Articles Posted in Semi Truck Accident

Cyclists must follow the rules of the road, not only for their own safety, but also because if an accident occurs the cyclist’s rule breaking could affect recovery. When a car hits a cyclist, the injured party can sue for negligence and recover damages as long as the other party was at fault. Outside of New Orleans, at the intersection of Jefferson Highway and North Causeway Boulevard, one cyclist failed to recover damages because he did not follow cycling rules.

 On September 24, 2012, Felix Palmisano was biking west on Jefferson Highway at 9:45 PM. At that time, Walter J. Ohler was driving a truck south on Causeway Boulevard. At the intersection of these two roads, Jefferson Highway is six lanes wide while Causeway Boulevard merges into one lane. As Mr. Ohler approached the southbound redlight, the signal turned green so Mr. Ohler coasted through the intersection. Mr. Palmisano saw the oncoming truck, but thought he could cross one lane before the truck could cross six. His intuition was wrong, and he was hit, suffering injuries. 

 On September 20, 2013, Mr. Palmisano sued Mr. Ohler in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court Parish of Jefferson, arguing that Mr. Ohler was at fault for causing the accident. The District Court ruled that Mr. Palmisano failed to prove this fault by the required “preponderance of the evidence,” which means there is a greater than 50% chance of it being true. Mr. Palmisano then appealed this decision to The Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, which focused on the fault and obligations of both the driver and the cyclist.

A car accident is difficult to manage even when it is just a simple fender-bender. Imagine a situation where the accident is  so complex that multiple companies are involved, and those companies begin filing crossclaims amongst each other. The suit can quickly get bogged down and complicated. This is exactly what happened to a family driving in St. Tammany Parish.

Mrs. Tarrah Willis was driving in St. Tammany Parish while her husband, Bruce, was in the passenger seat and their three children were in the backseat. Behind the Willis family was a semi-truck owned by Frozen Water and driven by Mr. Johnson. As traffic slowed, Mr. Johnson failed to apply his brakes and violently struck the rear of the Willis vehicle. As a result, the Willis vehicle collided with the vehicle immediately in front of it. Mrs. Willis, her husband, and their three children were all severely injured due to the accident. Mr. and Mrs. Willis bring this suit to recover damages for themselves and for their children.

After filing suit against Frozen Water and the Insurer of Frozen Water, the Willis family filed an amendment to add Reddy Ice and its insurer as additional defendants. The Willis family claimed that Reddy Ice was vicariously liable due to the level of control Reddy Ice had over Frozen Water’s operations. In response, Reddy Ice filed a crossclaim against Frozen Water. Frozen Water filed an objection, but the trial court dismissed the objection. This appeal followed, with Frozen Water contending that Reddy Ice’s claim for defense and indemnity is premature.

Most people are extra cautious when driving near an 18-wheeler truck, but accidents can happen in ways a person cannot always anticipate. That is what happened to Evelyn J. Menard in Baton Rouge in May of 2004, when an 18-wheeler in front of her snagged a wire above the road, which snapped and hit her car. Evelyn’s car went into a spin, and the truck did not stop. As a result, Evelyn had serious injuries to her lower back 

Because neither the owner nor the operator of the truck were identified, Evelyn filed a lawsuit against several defendants associated with the wire, including the Parish of East Baton Rouge, communications companies, contracting companies, her insurance company, and the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. This is a strategy that is often used in personal injury cases, because in many cases, the fault for an accident cannot be attributed to a single party, and multiple parties can be liable for an injury. In these situations, plaintiffs join multiple defendants in a single suit, and the court will decide whether, based on the facts, the lawsuit should proceed or whether some of these defendants should be dismissed. In this case, the other defendants were dismissed, except for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (“The Department”).

The case went to trial in 2015. The jury found the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development 100% liable for Evelyn’s injuries. The jury awarded Evelyn a total of $1,642,000, including $500,000 for past and future physical pain and suffering, $150,000 for past and future mental pain and suffering, $327,000 for past medical expenses, $100,000 for future medical expenses, $165,000 for lost wages, $330,000 for future loss of wages, and $70,000 for loss of enjoyment of life. The court signed a final judgment on March 12, 2015 and awarded Evelyn a total of $1,322,000 in damages, including the full $500,000 for general damages. The defendant made a timely filing of judgement notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”), which allows a judge to overrule a jury’s decision. However, the court did not grant it.  

The 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.

You 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.