Articles Posted in Litigation

by

oil_well_head_surrounding-686x1024The rugged world of oil well labor often serves as a crucible of challenges, where hard work meets unforeseen perils. Within this demanding landscape, a legal saga unfolds, revealing the harrowing tale of two injured workers and the intricate journey through a labyrinthine appeals process. Their journey from the fiery depths of an explosion to the halls of justice sheds light on the complexities that can arise even after a jury’s verdict, providing a stark reminder of the importance of legal expertise in navigating this tumultuous terrain.

AIX Energy Inc. owned and operated an oil well in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana. It performed a frac job and hired Republic Well Testing as a contractor to measure the oil well’s flowback. Republic installed a flowback tank. AIX decided to try to set a “packer” to produce through smaller tubing. AIX hired Jeremy Shepard and Michael Jackson as toolpushers and floor hands. While attempting to set the “packer,” the crew ran into issues. In the course of the work, there was an explosion. Jackson and Shepard were standing near the well. They were knocked over and seriously burned. 

Jackson, Shepard, and their respective wives filed a personal injury lawsuit against AIX, Republic, and others. At trial, the jury found AIX and various other defendants were negligent. The jury allocated AIX 97.5% of the fault. The jury awarded Shepard and Jackson $22.45 million in damages. AIX appealed.

Continue reading

by

storm_drain_drain_snow-1024x577Imagine walking through your neighborhood only to be seriously injured from tripping over a wire frame on a storm drain. The following case considers whether such a condition is open and obvious. This is an important consideration because if a condition is found to be open and obvious, then defendants do not have a duty to protect people from the condition. 

Theresa Granier and Linda Pace were walking on the sidewalk in their subdivision in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. They reached the end of the sidewalk and turned left to cross the street. While walking, they tried to step over a storm drain attached to the curb. They both purportedly stepped onto a wire frame, called an inlet protector, covering the drain’s opening. As a result, they tripped and fell on the street and were seriously injured. 

Granier and Pace then filed a lawsuit against Alvarez Construction Company, the developer of the subdivision as well as its insurer, Navigator Specialty Insurance Company. In the lawsuit, they claimed Alvarez was negligent because the inlet protector was in its control and created an unreasonable risk of injury. 

Continue reading

by

parade_festival_irish_parade-1024x683The vibrant spirit of Mardi Gras parades, with their kaleidoscope of colors and joyous revelry, often paints a picture of unadulterated celebration. Yet, beneath the surface of these festivities, unexpected tragedies can unfold, turning the jubilation into a legal labyrinth. Such was the case in Franklin, Louisiana, where a moment of revelry took a distressing turn as a float participant was tragically injured during a parade. What followed was a legal showdown, entangling federal regulations, contractual intricacies, and the question of liability. Amidst the sparkle and confetti, a courtroom drama unfolded, revealing the complex legal considerations surrounding the incident.

Troylond Wise was driving an 18-wheeler he owned but had leased to ACME Truck Line when he was involved in an accident during a parade. Before the accident occurred, Takisha Welch asked Wise to pull a truck for a Mardi Gras parade in Franklin, Louisiana. Welch paid $100 to Wise to use his tractor-trailer. On the parade day, Bridget Jackson was riding in the floating Wise was pulling. When Wise tried to turn right, Jackson was thrown from the float. Wise then ran over her twice. 

Jackson filed a lawsuit against Wise, ACME, and First Guard Insurance Company, the tractor-trailer’s liability insurer. Franklin subsequently settled with First Guard, so the claims against it were dismissed. Before the accident, Wise had a five-year lease with ACME, whereby Wise leased ACME his tractor-trailer. 

Continue reading

by

statues_amiens_cathedral_pic5-1024x768At the end of a trial, you are focused on whether or not the Judge ruled in your favor. However, it is not enough to only know who won the case, especially if you are considering an appeal. This case indicates the importance of paying attention not only to the outcome but also to the language in the final judgment the trial court issues. Louisiana has strict requirements for language that must be included in a final judgment for it to be valid so that an appellate court can hear the appeal. 

While Christopher Causey Jr. and Priscilla Hopkins were riding on a New Orleans Regional Transit Authority bus, they were allegedly injured following an incident involving hard braking. Their parents filed a lawsuit against the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority. Following a bench trial, the court entered a judgment in favor of the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority. The written judgment stated the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence that the defendant had been negligent and caused the injuries. Notably, the judgment did not name any parties in the lawsuit but used the general terms, plaintiff and defendant. Additionally, the judgment did not explicitly state the relief the trial court granted or denied.

Before an appellate court in Louisiana can hear an appeal, it must first determine if there is a valid final judgment. See Urquhart v. Spencer. For a judgment to be a valid final judgment, it must include decretal language. That means the decision must be clearly and explicitly spelled out in the judgment and be precise and definite. It must also include the name of the party in whose favor the judgment is ordered and any relief granted or denied.  See Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ. v. Mid City Holdings, LLC. 

Continue reading

by

law_justice_court_judge-1024x768The legal landscape can be full of unexpected twists and turns, and one such situation arose in this perplexing lawsuit. Erika Mann’s post-Hurricane Katrina home-raising project became a legal battle when she filed a lawsuit against Tim Clark Construction LLC and their insurer, Evanston Insurance Company. As the trial court issued a judgment that seemingly favored both parties, questions arose about the validity and coherence of the ruling. Join us as we delve into the intricacies of this case and explore how an inconsistent judgment navigated its way through the appeals process.

Erika Mann hired Tim Clark Construction LLC to raise her house in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as part of Louisiana’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Evanston Insurance Company was Tim Clark’s insurer for the relevant period. Its policy included a commercial general liability form covering bodily injury and property damage. It was an occurrence policy, which required that the injuries and damage occurred during the policy period. Additionally, the insurance policy had a pre-existing endorsement, which excluded any damage or loss that began to occur from an occurrence that began before the policy period. 

The construction took a few months, after which Tim Clark Construction obtained a certification of completion and occupancy. However, elevation studies revealed that the house had not been appropriately elevated. Mann then informed Tim Clark Construction it had not properly completed the project, and the house had failed inspection.

Continue reading

by

prison_fence_razor_ribbon_1-1024x768If you are considering filing a lawsuit, there are numerous procedural requirements with which you must comply. One of these requirements is that you file your lawsuit within the required period of time after the at-issue incident occurred. While the date you file your lawsuit is typically determined by the day the court receives your petition, the following case involves a special exception that applies to prisoners in certain situations. 

On January 5, 2014, Dale Brown was arrested by the police in Gretna, Louisiana, because they believed Brown was driving a vehicle involved in an armed robbery at a convenience store. While attempting to flee while being arrested, he was shot in the leg and bitten by one of the police dogs. Brown was subsequently convicted of armed robbery and aggravated flight from the police. 

While in the Louisiana State Penitentiary, Brown filed a lawsuit accusing the police of assault, battery, and civil rights violations, including use of excessive force. He claimed he filed his lawsuit within the one-year requirement of La. C.C. art. 3492. He claimed he provided his petition to the prison officials to mail on December 30, 2014. However, the Court of Orleans Parish Civil District Court clerk stamped Brown’s petition as having been filed on January 13, 2015. 

Continue reading

by

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.

Continue reading

by

pearl_harbor_hawaii_small-1024x821Losing a loved one is an unimaginable tragedy, and while financial compensation cannot fill the void left by their absence, it can provide support during challenging times. The following case involves the tragic situation of parents whose seaman son died. Although the deceased seaman’s father tried to recover damages from his son’s death, he ultimately proved unsuccessful. 

James Swafford was killed while aboard the M/V Pintail on the Mississippi River. The ship’s owner, Magnolia Fleet, and its operator, River Construction, Inc., filed a lawsuit. All claimants against Magnolia Fleet and River Construction were settled and dismissed except those of Swafford’s father. 

Swafford’s father claimed Magnolia Fleet and River Construction were liable for negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness under general maritime law. Swafford’s father wanted to recover damages based on his son’s alleged pain and suffering before his death, loss of future earnings, loss of consortium, and other punitive and monetary damages. 

Continue reading

by

cheerleaders_college_girls_sports-1024x682Everyone learns a lot of life lessons during high school. Sometimes these lessons are learned the hard way and result from the consequences of inappropriate behavior. This is even more the case today, where images can be quickly posted online for the public to see. In this case, a high school cheerleader found herself in an unfortunate situation after posting an inappropriate picture of herself online. 

Rebekka Arceneaux was a member of the varsity cheer team at Assumption High School. A public Snapchat account showed a picture of her with the skirt of her cheer uniform raised. Arceneaux was suspended and dismissed from the cheer team for exhibiting unacceptable behavior, violating the high school’s Cheer Discipline Policy. This discipline also resulted in her being unable to try out for the cheer team the following year.  

Arceneaux’s parents appealed her suspension, arguing that under the high school athletic handbook, she could not be prevented from trying out for the cheer team the next year because she only had a single suspension. After her parents were informed their appeal would not be considered, they filed a grievance with the Assumption Parish School Board. The school board responded Arceneaux had violated the Cheer Discipline Policy, and the resulting disciplinary actions were warranted. 

Continue reading

by

defense_gov_news_photo_526-1024x680When renting an apartment, tenants expect a safe and secure living environment. However, what happens when an accident occurs due to negligence by the apartment owner and management company? If a leaky roof in your apartment injures you, can you make a claim for your injuries? The following lawsuit answers that question. 

Kim Faciane lived in the Golden Key Apartments. After moving out, she filed a lawsuit against Golden Key, who owned the apartment complex, and Ohio Management, who managed the complex, and its insurer (collectively, the defendants). She claimed one night, while asleep in her apartment, sheetrock fell from the ceiling because of the leak. She claimed it hit her leg and caused her to slip and injure her back and neck. She claimed the defendants were liable because they kept the apartment in disrepair, did not repair the ceiling after being informed it leaked, and otherwise not properly maintaining or inspecting the apartments. 

The defendants filed a summary judgment motion, arguing that the lease had a provision that required Faciane to hold them harmless for any property or personal injury claims. They argued under La. R.S. 9:3221, Faciane was responsible for the premises’ conditions unless they were neglectful or failed to take action after she notified them in writing of a defect. They argued they did not know of any issues with the roof until after the accident occurred. Faciane countered the defendants had been notified about issues with the apartment’s ceiling at least two times before. The trial court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissed Faciane’s lawsuit, who appealed.

Continue reading
Contact Information
1140 St Charles Ave
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 521-6000
Fax: (504) 617-6300

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design