Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Reasonable minds could perhaps agree that “reasonableness” is a word not easily defined. What is reasonable to one person may or may not be reasonable to another. Yet, “reasonableness” is often the term used to measure the soundness of lower courts’ decisions on appeal. And in the case at hand, a “reasonable” conclusion by one person completely barred an entire personal injury lawsuit against multiple parties.
Don and Dylan Yesso were inside their vehicle at Benny’s Express Car Wash Number Three, an automatic car wash, in July of 2010 when their car was hit multiple times from the rear. The Yessos were following a vehicle driven by Sadie Scott. The Yessos allegedly sustained several injuries requiring medical treatment as well as damage to their vehicle. It was established at trial, however, that the maximum speed at which the unmanned car hit the Yessos’ car was .68 miles per hour. The Yessos filed a lawsuit against Scott, Benny’s and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. After a bench trial (a trial without a jury where the judge renders the verdict), the Yessos’ lawsuit was dismissed without any written or oral reason for the dismissal.
The Yessos appealed to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal. In order to overturn the lower court’s decision, the Court of Appeal would need to find that there was no reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s decision and the record shows that the decision is clearly wrong. The Court noted they were tasked with determining whether the trial court judge’s decision was reasonable. Even if the Court of Appeal thinks its own determination based on the evidence is more reasonable, the Court still cannot overturn the lower court if the lower court was at all reasonable in reaching its decision.
When it comes to road safety, you can only rely on yourself. Know the rules of the road and always take precautions. In a recent case, a car accident dispute was brought to court to determine the liability of the parties. The case explains the responsibilities of motorists in Louisiana and why you should only rely on yourself for proper road safety and not assume that everyone else will take adequate precautions. The plaintiffs in a recent case learned this lesson the hard way.
Professionals in various fields whose work greatly impacts the lives of others may find themselves accused of malpractice. Especially in medicine where a seemingly simple mistake can end one’s life, the lawsuits that stem from malpractice can bring large awards to plaintiffs. This is where malpractice insurance comes in, to make sure these amounts are paid without completely destroying the livelihood of that professional. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal discussed malpractice insurance issues in a recent ruling.
Accidents frequently occur in construction zones and they may be the fault of the injured party or someone else involved in the renovation site. Courts are often tasked with deciding whether the injured person is responsible for his or her own injury or if a different party is at fault. A recent case in Metairie highlights the complexities of identifying the responsible party.
Police officers are tasked with enforcing the law and upholding civic order, but what happens when a person feels that a police officer ignored his or her constitutional rights; will the officer be held accountable? A case arising out of Alexandria examines this question through the issue of excessive force and the qualified immunity defense involved in police officer shootings. 
While having a child and starting a family is something that many couples look forward to in their lives, pregnancy can be very painful and burdensome on the mother. There are many drugs that can help prevent the negative side effects of pregnancy, like nausea and morning sickness, however, those drugs can sometimes do more harm than good. Nothing is worse than going through a difficult pregnancy, and then having a child born prematurely with birth defects because of drugs that were supposed to help.
In Louisiana, a party is responsible for the full extent of injuries he or she causes to another. Lawsuits stemming from these incidents usually arise over which party is more at fault or if any of the injuries were actually caused by the event at issue. Whether the party at fault has to pay the undisputed medical expenses is rarely at the center of these disputes, however, the following case from St. Bernard Parish, details why an injured party had to bring that very issue to appeal.
The average person experiences a great deal of emotion after a serious injury. The injured person is rushed to the hospital and places a great deal of faith in doctors to treat and diagnose injuries. Sometimes a medical professional fails to accurately diagnose a patient’s injuries, which can lead to a potential lawsuit against the doctor, hospital, or usually both.
Lest anyone think college is all about classrooms and books, many universities today offer a panoply of extra curricular amenities for students to enjoy. One of the main attractions is student recreation centers. At Louisiana State University (LSU), the University Student Recreation Center (UREC) is a place where students can go with friends and guests to exercise and participate in recreational activities such as indoor rock wall climbing.
Facts are one of the foundations of a successful lawsuit. In an effort to thwart a plaintiff’s chance at relief, a defendant may file an exception of no cause of action in response to a plaintiff’s complaint. An exception of no cause of action alleges that the plaintiff’s lawsuit has no legal validity, and therefore, the plaintiff has no claim. The following case out of Orleans Parish illustrates such an objection and the importance of facts, especially when those facts validate a claim that could be barred by immunity.