Articles Posted in Negligence

Driving is a dangerous and daily task for many people and becomes even riskier when roads aren’t conducive to safety. Adding modern distractions like cell phones and a splash of alcohol to the equation creates the perfect storm for a terrible collision. An incident in Lafayette, Louisiana demonstrates how the culmination of these factors can create difficulties when a court is trying to determine liability and damages.

Taylor Burtner (Mr. Burtner) sustained a complex tibia and fibula fracture of his right leg when he was injured in a car accident with Lafayette City Police Officer Michael Milazzo (Officer Milazzo). As a result of the accident, Mr. Burtner underwent three separate surgeries which cost over $67,000.

Mr. Burtner was turning onto West Pinhook Road at its intersection with Jomela Drive when a speeding Officer Milazzo struck his vehicle. At trial, it was determined that Mr. Burtner had been drinking earlier in the night, but, although his exact blood alcohol concentration was at dispute, it was not disputed that he was under the legal limit at the time of the crash. Mr. Burtner was turning left onto West Pinhook after stopping at the stop sign on Jomela Drive, but this intersection contains a curve right before Jomela Drive for drivers on West Pinhook. Officer Milazzo was driving on this curve, speeding at a contested level between 10 and 15 miles over the speed limit. In addition to this bad combination, additional factors impaired the motor skills of both drivers. The trial jury found that Mr. Burtner was distracted by a passenger texting at the time he was turning and Officer Milazzo’s vision was obstructed by trees along the curve of West Pinhook. With everything taken into account, the jury found Mr. Butner to be 90 percent at fault in the wreck and Officer Milazzo to be 10 percent at fault. In addition, the jury awarded Mr. Butner $67,072.12 in medical damages and $40,000 in general damages.

Sometimes a police report isn’t everything in a lawsuit as demonstrated by a recent incident in Bossier City, Louisiana involving a peculiar car accident. Physical evidence and eyewitness testimony in a lawsuit can trump a contradictory police report. Therefore, it is important that a person involved in such an incident immediately contacts an excellent attorney who is capable of sifting through mountains of information and presenting it in a way that exposes a potentially faulty police report.

This was the situation with regard to the car accident between Amanda Moreland and Dr. Abdullah Gungor.  Ms. Moreland and Dr. Gungor were driving on Benton Road in Bossier City when they crashed. Fortunately, no one was injured, but both cars were damaged.  The accounts of how the accident occurred differed significantly. The police report supported Ms. Moreland’s story, but the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony supported Dr. Gungor’s.  Based on the police report and an expert that she hired, Ms. Moreland brought a lawsuit against Dr. Gungor for the damages to her car.  However, the District Court was persuaded by the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony and ruled that Dr. Gungor was not at fault. The case was dismissed. Ms. Moreland appealed and argued that there was manifest error in the District Court’s ruling because it disregarded the police report and the interpretation of the accident by her expert.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeal found no manifest error and affirmed the District Court’s judgment as reasonable in light of the evidence.

The incident at issue in this case began when both Dr. Gungor and Ms. Moreland were driving on Benton Road. Dr. Gungor was ahead of Ms. Moreland as they both drove toward Benton Spur.  At Benton Spur, the cars collided just before a traffic light.  Both parties agreed to these facts, but who caused the crash was the matter of dispute and at the heart of the lawsuit.  Dr. Gungor’s BMW was damaged on the driver’s side rear while Ms. Moreland’s Cobalt was damaged on the passenger’s side front. This infers that Ms. Moreland crashed into Dr. Gungor from behind.  Despite the location of the damage, the police officer took statements from both parties and wrote in his accident report that Dr. Gungor crashed into Ms. Moreland.  He based his report on Ms. Moreland’s statement that Dr. Gungor “suddenly came into her lane and they crashed” and a statement allegedly attributed to Dr. Gungor that he “swerved into the left lane” because he had to avoid another car.  This police accident report was the basis of Ms. Moreland’s lawsuit against Dr. Gungor.  She also hired an accident reconstruction expert who, relying largely on the accident report, supported her argument that Dr. Gungor was at fault.

If you ever suffer from a slip and fall, car accident, or other personal injuries you may be awarded compensation for your injuries by the court. The legal system relies on juries, as triers of fact, to determine damages suffered by parties, and the amount of compensation the injured person is entitled to. The jury’s obligation is to evaluate the facts in a reasonable manner and assign compensation. When the jury in a personal injury case renders a verdict and announces an award, that amount should not be amended unless there is an obvious error in the award.  See La.Civ.Code art. 2324.1

A recent Louisiana case shows this legal principle. Gene Bordelon, was involved in a rear end car accident with Leona Hayes in April of 2012. Bordelon suffered back injuries as the result of the accident. Leona Hayes was an employee working Cutting Edge, CMHC, Inc. at the time of the accident. Bordelon hired a great attorney, and at trial a jury awarded him $2,325,000 is his lawsuit for damages against Cutting Edge.

Cutting Edge appealed this decision made by the trial court. The company argued that the award amounts where abusively high. The appeals court noted upon review “we must find that no reasonable factual basis exists for the jury’s finding and that the finding is clearly wrong in order to reverse the jury’s award.”  Stobart v. State, through Dep’t of Transp. and Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993). In basic terms, The Appeals court should only overturn or change a jury’s verdict if it is clearly wrong, not merely if the court might have come to a different result.

If you are injured in an accident, it is important to be prepared before you testify at your deposition. Otherwise, you may find yourself making statements that opposing counsel can use against you. This is the painful lesson Dwan Jones learned in 2015, when a Louisiana Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of her case before it even went to trial. Dwan was injured in an automobile accident while riding in the passenger seat of an ambulance that was transporting a patient to the hospital. Based on Jones’ own testimony during a deposition, the Court of Appeals affirmed that Jones had made statements that negated the presence of any genuine dispute of material fact. Had Jones’ answered the questions differently her case may have at least gone to trial, which would have allowed a jury to determine whether her injuries were caused by the ambulance driver’s actions.

The ambulance Jones was riding in was struck at an intersection by a taxi cab. Louisiana Emergency Vehicle Statute La. R.S. 32:24 provides certain privileges for drivers of authorized emergency vehicles, such as ambulances when responding to emergency calls. These privileges include allowing the driver to “[p]roceed past a red [light]” after “slowing down or stopping as may be necessary for safe operation.” But the privileges only apply when the “vehicle is making use of audible or visual signals sufficient to warn motorists of their approach.”  See La. R.S. 32:24.  In this case, the light was red against the ambulance, but not the taxi, so the ambulance driver’s liability, and that of his employer, turned on whether or not the ambulance driver safely proceeded through the intersection.

As long as the ambulance driver complies with the statute, the driver can only be found culpable for an accident if he additionally exhibited some type of “reckless disregard” for safety. Jones argued that the trial court should not have applied this standard because the driver was not in compliance with the statute to begin with. Alternatively, Jones argued that even if the driver had been in compliance with the statute, the statute still should not apply because the emergency situation had ended, meaning that the driver should not have gone through the intersection against the red light.  Lastly, Jones argued that because the reckless disregard standard did not apply, the default “ordinary negligence” applied and, under that standard, the driver was culpable because he was inattentive at the time he entered the intersection.