Pain And Suffering Claims

October 30, 2016

Long-time New Orleans Parade-goer Sues After Being Hit in Head with Beads

Anyone who has been to a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans knows that the festivities are often marked by high-speed projectiles aimed at the crowds. Indeed, the chance to catch coveted “throws” is the very thing that draws many parade goers. The risk of being hit by beads or other throws is so well-known and accepted that there is even a state “Mardi Gras immunity statute” which grants immunity to Mardi Gras krewes who throw the beloved treasures at parades. La. R.S. 9:2796 grants immunity to krewes which sponsor parades for any loss or damaged caused by a krewe member, unless such loss or damage was caused by deliberate acts or gross negligence. Though the parades are a cornerstone of New Orleanian culture, we get to enjoy them only at our own risk, with the knowledge that we could be injured by the very beads and throws that draw us to attend. Recently, a long-time Endymion Ball attendee learned this lesson the hard way.

On the Saturday before Mardi Gras 2012, Rose Ann Citron was hit in the head by a bag of beads while the Krewe of Endymion was making its way through the Superdome in New Orleans, Louisiana on its way to the “Extravaganza;” an invitation-only continuation of celebrations held after the parade. Ms. Citron was not an Extravaganza novice. Her husband, Wayne Cintron was a long-time Endymion Krewe member and Mrs. Citron had attended the majority of Extravaganzas over the past thirty years. Nonetheless, the Citrons filed a lawsuit against the Endymion Krewe seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained in the bead-throwing.

The Edymion Krewe answered, asserting that it benefitted from Louisiana’s Mardi Gras immunity statute. After discovery (the process of gathering evidence for the case), the Edymion Krewe filed a motion for summary judgment based on the immunity statute. It argued that regardless of what acts occurred that night, no reasonable mind could characterize those acts as gross negligence so as to defeat its immunity.

October 9, 2016

Clean Up On Aisle 5: West Monroe Grocery Store Liable for Shopper’s Trip-and-Fall

by Berniard Law Firm

Would you expect a routine trip to your local grocery store to end with a herniated disc and a possible need for surgery? Probably not. Trips to the grocery store are often without incident. However, people do get hurt sometimes, either from their own clumsiness or — as the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, found in a recent case — by the negligence of the store.

Donna Guerrero (the “Plaintiff”) was shopping at Super 1 Foods (the “Defendant”) in West Monroe one evening in January of 2010. Looking upward on the shelves for coffee, the Plaintiff tripped and fell over a 10-inch-tall rectangular box on the floor, which had been placed there for restocking purposes. The Plaintiff suffered from a T1-2 herniated disc, she continued to suffer from pain thereafter, and there is a possibility that surgery may be required in the future if the injury continues to worsen. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant. The trial court found that the Defendant was not liable, and the Plaintiff appealed.

In order to impose liability on a merchant — that is, a store like that of the Defendant — for a patron’s injuries resulting from an accident, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm that was reasonably foreseeable; (2) the merchant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition; and (3) the merchant failed to exercise reasonable care. La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B).

October 7, 2016

The Chain Reaction Automobile Accident on a Louisiana Highway and Comparative Fault

by Berniard Law Firm

metal-1314941-1024x680
When chain reaction accidents occur it can sometimes feel like mayhem on the highway. One car hits another, then another one hits another and so on and so on. But who’s at fault for all the injuries and wrecked cars? The car that initially caused the accident? The one after that which ran into another car that was trying to stop to avoid the accident? The following case out of Avoyelles parish sheds some light on who’s at fault for what in multi-car pile ups.

Lacey Berthiaume was driving on a Louisiana highway when ahead of her a car entered the roadway without yielding to oncoming traffic. The car in front of Ms. Berthiaume suddenly stopped. Ms. Berthiaume successfully stopped her automobile within a foot of colliding with the car in front of her. However, the truck behind Ms. Berthiaume was not able to stop, and the truck rear-ended her vehicle causing injuries to Ms. Berthiaume. Ms. Bethiaume filed a lawsuit in the Twelfth Judicial District Court, Parish of Avoyelles, alleging the driver of the truck, Mr. Gros, was negligent and caused the accident.

In the trial court, Ms. Bethiaume filed a motion for summary disposition. Ms. Bethiaume argued that Mr. Gros rear-ended her vehicle, and under Louisiana law, in a rear-end accident, the following motorists is presumed to have violated La R.S. 32:81(A), and therefore presumed negligent. In summary, La 32:81(A) states a driver shall not follow another motorist too close to react to traffic and highway conditions. Mr. Gros admitted he caused the accident, but he also argued that the motorist that entered the roadway causing Ms. Berthiaume, and the motorist in front of her, to stop short was also at fault. In short, Mr. Gros argued that this other driver shared some of the fault underlying this accident. The trial court disagreed with Mr. Gros and held he was solely at fault for this accident.

October 4, 2016

Calcasieu Parish Plaintiffs Loses Workers Compensation Medical Claims Due to Late Filing

by Berniard Law Firm

xray-of-hands-1526780-1024x920 Sometimes you get hurt while working and it’s neither your fault nor your employer’s fault. In those cases the person that hurt you is called a “Third-Party Tortfeasor.” However, because you were hurt while working you may have rights to not only sue the person who hurt you but to also receive workers compensation benefits. Beware though, there are strict statutory rules that apply that dictate when you must file for medical and other benefits owed to you under the Louisiana Workers Compensation laws. The following case out of Calcasieu Parish shows why you need to consult the best workers compensation lawyer immediately upon an injury that occurs while on the job.

On January 18, 2012, Lois Shailow, an employee of Gulf Coast Social Services (GCSS), was rear-ended by a third party while driving in the course and scope of her employment. She went to Lake Charles Memorial Hospital where she complained of back pain and was diagnosed with a lumbar strain. The hospital discharged Ms. Shailow on the same day with instructions to take her prescribed medication, to use a heating pad, and to follow up with her primary care doctor. She returned to work the second day after the accident.

On January 25, 2012, Ms. Shailow began seeing Dr. David Duhon, a chiropractor, for back pain. Dr. Duhon prescribed a lumbar spine MRI. During the ten months that he treated Ms. Shailow, she developed a foot drop which indicated a severe back injury. Dr. Duhon referred Ms. Shailow to Dr. Gunderson, who is an orthopedic surgeon. Mr. Gunderson found that Ms. Shailow’s MRI revealed two levels of disc herniation and recommended surgery.

September 28, 2016

St. Tammany Parish Alleged Fail Air Bag Louisiana Products Liability Act Lawsuit Dismissed

by Berniard Law Firm

crash-test-dummies-1251143-1-768x1024 Car accidents are among the most common reasons for a lawsuit. An average car accident is often difficult to conclude which party is at fault. Issues are further complicated if insurance claims are involved. Who is truly at fault for the accident if a vehicle malfunctioned? A trial becomes increasingly complex if a Plaintiff claims that a company is at fault for his injuries. Specific elements are required for a successful trial.

Recently, a multiple car accident occurred in near St. Tammy’s Parish. Mr. Bordelon allegedly caused the accident by swerving into multiple lanes and colliding with two vehicles. The second crash involved Mr. Reynolds who sustained serious injuries when his car landed in a ditch. However, Mr. Reynolds did not simply blame Mr. Bordelon for the accident, but additionally filled a lawsuit against Nissan- the company who designed and manufactured his vehicle under Louisiana Products Liability Act (“LPLA”). Mr. Reynolds sued Nissan due to his air bags’ failure to deploy. The trial court denied Mr. Reynolds’ claim and granted Nissan summary judgment.

However, Mr. Reynolds appealed the trial court’s decision to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. In reviewing the trial court’s decision, the Supreme Court utilized a de novo standard- using the criteria as the trial court. Overall, the Plaintiff took issue with the trial court excluding certain evidence. According to the Supreme Courts’ analysis, the trial court properly excluded evidence. Largely, evidence was excluded due lack of verification. Mr. Reynolds presented pictures of the alleged accident, but no verification of the date, time or address to prove pictures where in fact of the accident. See La.Code Evid. Art. 401. and La.Code Evid. Art. 803.

September 27, 2016

Catahoula Parish Prison Lawsuit From Inmate Burned by Furnace Dismissed

by Berniard Law Firm

blacksmith-1500444-1024x768 Accidents occur in daily life. Often, severe injuries result. However, prison accidents rarely are discussed. Prisoners who are victims of accidents while serving time are often provided with the same legal protections as an average person.

Mr. Fisher was serving time in Louisiana. During his time incarnated, Mr. Fisher worked within the prison where he was in charge of keeping the gas furnace running. On the day in question, Mr. Fisher followed the same procedure as he did daily for lighting the gas furnace. Unfortunately, upon lighting the furnace, an explosion occurred which caused Mr. Fisher’s severe injuries.

In his first trial, the Court concluded that Mr. Fisher did not meet the requirements to bring a lawsuit against prison officials for his injuries. In order to recover for this injury—much like an average person—Mr. Fisher was required to prove both of the following: vice or defect and actual or constructive notice. See La.R.S. 9:2800, La. Code Civ. P. arts. 966 and 967. The trial court held that Mr. Fisher did not meet his the standard for both elements. Therefore, the Court concluded summary judgment for the prison officials was appropriate. This decision dictated that Mr. Fisher could not recover for his injuries.

September 21, 2016

Injured Pedestrian Lawsuit In St. Helena Parish Discusses Why Plaintiff Must Present Evidence of Defendant’s Duty

by Berniard Law Firm

church-1442139-1024x768 Suppose a pedestrian is hit by a driver who is leaving a poorly-maintained parking area in rural Louisiana that is little more than a partially cleared grassy area. The pedestrian sues the property owner and its insurers, among other defendants. Now suppose that this plaintiff, on being questioned in a deposition taken by the defendants’ attorneys, cannot articulate anything at all that the property owner did or did not do to cause this accident. Suppose also that the pedestrian fails to refute evidence that this type of unpaved, unmarked “clearing in the woods” parking area is common in rural Louisiana and that there have never been any parking problems or collisions in this particular lot before. Will the case go to the jury, or will the judge find for the defendants due to a lack of disputed facts for the jury to consider, leaving the injured pedestrian without a chance to prove she has suffered damages and deserves compensation from the property owners?

The Supreme Court of Louisiana has considered just this issue in several recent cases; the latest was Allen v. Lockwood, decided in 2015. In that case, the Wesley Chapel United Methodist Church which is located in a rural area of St. Helen’s Parish, off Louisiana Highway 448, was sued by a pedestrian who was hit by an elderly church member driving in reverse at a high rate of speed through the church parking area, an unmarked grassy clearing in the woods. In her deposition, the pedestrian said “not really” when asked if she could think of anything the church did wrong that caused the accident. The plaintiff also failed to refute evidence from a church member’s affidavit that parking areas in this condition are common in rural Louisiana and that there had never been any accidents in the church lot before.

Most personal injury cases are tried under a negligence theory. To prove that the defendant was negligent, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a legal duty toward him or her and caused the accident or injury by failing to fulfill that duty. When a court grants summary judgement in a case, the case does not go to the jury. Instead, the judge decides the case on the basis of the law because he or she has determined that there are no disputed issues of fact for the jury to consider. In its recent personal injury cases involving summary judgement, the Supreme Court of Louisiana has decided that the question of whether the defendant had a legal duty toward the plaintiff is a question of law that the judge decides. If the judge decides there was a legal duty, the case goes to the jury, who decides, based on the evidence, whether the defendant fulfilled the duty. If the judge decides that there was no legal duty toward the plaintiff because the dangerous condition that caused the accident was “open and obvious,” the defendant can be granted summary judgement, which is an “automatic win.”

September 19, 2016

Gretna Walgreens Pharmacy Mistake Lawsuit Appeal Leads to Increase In Damage Award to Plaintiff

by Berniard Law Firm

pharmacy-1507606-1-1024x768 Recently, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals increased a trial court’s award of damages to a plaintiff in a negligence action against Walgreens. Negligence involves showing the court that one person (or company) failed to do their duty—and as a result, someone was hurt. In this case, Peggy Williams asked her son Derrick to pick up a medication for her from the Walgreens pharmacy in Gretna. Walgreens’ pharmacist handed Derrick another person’s medication, and Ms. Williams took the pills without noticing the mistake. As a result, she suffered several strokes and long-term loss of physical capacity. The jury found that Ms. Williams and her son were 40% at fault, and that Walgreens was 60% at fault for the harms Ms. Williams suffered.

Ms. Williams appealed the judgment on two grounds.

First, she argued that the trial judge made a mistake by entering a judgment different from the jury’s responses on the verdict form. The verdict form apportioned the fault to the parties in the following manner:

September 18, 2016

Jefferson Parish Lakeside Plaza Slip and Fall Lawsuit Revived By Appeals Court

by Berniard Law Firm

parking-lot-1445848-768x1024 When a person is injured and they file a lawsuit to recover damages for their injuries, they expect to “have their day in court,” to be able to present their case and all of the facts and evidence that support their case. But what if the other side argues that there is no real disagreement about the facts and that the facts do not support the injured party’s claim? A judge can decide early on in a lawsuit that there is no real question about a material fact and that reasonable persons would come to the same conclusion when considering the facts. This is what happened to Mr. Salvadore Tramuta when he filed suit for personal injuries in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

Mr. Tramuta fell as he stepped from the raised sidewalk in front of a strip mall to the parking lot. The reasons for his fall are the crux of the lawsuit. The strip mall’s owners, Lakeside Plaza, L.L.C., had recently corrected what they thought was a dangerous hazard to customers and unwittingly created for themselves the basis for Mr. Tramuta’s lawsuit.

Lakeside’s strip mall has about eight stores with a raised sidewalk running the length of the building. At first, the step was reasonably manageable from the sidewalk to the parking lot, but over time the soil settled and the step became larger as the parking lot settled lower. Lakeside corrected this problem by having an additional step made between the sidewalk and the parking lot so that customers would not have such a large step down or up. The parking lot had parking spaces fronting the sidewalk and perpendicular to it. Each parking space also has a parking bumper parallel to the sidewalk. When Lakeside added the additional step they chose to leave the parking bumpers in place. As a result, the step down from the sidewalk was shorter but the area between the parking bumpers and the step was lessened, creating less space for customers to step as they exited the stores.

September 10, 2016

Harrah’s Casino New Orleans Slip and Fall Lawsuit Examines Comparative Fault in Louisiana

by Berniard Law Firm

cards-1456946-1-1024x768 A night at Harrah’s Casino in New Orleans not only can not only break your bank but it could break your back as well if your not careful. Unfortunately for one Louisiana man black jack turned into broke back when he slipped and fell on water on the bathroom floor. Gregory Beggs was out for an evening of black jack at Harrah’s Casino, in New Orleans when he had to use the restroom. Mr. Begg’s noticed that the bathroom floor had a large puddle of water on the floor. Begg’s let a Harrah’s employee know of the situation, and it became clear several other employees already knew the issue existed. The Casino failed to clean up the spill on the floor, and when Begg’s returned to the bathroom needing to go “Urgently” around an hour and a half later the water was still littering the floor. Noticing the liquid, Begg’s attempted to use the urinal but nevertheless slipped and fell injuring his back.

The First City Court of New Orleans found Mr. Begg’s to be 50% at fault for the accident. On Appeal Harrah’s argued that the lower court erred in finding Begg’s only to be 50% at fault, stating instead he should have been seen as 100% responsible for the damages.

In examining this problem, the appeals court looked to the Louisiana Supreme Court, and its decision in Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 773 So.2d 670, 680-81. In the Duncan ruling the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that “‘the trier of fact is owed some deference in allocating fault’ since the finding of percentages of fault is also a factual determination. Clement v. Frey, 666 So.2d 607, 609, 610.” In plain English the court determined that under ordinary circumstance the finding of degree of fault should be left to the trier of fact, or jury, to determine. Only if the amount apportioned is clearly wrong should the court intervene.