Articles Posted in Pain And Suffering Claims

When a loved one dies from an avoidable accident, a family’s options for recovery include a wrongful death lawsuit. For this claim to succeed, a family often needs to prove that someone had a duty to protect the decedent but acted negligently in causing this death. For wrongful death lawsuits related to building fires, potentially negligent parties include those involved in preventing these disasters: building inspectors and fire marshals.

A fire at the Willow Creek Apartments in Grand Isle, LA on September 26, 2012 resulted in the deaths of two residents, Belle Brandle and Timothy Foret. One year later, Mr. Foret’s sisters, Sandra Hanson, Yvonne Grizzaffi, and Patricia Foret, brought a wrongful death lawsuit against the Office of the State Fire Marshal (“SFM”) and the inspector who inspected the apartments prior to the fire, Nunzio Marchiafava. Mr. Foret’s sisters argued that SFM and the inspector were negligent in responding to a resident’s fire hazard complaint. The trial court granted SFM and the inspector’s motion to dismiss in 2015; one of Mr. Foret’s sisters, Sandra Hanson, appealed.

Her argument hinged on the following four purported claims regarding SFM and the inspector: (1) they failed to investigate the report of a fire hazard, (2) they failed to advise the apartment owner of this hazard, (3) they failed to bring action against the apartment owner for this hazard, and (4) the inspector falsified his inspection report.

Qualified immunity is a concept that is designed to protect civil servants from lawsuits for their official actions. The “qualification” means that immunity does not operate for actions that are unlawful or that show extreme incompetence. Generally, under Louisiana law, law enforcement officers are entitled to immunity so long as their actions do not violate statutes or infringe on others’ constitutional rights. Negligence alone is not sufficient to limit immunity. An officer maintain qualified immunity up to the point of “going too far,” which is what happened during an incident at a Lafayette apartment in December, 2011. On that evening, Quamaine Mason stopped by his girlfriend’s apartment to pick up his dog when he saw the father of his girlfriend’s child and another man in the apartment with her. Mr. Mason proceeded to bang on the door until his girlfriend opened it. He threatened both men with his gun and they left the apartment. One of the men called the police, claiming Mr. Mason broke into the apartment with the intention of stealing the dog. Officer Martin Faul of the Lafayette Police Department arrived on the scene. When Officer Faul ordered Mr. Mason to put his hands up, the action revealed that Mr. Mason was carrying a firearm. Ultimately, Officer Faul fatally shot Mr. Mason seven times.  

Witness testimony at trial differed. Officer Faul testified that Mr. Mason was going to pull his gun, leading him to shoot Mr. Mason first. Mason’s girlfriend, however, testified that Mason was lying on the ground barely moving with his hands by his sides when at least two of Officer Faul’s shots were fired. Mr. Mason’s parents (the “Masons”), both individually and on behalf of their son, brought multiple claims against the officers involved and the police department.

The Masons’ claims were based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Officer Faul violated the US Constitution. First, his use of excessive force violated Mr. Mason’s Fourth Amendment rights; next, Officer Faul deprived Mason of substantive due process under the 14th Amendment by engaging in actions that “shock the conscience”; finally, Officer Faul violated Mason’s Eighth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his medical needs after the shooting. The Masons also brought civil claims against the City of Lafayette. Officer Faul asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court. The Masons appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Louisiana, determining the allocation of fault is an important part of lawsuits because it directly impacts the damages you can be awarded. If you are found 40% at fault, then you will only be able to collect damages for 60% of total damages.

Bordelon was employed by Avoyelles Parish School Board as the girls’ basketball coach for Marksville High School. Bordelon held practice on Sunday, but showed up with allegedly an alcoholic beverage in his hand and allegedly appeared highly agitated. The next day, Bordelon did not arrive at school. The school principal, Allgood, and another coach went to Bordelon’s home to check on him. Bordelon told them he did not want them there. Later that day, Bordelon went to school and met with the principal. Bordelon was heard screaming and cursing. He then left the school and Allgood followed him. They got in a fight, the specifics of which are disputed. Allgood sought medical treatment for his injuries. Allgood then filed a lawsuit against Bordelon and the Avoyelles Parish School Board.

There was no dispute that Bordelon battered Allgood, so the case focused on whether Allgood contributed to the battery. The jury found that Allgood was 60% at fault, so he was awarded no money. Allgood appealed, arguing that the jury erred in assigning him 60% of the fault in causing the battery because he did not commit any intentional act that caused or contributed to the battery. Allgood also argued that the jury erred in failing to award him any general damages or damages for future medical expenses.  

Imagine going to get a massage and leaving with an injury that forever altered your life. After such an injury, it is difficult to put a dollar value on these injuries. The following lawsuit discusses the types of damages that can be sought by a Plaintiff who believes that they have been injured by a massage gone wrong.

In October 2007, Maureen Jones received a Swedish massage from Larry Ashton, Jr., a massage therapist employed by Paris Parker Salon in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Jones reports that the massage therapist was “rough and aggressive” during the massage, causing her pain and discomfort. By the next day, she experienced sharp and burning pain. She sought medical attention and discovered she had ruptured a disc.

In October 2008, Jones sued Neill Corporation, who was doing business as Paris Parker Salons, Ashton, and ABC Insurance Company. She alleged that Ashton negligently performed the massage and he breached the reasonable standard of care, causing serious, permanent, and disabling injuries. The trial court found in favor of Jones and founding that Ashton breached the applicable standard of care. The trial court awarded damages consisting of pain and suffering, mental anguish and distress, loss of enjoyment of life, permanent disability, past lost wages, and past medical expenses.  

Entrusting a child to the care of a school bus requires a certain amount of faith that they will arrive at the correct destination, safely.  For any parent or guardian this evokes a certain amount of anxiety. For a parent with a special needs child, this act of faith likely garners even greater angst. Unfortunately, one Lafourche Parish parent’s fears materialized when her special needs son was struck by a car at his bus stop one afternoon. Whether the Lafourche Parish School Board (“LPSB”) could be held responsible became an issue for a jury in this recent lawsuit.   

Thibodaux High School student Diamonte Bolden was hit by a car after exiting his school bus one afternoon in December of 2012.  Although only in ninth grade, Diamonte was seventeen years old at the time of the accident. He was in the special education program and contended with a variety of learning disabilities including language delays.  Diamonte’s bus stop was at an intersection located about half a mile from his home. The availability of sidewalks or other safe walking space along the walking route from bus stop to house was in dispute. Diamonte’s mother filed a lawsuit against LPSB, the driver of the car, and various others.  At issue in the lawsuit against LPSB specifically was whether LPSB could be held liable for failing to reasonably supervise a student in light of the bus stop location and whether the accident was foreseeable.

Louisiana law provides that a school board owes a duty of reasonable supervision over its students.  See Wallmuth v. Rapides Parish School Bd., 813 So.2d 341, 346 (La. 2002). Liability for inadequate supervision requires a finding of negligence plus a connection between the negligence of the school board and the damages suffered by the student. The Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education has the authority to promulgate regulations relating to the operation of school buses pursuant to La. R.S.17:164.