court dealt with the procedural issues created by the order of final judgment for purposes of immediate appeal. Only after the issue of whether the final judgment order was proper could the court consider the underlying factual issues of whether it was appropriate to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The main issues were whether the issuing of a final judgment was proper, whether to convert the appeal to an application for a supervisory writ, and whether the Trial Court erred in granting Mr. Scott’s motion for partial summary judgment.

school-bus-2-1518496-651x1024Losing a child is always an extremely difficult experience for a parent to go through, and it is even more difficult when the death is a result of negligence. Normally when negligence occurs, the parents bring forth a wrongful death lawsuit against the negligent party.

On March 14, 2011, six-year-old La’Derion Miller tragically passed away following a school bus accident when La’Derion attempted to board the school bus and the bus door closed on his arm. Unfortunately, La’Derion could not free himself and he tripped and fell on the road, where he was run over by the bus. As a result of the accident, La’Derion’s parents, Marcus Miller, and Heather Jagnauex, filed separate wrongful death lawsuits naming Harold Thibeaux (the bus driver), Lafayette Parish School Board, and American Alternative Insurance Corporation as defendants. Ms. Jagnaeux and Mr. Miller claimed their son died as a result of the defendants’ negligence.

Mr. Miller’s and Ms. Jagnauex’s separate lawsuits were consolidated for trial. Ms. Jagneaux ended up settling outside of court for $275,000 and subsequently dropped from the case. At trial, the trial court ruled in favor of Mr. Miller awarding him $50,000 in damages for his survival action, $250,000 in damages for his wrongful death claim, and court costs. The defendants disagreed with the trial court’s decision and appealed the decision to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

trucking-pics-1619675-1024x765You never know when a leisurely drive can turn into a lengthy lawsuit. Larry Dragna was on a drive in November, 2011, when his vehicle was hit by a driver for A&Z Transportation. KLLM Logistics hired A&Z to transport a freight load from Louisiana to Michigan. Before hiring A&Z, KLLM followed its internal selection policy by reviewing A&Z on a transportation industry review website, which showed that three of A&Z’s scores were at a point that indicated problems in certain categories. Although the indicators showed instances of unsafe driving, fatigued driving, and maintenance issues, there were no federal regulations that advised KLLM not to hire companies with scores like A&Z. KLLM, however, had an internal policy to not hire carriers with three troublesome scores until it had discussed the scores internally or with the carrier. There is no evidence if whether KLLM followed this policy when they hired A&Z.

The Dragnas sued KLLM, claiming that KLLM was liable under the theories of joint venture, vicarious liability, and negligent hiring of an independent contractor. The district court for the Middle District of Louisiana entered summary judgment in favor of KLLM on all three claims and the Dragnas appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided this case.

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute to any material fact in the case, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court in this case first applied this requirement to the issue of joint venture liability, finding that the Dragnas’ evidence did not create a genuine dispute of material fact about a joint venture between KLLM and A&Z. Under Louisiana law, there are certain requirements that must be met in order for there to be a joint venture. There must be contributions between two or more persons in determinate proportions, a joint effort between the parties, a sharing of profits, and a mutual risk of losses. See Cajun Elec. Power Coop., Inc. v. McNamara, 452 So. 2d 212, 215 (La. Ct. App. 1984). Those requirements were not met, as A&Z used its own resources in transporting the load, KLLM placed all of the risk of loss on A&Z, A&Z did not share in any profits made, but was paid upon completion of performance, and A&Z alone determined how to move the load. Summary judgment, was, therefore proper in regards to the first issue of joint venture liability.

car-accident-5-1426862-1024x768After a motor vehicle collision occurs, a court will assign each driver involved a standard of care they were required to maintain. Drivers under Louisiana law are usually subject to ordinary care when driving their vehicle. However, under the law, certain motorists are held to a higher standard or are favored to have less liability if an accident occurs. This differentiation in standards was recently highlighted when a garbage truck was hit by a pickup driving on a three-lane road while pulling out of a Burger King exit.

On August 10, 2009, an accident occurred at the intersection of Carrollton and Tulane Avenue, which has a complicated set-up of four lanes that travel east, three for traffic and one for a bus stop, and three lanes that travel west separated by a concrete median. Gregory Hicks, a garbage truck driver, attempted to cross all four eastbound lanes in order to make a turn onto the westbound lanes, but while doing so his truck blocked all eastbound lanes. The garbage truck, which was owned by Hicks’ employer, IESI LA Corporation, was subsequently struck by a pickup truck driven by Bazzell Hamdan. Hamdan, all of the passengers, and the owner of the pickup truck filed lawsuits against Hicks and IESI. The cases were consolidated and the matters that weren’t settled went to trial in Orleans Parish.

The issues at trial involved the liability of both the defendants and plaintiffs and the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, which included personal injury claims and a property damage claim. The district court found Hicks 100% at fault and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded general damages (pain and suffering) and special damages (medical expenses and insurance policy deductible) in the amount of: $37,000 general and $11,023.38 special to Hamdan, $36,000 general and $12,786.57 special to a passenger and $500 special to the vehicle owner.  

money-money-money-1241634-1024x768There are many questions involved in filing and pursuing a lawsuit. How do I file? When must I file? Against whom do I file it? What amount of damages do I seek? Most people are unaware that there are different types of damages. An attorney’s trial strategy not only plays a critical role in if the plaintiff is awarded compensation but also in how much the plaintiff is awarded, as highlighted by the following case.

Lana Averette was driving on Highway 1 in Port Allen when she was struck by an Entergy bucket truck driven by an employee of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. (“Entergy”). On June 11, 2013, Ms. Averette filed a lawsuit against Entergy and the employee (“Defendants”), asserting that she had suffered spinal injuries from the accident. During his closing statement to the jury at the end of the trial, Ms. Averette’s attorney asked the jury not to award her future general damages, but to award her the cost of the future medical treatments she would be required to undergo because of her injuries. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Averette in the amount of $42,373.00 for past lost wages, $58,378.00 for past medical expenses, $75,000.00 for past mental anguish and emotional distress, $75,000.00 for past lost enjoyment of life, $75,000.00 for past pain and suffering, and $500,000.00 for future medical expenses. Defendants filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or alternatively a motion for new trial, arguing that it was error as a matter of law to award Ms. Averette future special damages without awarding future general damages. The Judicial District Court for the Parish of West Baton Rouge denied the motions and Defendants appealed to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal. On appeal, Defendants argued that because Ms. Averette waived her claim for future pain and suffering, she waived her claim for future medical expenses.

General damages seek to compensate the plaintiff for losses of life or lifestyle which cannot be measured definitively in terms of money, such as pain and suffering. See McGee v. A C and S, Inc., 933 So.2d 770, 774 (La. 2006).  In contrast, special damages are those which may be calculated with relative certainty, including medical expenses.  In reviewing a jury’s award of special but not general damages, a reviewing court must ask if the award is so inconsistent that it is an abuse of discretion.  See Wainwright v. Fontenot, 774 So. 2d 70 (La. 2000).  Under certain circumstances, the Court of Appeal noted that evidence presented at trial could support an award of medical expenses without an award of general damages. Thus, the question before the Court of Appeal was whether the jury made inconsistent awards based on the record of evidence.

semi-truck-4-1518489-1024x651During litigation, a party may attempt to claim some form of privilege as an avenue not to produce certain evidence.  There are various types of privileges that may be asserted.  One that is familiar to many is attorney-client privilege.  One that is not as familiar is work-product privilege.  Work-product privilege is claimed in civil cases and is used to keep materials that are created in anticipation of litigation from being discovered by opposing counsel.  However, to assert work-product privilege the party claiming it must be an adverse party in the lawsuit.  A non-party is not entitled to work-product privilege, as Louisiana State recently learned when the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed that work-product privilege can only be claimed by an adverse party.

In 2011, Ramanand Naik was in a car accident on highway 84 in De Soto Parish, Louisiana.  Mr. Naik was driving a Ryder box truck when a semi-truck, driven by Nathaniel Anthony, hauling a flatbed trailer carrying a boom lift veered across the center line, jackknifed, and crashed into Mr. Naik’s truck.  The impact of the crash caused the boom lift to fall off the trailer and onto the cab of the Ryder truck essentially crushing Mr. Naik and his passenger, Norman Latcha.  Following the accident, Naik filed a lawsuit against various parties and their insurance company.  Mr. Naik did not name Louisiana State as a defendant and the named defendants did not bring Louisiana State in as a third-party defendant.

Despite being a non-party to the lawsuit, ORM was brought into the case during discovery when Mr. Naik filed a notice to have ORM produce all the documents that they had pertaining to the accident. The named defendants in the case did not oppose Mr.Naik’s request.  ORM did not produce the documents leading Mr. Naik to file a motion to compel: a request to have the court force ORM to produce the documents.  ORM filed a motion to quash: a request to invalidate the motion to compel and avoid producing the documents asserting the documents were protected by the work-product privilege. The First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana denied ORM’s motion, requiring the production of the documents based on ORM’s non-party status thus the lack of available work-product privilege.  

toes-1438916-1024x683As if having car troubles was not bad enough, imagine also losing your toe in the process. Well, that exact scenario happened to Valerie Babin. After her vehicle broke down in Gonzales, Louisiana, Ms. Babin called American Towing Enterprises to tow her vehicle. An American Towing Enterprises’s employee, Floyd Russo, arrived to help Ms. Babin. At this point, Ms. Babin’s day went from bad to worse. As Mr. Russo partially loaded the vehicle onto the truck’s flatbed, Ms. Babin went to turn off her vehicle’s emergency flashers. At the same time, Mr. Russo lowered the truck bed, which landed on Ms. Babin’s foot, crushing her big toe. Despite attempts to save her big toe, Ms. Babin eventually required surgery to remove it.

Ms. Babin filed a lawsuit against Mr. Russo and American Towing Enterprises. At trial, the court awarded $673,380.35 in damages, finding Mr. Russo and American Towing Enterprises 60% at fault and Ms. Babin 40% at fault. When the injured individual is found partially at fault for his or her injury, his or her damages are reduced by the amount he or she was at fault. In Ms. Babin’s case, her fault reduced the total amount of damages to $404,028.21. Ms. Babin appealed the trial court’s determination of damages, claiming that the awarded amount was insufficient. Conversely, Mr. Russo and American Towing Enterprises appealed the trial court’s determination claiming that the amount awarded was excessive.

The Louisiana Court of Appeals (“the Court”) was tasked with determining whether the damages were insufficient or excessive. The Court examined two types of damages, general damages, and special damages. General damages often include mental or physical pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of gratification or intellectual or physical enjoyment, or other losses of lifestyle. McGee v. A C And S, Inc., 933 So. 2d 770, 774 (La. 2006). The goal of general damages is to make the injured party whole. In other words, put the injured party in the same position he or she was at prior to the injury. Special damages are damages that the injured person will experience in the future. Ms. Babin argued that at minimum she should have received $400,000 for general damages and $557,028 in special damages for future medical care. The Court found that the trial court’s determination of general and special damages was reasonable. When addressing the amount of special damages for future medical care, the Court noted that the trial court awarded Ms. Babin $223,77.00 based on the testimony of two doctors at trial. When seeking future medical expenses, “the appellate record must establish that future medical expenses will be necessary and inevitable.” Bass v. State, 167 So. 3d 711, 716 (La. 2014). In addition, future medical expenses will not be supported when there is not medical testimony. The Court found the trial court’s determination of special damages was reasonable and disregarded the defendants’ argument that the awarded amount was unsupported by evidence. Lastly, the Court examined the loss of future wages. The loss of future wages requires the trial court to determine how much work the injured party will miss in the future because of his or her injury. For Ms. Babin, the trial court determined that Ms. Babin will lose $81,735.00 in future wages. The Court also found this amount reasonable.

desertic-road-1446241-1024x768Employees can pit employers against each other just like children do with parents. If permission is limited by one person the employee/child will simply repeat their request to the other party.  What an employee is permitted to do can be ambiguous.  In a recent automobile accident case out of Shreveport however, the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed that employer “permission” in Louisiana provides a wide berth to an employee and can result in unexpected liability.  

A former employee of Water Works Irrigation Inc. (“Water Works”), Lovell Ellis, used his assigned company truck to pick up his girlfriend, Raquel Coleman, outside of his normal service area.  While the two were in the truck, Mr. Ellis ran off the road, wrecking the truck and injuring Ms. Coleman. Ms. Coleman claimed that Mr. Ellis was texting while driving and ran off the road. In his deposition, Mr. Ellis denied being on his phone but explained his swerving to avoid a log caused the accident. Later Mr. Ellis pled guilty to Driving While Intoxicated (“DWI”) but claimed that he drank only one beer.

As a result of the accident, Ms. Coleman sustained fractured vertebrae as well as other injuries. In January of 2012, Ms. Coleman filed a personal injury lawsuit against Mr. Ellis, Water Works, and Water Works’ Insurance company, United Fire Insurance (“United Fire”), seeking damages. After the dismissal of Water Works, the trial proceeded against Mr. Ellis and United Fire. The District Court found Ellis 100% at fault and United Fire liable for coverage.  The District Court awarded damages of $47,449.67 to be paid by either or both defendants.

electrical-towers-1230495-1024x683When an employee is injured on the job they often have extensive medical bills and less money to pay those bills because they may not be able to work. While workman’s compensation, insurance, and disability benefits are available to cover those costs, there is another form of compensation available to those who are injured as a result of negligence or other bad acts. The injured party can file a lawsuit against those responsible. Of course, there are often questions surrounding who is in fact legally responsible, e.g., for maintenance of a job site, and it takes an experienced lawyer to navigate such complicated legal questions.

Glenn Chesney pursued the latter route by filing a lawsuit after he was injured by coming into contact with an uninsulated, sagging power line at the Magnolia landfill in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. Glenn was driving his truck through the landfill facility to weigh and unload the removable trash container on his flatbed truck. A power outage created a backlog of trucks waiting for the scale to come back online. Glenn, in the meantime, decided to take the tarp off of his load so that he could unload faster when he got to the front of the line. The truck Glenn was driving had mechanical arms that could raise to a maximum height of approximately 17 feet off the ground. Ordinarily, Glenn used the mechanical arms of the truck to take the tarp off of the trash container so it could be unloaded. However, this time when those arms raised they came into contact with the sagging and uninsulated power line. By this time, the power had been restored to the landfill facility and Glenn was injured as a result. The main issue that Glenn had to deal with on his latest appeal was whether the electrical contractor, Copeland Electric Company, could be held liable for failing to maintain the electrical line.

Copeland originally installed the electrical line in 1994 and the accident that injured Glenn Chesney occurred 16 years later on August 13th 2010. Because of the length of time between the installation and the incident, the lawyers for Copeland attempted to have the action dismissed under La. R.S. 9:2772. This Louisiana statute provides that deficiencies in immovables from construction, surveying, design, or supervision have a 10-year peremptive period for actions. That means that even if Copeland was negligent in constructing the electrical line, the Glenn had no cause of action because the time period for bringing such action lapsed. See Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So.3d 1065 (La. 2009). These time limits on when you can file a lawsuit are an attempt by the legislators to strike a balance between vindicating victims of past injustices and flooding the courts with untimely lawsuits based on stale evidence, which makes a court’s job of assessing the facts of a case much more difficult.

ski-sign-1525674-1024x768When asserting a cause of action or maintaining certain legal defenses in court, parties bear the burden of proving their case. This is done by presenting evidence to the court such as documents and witness testimony. Often, certain issues will require the court to make findings of fact which require scientific expertise or specialized knowledge. Expert witnesses assist the trial court in understanding complex issues of fact that could be determinative to the outcome of a case. A recent decision discusses how a court qualifies experts and utilizes their testimony.

The dispute, in this case, arose when a utility trailer pulled by John Guidry (Mr. Guidry) crossed an electric line owned by Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BECi). In October 2013, Mr. Guidry and his colleague, Karen Gorum (Ms. Gorum) left a property in Edgerly, Louisiana, traveling east on Houston River Road with a utility trailer in tow. According to Mr. Guidry, the truck suddenly went in the air and stopped in mid-air. After emerging from the truck, Mr. Guidry, and Ms. Gorum saw an electrical line lying in the roadway. Both Mr. Guidry and Ms. Gorum suffered various injuries in the accident.

Several lawsuits were filed. In the first lawsuit, Mr. Guidry sought damages from BECi and its insurer, Federated Rural Electric, for the injuries he sustained. BECi answered alleging that Mr. Guidry was negligent and contributed to the accident. In the second suit, Ms. Gorum alleged that BECi and Mr. Guidry were both negligent in causing the accident and the injuries she sustained. She also sued Federated. In the third suit, Mr. Guidry and his insurer, State Farm, alleged that BECi was negligent in causing the accident. State Farm sought to recover the amount it paid Mr. Guidry for his property damages pursuant to the automobile policy it issued to him. Mr. Guidry sought to recover the $250 deductible required by State Farm’s policy. BECi moved to consolidate the three cases and all three parties agreed. The three suits were consolidated and tried together.