Articles Posted in Civil Matter

pexels-sora-shimazaki-5668765-1024x683In a recent decision, the Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment granted in favor of attorneys in a legal malpractice lawsuit. The case, highlights the critical distinction between contractual and delictual claims in insurance disputes and the potential impact on the applicable statute of limitations.

Michael Belanger was involved in a car accident and obtained a judgment against the other driver for an amount exceeding her insurance policy limits. He later sued the driver’s insurance company (GEICO) for bad faith failure to settle within policy limits. Belanger was represented by the same attorneys in both cases.

GEICO successfully argued in federal court that Belanger’s bad faith claim had prescribed (or expired due to the statute of limitations) because it was subject to a one-year prescriptive period for delictual (tort) actions. Belanger then sued his attorneys for legal malpractice, claiming they failed to argue that a ten-year prescriptive period for contractual actions applied.

pexels-tomfisk-1692693-1024x682In a recent decision, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment granted to the Ochsner Clinic Foundation in a slip-and-fall case, emphasizing the importance of thoroughly examining factual disputes before granting such a motion.

Doris Stogner slipped and fell in the atrium of an Ochsner facility in 2011, allegedly sustaining injuries. She filed a lawsuit against Ochsner, claiming negligence in maintaining the premises and allowing a slippery substance to exist. Ochsner countered with a motion for summary judgment, asserting they had proper inspection procedures in place and were not liable for the actions of independent contractors.

Key Points of the Case:

pexels-pixabay-532001-1-1024x683In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal ruling, the Fourth Circuit reinstated Officer Isaiah Shannon to the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) with back pay and benefits after a contentious dismissal. This case highlights the complexities surrounding police conduct, the use of force, and the importance of due process.

The incident that led to Officer Shannon’s termination occurred in August 2013 during a traffic stop that escalated into a car chase. Following a collision, a physical altercation broke out, and Officer Shannon discharged his weapon. The passenger fled unharmed.

The core of the dispute revolved around whether Officer Shannon fired his weapon from inside or outside the suspect’s vehicle. Officer Shannon maintained he shot from inside the car, while witnesses and investigators contended he fired from outside. The absence of bullet marks inside the vehicle and video surveillance footage were cited as evidence against Officer Shannon’s account.

vidar-nordli-mathisen-ZZvsfoidr5g-unsplash-1024x729In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case, Schroeder v. Hanover Insurance Company, et al., the court delved into the complexities of slip-and-fall cases and the crucial role of adequate warnings in determining a business’s liability. This decision highlights the importance of understanding merchant liability laws in Louisiana and how the presence of warning signs can significantly impact a personal injury claim.

Sybil Schroeder slipped and fell in the restroom of a travel plaza, sustaining injuries. She sued the travel plaza and its insurer, claiming they were negligent in maintaining a safe environment. However, she admitted in her deposition that she had noticed two “wet floor” signs before entering the restroom.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the presence of these signs demonstrated they had exercised reasonable care. The trial court initially denied the motion, but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision.

jon-tyson-FlHdnPO6dlw-unsplash-769x1024In personal injury law, the concept of “prescription” plays a crucial role. It’s essentially a deadline for filing a lawsuit; if you miss it, your claim could be barred forever. A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case, Jones v. Iberia Parish Government et al., highlights the importance of understanding prescription rules, especially when multiple parties might be involved.

Agnes Jones slipped and fell on an allegedly defective walkway in New Iberia, Louisiana. Within the one-year prescription period, she filed a lawsuit against the property owner and the Iberia Parish Government. However, almost three years after the accident, she amended her lawsuit to include the City of New Iberia as a defendant.

The City of New Iberia filed an exception of prescription, arguing that Jones’ claim against them was filed too late. The trial court agreed and dismissed Jones’ claims against the City. Jones appealed this decision.

pexels-pixabay-163007-1024x591A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit decision underscores the importance of the “continuing jurisdiction” principle in workers’ compensation cases. In this recent opinion, the court overturned a Workers’ Compensation Judge’s (WCJ) decision to dismiss a previously adjudicated claim, highlighting the specific procedures and legal framework that must be followed in such cases.

Mr. Green filed a workers’ compensation claim after suffering a work-related accident in 2008. The case went to trial in 2009, where certain facts were agreed upon, including Mr. Green’s entitlement to benefits and the employer’s liability for a penalty. The court determined Mr. Green’s average weekly wage and awarded him attorney fees and court costs. This ruling was finalized in a judgment on October 14, 2009.

In 2014, both parties agreed to stay the case until further motions were filed. However, no motions were filed, and the case remained stayed for over three years.

pexels-sora-shimazaki-5669602-703x1024In the realm of legal malpractice, the timing of filing a lawsuit is critical. A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, Wells v. Henry T. Dart, Attorneys at Law, APC, underscored this point, highlighting the one-year peremptive period for bringing such claims in the state. Let’s dissect this case and understand the implications for those considering legal action against their attorneys.

Glenda Wells hired Henry T. Dart, Attorneys at Law, APC, to represent her in a personal injury and property contamination lawsuit against several oil companies. Over time, Ms. Wells became dissatisfied with their representation and lodged a complaint with the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board in October 2013, stating she believed the firm’s actions constituted “major negligence.”

Despite this, Ms. Wells continued her relationship with the firm until they withdrew from her case in 2015. Subsequently, her case was dismissed, and she filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against the firm in March 2017. The firm argued her claim was barred by the one-year peremptive period outlined in Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:5605.

pexels-pixabay-163016-1024x645A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case sheds light on the complexities of personal injury claims following car accidents, particularly when pre-existing conditions are involved. In the case of Lewis v. Fowler, the plaintiffs were involved in a minor accident and subsequently claimed significant damages for aggravated chronic pain. However, the court ultimately ruled that their pre-existing conditions were not substantially worsened by the accident and that they had been adequately compensated by the initial settlement from the at-fault driver’s insurance. This decision highlights the importance of establishing a clear causal link between the accident and any claimed aggravation of pre-existing conditions and the challenges plaintiffs face in proving damages when their medical history is complex.

Walter and Beverly Lewis were rear-ended at a stoplight. While the accident was minor, with no damage to the other vehicle and only slight damage to their own, the Lewises claimed the accident aggravated their pre-existing back and neck pain. They initially settled with the at-fault driver’s insurance company but then filed a claim against their uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) carrier, State Farm, alleging their damages exceeded the initial settlement.

The trial court ruled in favor of State Farm, finding that the Lewises failed to prove their chronic pain was aggravated by the accident beyond a brief period. It determined that the initial settlement adequately compensated for any injuries or aggravations caused by the accident.

pexels-amina-filkins-5560552-683x1024A recent decision from the Louisiana Court of Appeal has shed light on the nuanced boundary between whistleblowing and misconduct in the workplace. The case, Melancon v. Town of Amite City, involved a police officer terminated for running unauthorized criminal background checks and lying about it. While the officer claimed he was acting as a whistleblower, the court ultimately upheld his termination, raising important questions about the limits of whistleblower protection and the importance of adhering to internal policies and procedures.

Gerald Melancon, a police officer in Amite City, Louisiana, was fired after it was discovered he had used police databases to run unauthorized background checks on various individuals, including city council members, fellow officers, and even his own wife. Melancon claimed he was investigating potential corruption within the department and that he had reported his concerns to his superiors and the FBI. He argued his termination was retaliation for his whistleblowing activities.

However, the evidence showed that Melancon had repeatedly lied about conducting background checks during the department’s internal investigation. The police chief testified that Melancon was fired primarily for his dishonesty and unauthorized use of the databases, not for any alleged whistleblowing.

pexels-pixabay-532001-1024x683In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, a case involving a police shooting during an arrest attempt highlighted the complexities of qualified immunity for law enforcement officers. The case, Marshall v. Sandifer, centered around Ervin Marshall, who was shot by a state trooper while attempting to evade arrest. The court ultimately upheld the trooper’s immunity, but the decision provides important insights into the limits and application of this legal protection.

In 2010, Louisiana State Trooper Jared Sandifer and other officers were attempting to arrest Ervin Marshall on an outstanding warrant. They located him at his girlfriend’s apartment, and after obtaining permission to enter, they conducted a search. Trooper Sandifer found Marshall hiding in a closet. When Marshall made a sudden movement, Trooper Sandifer, fearing for his safety, shot him in the abdomen.

Marshall later sued Trooper Sandifer, the Louisiana State Police, and its superintendent, alleging negligence and excessive force. The defendants claimed immunity under Louisiana law, arguing that Trooper Sandifer’s actions were discretionary and within the scope of his lawful duties.

Contact Information