Articles Posted in Negligence

by

37-Email-03-03-19-1024x986Generally, individuals expect that when on the premises of a public entity, the land has been safely maintained and there is a low risk of becoming injured. If an individual did become injured, he or she would expect to be reasonably compensated for any injuries. However, in Louisiana, premises liability law differs from the law that is applied when suing a private landowner. As this case shows, establishing that a defect causes an unreasonable risk of harm is a difficult obstacle to overcome when suing a public entity and can leave injured parties with no compensation for their injuries.

A man who was seriously injured on the property Ville Platte Housing Authority (VPHA) was not allowed to recover damages for his injuries. Marcushawn Smith, the injured man, was walking on the grass when he fell and seriously injured his ankle in a six inch wide and more than four-inch deep hole on VPHA’s property. Mr. Smith filed a lawsuit against the VPHA, the Louisiana Housing Council, Inc., and FARA Insurance Services, Inc. to recover compensation for his injuries. The Louisiana Housing Council and FARA Insurance were later dismissed from the case. At the trial court in Lake Charles, Louisiana, the judge decided the hole that Mr. Smith fell in did not create an unreasonable risk of harm, dismissing Mr. Smith’s claim against VPHA. Mr. Smith appealed this judgment to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, arguing that because he fell and was seriously injured, the trial court committed legal error by finding that the hole did not create an unreasonable risk of harm.

On appeal, the judge relied on a 2012 Louisiana Supreme Court case which stated that states that in order to recover for damages, the injured party must establish five facts: (1) the public entity had ownership of the defective thing; (2) the defect created an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) the public entity was or should have been aware of the defect; (4) the public entity failed to fix the defect in a reasonable time; and (5) the defect is the cause of the complainant’s injury. See Chambers v. Village of Moreauville, 85 So.3d 593, 597 (La. 2012). Usually, as was the case here, the second criteria is the hardest for an injured party to overcome.

Continue reading

by

39-post-photo-1024x683Most customers do not expect to be hurt by store merchandise when they go shopping. Yet, each year dozens of individuals are injured due to “falling merchandise.” The following Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal (“the Court”) case is a perfect example of what happens when an individual seeks legal action for being injured by a store’s falling merchandise.

Darry Hughes and his co-worker sought to purchase a plastic storage bin from Home Depot for their East Baton Rouge office. Inside the store, Hughes was injured when he removed a plastic bin from a shelf using both hands and was unable to stop another bin behind it from falling onto his face. Hughes brought a lawsuit against Home Depot U.S.A. (“Home Depot”) for the injuries he sustained from the alleged incident on the grounds that the bin was unstably stored.

Home Depot motioned the trial court for summary judgment, claiming that Hughes could not prove he did not cause the bin to fall upon himself and that he lacked evidence to show Home Depot was negligent or caused the injury he received. To show their purported innocence, Home Depot called in a twelve-year employee of the company, who testified that in all of his time there he had never heard of or seen an incident report where a product had fallen from a shelf.

Continue reading

by

empty-hall-2-1545642-1-1024x607For a plaintiff to prove a negligence case, he or she must prove, among other things, that the defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff. See La. C.C. art. 2315 (2016). Often, this element of negligence is overlooked and taken for granted which can lead to dismissal of the plaintiff’s case. A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case out of the Third Circuit illustrates the importance of proving duty in a negligence case.

The case centers around the suicide of Lelia Shelvin while in Lafayette Parish County Sheriff custody. Sheriff Mike Neustrom arrested Ms. Shelvin for aggravated battery with a dangerous weapon. Sheriff Neustrom then took Ms. Shelvin to Lafayette Parish Correctional Center. While at the center, Ms. Shelvin committed suicide. Ms. Shelvin’s estate filed a lawsuit against Sheriff Neustrom, alleging that Sheriff Neustrom was at fault for Ms. Shelvin’s suicide.

At trial, Sheriff Neustrom filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that he had no duty to Ms. Shelvin because her suicide was a “sudden and completely unpredictable event.” A motion for summary judgment asks the court to decide a case before going to trial, so long as all material facts are agreed upon by the parties. The trial court granted Sheriff Neustrom’s motion for summary judgment, ruling in favor of Sheriff Neustrom. Ms. Shelvin’s estate, disagreeing with the trial court, appealed the decision.

Continue reading

by

horse-nose-1575359-1024x681Think before you act. We have all heard this advice. But, thinking before you act can be difficult. Sometimes, emotions and the heat of the moment prompt you to react before you think. A common example of this occurrence is in road rage altercations. It is easy to get upset when you get cut off or a person pulls out in front of you. But the legal ramifications of acting on those emotions can be dire. A recent case out of the First Circuit Court of Appeal for the State of Louisiana illustrates one type of legal consequence that could happen when emotion turns to violence.

It all began in Ascension Parish when Clifford Barr, driving his pickup truck, attempted to make a left turn into a parking lot. Mr. Barr’s left turn was blocked by Ray Schexnayder, who was trying to make a left turn out of the parking lot’s entrance. As Mr. Barr attempt to make the left hand turn into the parking lot, Mr. Schexnayder simultaneously exited the parking lot, turning left as well. Both vehicles narrowly escaped hitting each other. After the near miss, both Mr. Barr and Mr. Schexnayder started exchanging words. This conversation quickly became heated. Mr. Barr, after exchanging words, continued into the parking lot. Mr. Schexnayder followed Mr. Barr into the parking lot. While in the parking lot, Mr. Schexnayder exited his pickup truck, proceeded to Mr. Barr’s vehicle, and then stuck his head through the open window of Mr. Barr’s vehicle. At this point, the facts are unclear. Both Mr. Barr and Mr. Schexnayder claim that the other person threw a punch. Regardless of who punched first, a fight ensued. In the fight, Mr. Barr sustained a nose injury when Mr. Schexnayder bit Mr. Barr on the nose.

Mr. Barr filed a lawsuit against Mr. Schexnayder for damages he sustained in the parking lot altercation. At trial, the trial court awarded damages in the amount of $25,005.00 to Mr. Barr. The trial court found Mr. Barr to be a more credible witness and believed Mr. Barr’s story that Mr. Schexnayder threw the first punch. Mr. Schexnayder, disagreeing with the trial courts determination, appealed its decision.

Continue reading

by

tenis-1571373-1920x1440-1024x768When bringing a personal injury lawsuit a plaintiff must prove that the defendant in the lawsuit caused the injury. Often, when an injury involves two parties, the question of who caused the injury has a relatively straightforward answer. However, problems arise when the circumstances surrounding the injury involve multiple parties. A recent case out of the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal illustrates the complexity of proving who caused an injury when multiple parties are involved.

Plaintiff William Bourg, an employee of Shamrock Management LLC (“Shamrock”), a Houma, Louisiana company, was injured while helping move an aluminum generator cover. The cover, which weighed 2800 pounds, was delivered to Shamrock’s shop by Cajun Cutters, Inc (“Cajun Cutters”). Mr. Bourg and a Cajun Cutter’s employee, Russell Felio, attempted to move the generator cover into Shamrock’s shop. To facilitate the delivery of the generator cover, Mr. Felio decided to use a large forklift that he was unauthorized to use. While using the forklift, Mr. Felio accidentally flipped the generator cover on its side, which fell on Mr. Bourg’s left foot, crushing it. The injury required Mr. Bourg to undergo two surgeries.

Mr. Bourg sued both Cajun Cutters and Mr. Felio for his foot injury. In a personal injury lawsuit, the jury is required to determine who is at fault for the plaintiff’s injury and allocate a percentage of fault onto each party member, including the plaintiff. In Mr. Bourg’s case, the jury decided that Mr. Bourg and Shamrock were 90% at fault for the accident and that Cajun Cutters and Mr. Felio were 10% at fault. Mr. Bourg filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”). A JNOV is a procedural device where the trial court may correct a jury verdict by modifying the jury’s findings of fault or damages, or both. La. C.C.P. art. 1811 (2016). The trial court granted the JNOV and reallocated fault 50% to Bourg and Shamrock and 50% to Cajun Cutters and Mr. Felio. Cajun Cutters and Mr. Felio appealed the trial court’s decision.

Continue reading

by

rifle-scope-1-1576601-1-1024x683What do injured parties do when products are defective and unreasonably damaged? In Louisiana, injured parties may file lawsuits against a manufacturer for damages caused by his products. The following case out of the Western District of Louisiana describes the Louisiana Products Liability Act (“LPLA”).

In mid-2011, Toby Arant purchased two 1” ratchet straps at a Wal-Mart store, manufactured by Tahsin Industrial, Corp., USA (“Tahsin”). On September 9, 2012, Mr. Arant used the straps to secure a tree for hunting. Mr. Arant was seriously injured after falling 20 feet to the ground because the tree straps failed when he climbed onto the tree stand.

Mr. Arant filed a lawsuit in Louisiana state court against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”) and Tahsin under the LPLA, alleging that the straps were defective and unreasonably dangerous. More specifically, he claimed that the straps were defective in construction and had an inadequate warning. Wal-Mart and Tahsin removed the case to federal court and filed a motion for a summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment is properly granted if there is no genuine issue of material fact. The motion was granted and Mr. Arant appealed the district court’s dismissal of his products liability suit to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.

Continue reading

by

oil-refinery-1239476-1024x683In the midst of a very active hurricane season, it is important to remember that Louisiana is no stranger to this type of inevitable damage. However, the dangers involved in disaster clean-up efforts are often forgotten, and far too often people who aid in these efforts aren’t compensated fairly when things turn awry. A recent lawsuit helped linemen who faced similar dangers recover for injuries they sustained during a disaster clean-up.  

Due to a severe storm in 2006, CITGO Petroleum Corporation’s Calcasieu Parish Refinery stormwater and storage system overflowed, resulting in a major oil spill. Experts described the spill as being “catastrophic.”  The storm caused 21 million gallons of wastewater to escape, including 17 million gallons of contaminated wastewater and 4.2 million gallons of slop oil. The escaping hazardous waste spilled into surrounding levees and dikes and contaminated over 100 miles of shoreline along the Calcasieu River and required several months of clean up. Employees of Ron Williams Construction that worked at CITGO’s refinery filed a lawsuit for chemical exposure.

Prior to this lawsuit, several other employees of Ron Williams Construction filed a lawsuit against CITGO (for ease of reference, this prior case will be referred to as Arabie 1) and received a favorable verdict. Arabie v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 89 So.3d 307 (La. 2012). In Arabie 1, the Ron Williams Construction employees received damages, but after several appeals, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the district court’s award of $30,000 in punitive damages to each employee. This still resulted in a favorable verdict for the employees, but they were awarded less in damages.  

Continue reading

by

the-flooded-clay-quarry-1636282-1024x683Lawsuits often appear to be complicated and complex, but what many people don’t know is that the outcome of a lawsuit can often be determined by a simple matter of logistics. The who, what, when, where and why of a situation can make the difference between winning and losing a case. For instance, a simple matter of jurisdiction was the deciding factor in a case brought by a South Louisiana man and his wife.

Mr. Leger was injured on a job site at Peoples Moss Gin in Palmetto Louisiana when a conveyor belt ripped apart and struck him. Leger was employed by Rice Belt Distributors, Inc., a company that was hired to install an eighty-foot vertical conveyor belt in a grain elevator. The conveyor belt which was manufactured by International Conveyors Limited, (ICL) an Indian company, and sold to D.E. Shipp Belting Company (Shipp Belting) using ICL America, a wholesaler of conveyor belts, as an intermediary in the transaction. Mr. Leger and his wife, Gwen Leger, brought a personal injury suit against ICL America, Shipp Belting, International Conveyors, and Brown Cranes whose crane and crane operator were handling the conveyor belt at the time of the accident.

ICL raised a declinatory exception of personal jurisdiction, which allows a party to claim that they are not subject to the court’s power. La.C.C.P. art. 925(A)(5). The trial court granted this exception. The Legers, ICL America, and Burlington Insurance all appealed the decision.

Continue reading

by

old-meets-new-1222960-1024x685Owning a business can be a daunting task and often times requires the assistance of outside contractors to complete various maintenance items and to aid in the upkeep of the premises. However, many merchants and customers fail to realize that the merchant may be liable for the actions of a subcontractor.  Just how liable was the subject of a recent lawsuit out of New Iberia.  

In this case, Patricia Ann Thompson filed a lawsuit against a Winn-Dixie grocery store in New Iberia, Louisiana after slipping and falling on a puddle in the freezer section of the store. Winn-Dixie contracted with a cleaning service which in turn contracted with KAP Cleaning Services (“KAP”) to clean the store. KAPS’s employee rolled up a mat to clean the floor in front of the freezer where Ms. Thompson fell.  Moving this mat caused water to be exposed and ultimately led to Ms. Thompson slipping and falling on the grocer’s premise and sustaining injury. The Trial Court held that Winn-Dixie was 30 percent at fault and KAP was 70 percent at fault. Yet, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal amended the distribution of fault and held that Winn-Dixie was 100 percent liable for Ms. Thompson’s injuries. The Court of Appeal supported its decision on two grounds.  First, the Court of Appeal found that Winn-Dixie as the merchant was statutorily not permitted to share liability with a subcontractor.  Second, the Court of Appeal found the contractual arrangement between the two parties allowed for operational control by Winn-Dixie over KAP’s employees which would not shield it from liability for a subcontractor’s actions.  Winn-Dixie appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court.  

Generally, a merchant owes a duty to those on their premises to exercise reasonable care to keep its floors in a reasonably safe condition and to keep the store free of hazardous conditions under  La. R.S. 9: 2800.6. However, when a merchant hires a subcontractor it can be more difficult for a court to assign fault.  Generally, a principal is not liable for the actions of a subcontractor unless the principal retains the right to supervise or control the subcontractor’s work. See Sys. Contractors Corp. v. Williams & Associates Architects, 769 So. 2d 777 (La. Ct. App. 2000).    La. C.C. art. 2323 and La. C.C. art. 2324 do not eliminate or make any exceptions for a merchant’s liability under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 but rather provide for comparative fault.  Louisiana courts will apportion fault based on parties’ knowledge and control over the condition that created peril.  See Watson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Co., 469 So. 2d 967 (La. 1985) Under the Watson factor test, courts assess: (1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the danger; (2) how great a risk was created by the conduct; (3) the significance of what was sought by the conduct; (4) the ability of the actor, whether superior or inferior, and (5) any circumstances which might require the actor to proceed in haste without proper thought.

Continue reading

by

sign-1230883-1024x768Drivers always have a duty to drive with a standard of care that can ensure the cars immediately around them are safe from a collision. But how far does that duty reach? That was the question when a Parish of Calcasieu man entered the highway from the shoulder which resulted in only the first and second cars behind him to slow down, while a third following car was forced off of the road.

The Defendant, David Majoria, was an employee of Groendyke Transport when he entered Interstate 210 from the shoulder of the road. When Mr. Majoria entered the highway it caused the vehicle behind him with an unknown driver to brake. A second vehicle behind Mr. Majoria was driven by the plaintiff’s brother, who also braked. The third vehicle in the lineup was an eighteen to twenty-foot camper, driven by Plaintiff Shane Maylen.   

Mr. Maylen was driving a truck towing an eighteen to a twenty-foot camper and a sixteen-foot boat when he attempted to brake after Mr. Majoria’s car entered the highway.  Mr. Maylen’s truck veered off of the highway and onto the shoulder of the road where his vehicle jack-knifed and caused a right-shoulder injury. No other vehicle was involved in the collision.

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