Articles Posted in Pain And Suffering Claims

by

Car accidents oftentimes are not simple, clear-cut events that lend a clear idea of who was right and who was wrong. Instead, many times it is left to a court to decide what the circumstances were that led to the collision and the amount of responsibility each party had for it occurring. As a result, because no court is perfect, individuals who have been harmed due to another party’s acts are left out in the cold because they could not prove their case. However, each year new technology comes out that provides a better opportunity for plaintiffs, and their attorneys, to prove their case and receive the compensation they deserve.

One firm, Advanced Research and Technology (ART) Corporation, works with the very technology required to prove cases. Utilizing Finite Element Analysis (FEA), commonly referred to as computer simulations, the company provides compelling engineering evidence to explain the cause of a crash-related case. FEA’s due this by calculating the kinematics of the investigated accident (speeds, relative motion, different parts of accident) and structural analysis (where the cars collided and relevant stresses, strains, failures, energy displacements, etc.). By analyzing this information, FEA can help plaintiffs win cases related to auto and motorcycle crashes, airbag and seatbelt related problems, structural analysis relating to accidents or blasts, slip and fall cases, fuel tank and pipeline pressure analysis and a variety of others.

FEA simulations are widely recognized by the engineering community as a reliable and advanced tool for solving structural dynamics, crash, blast and impact-related matters. Automotive companies often use FEA for car testing in the same way that highway safety systems are designed using the technology. The reliability of FEA comes down to the simulator being able to develop accurate formulations or equations to explain how the millions of small elements involved in a collision react when variables are at a certain set. Because of its ability to determine how a car will behave in a collision and the effects of a collision, technology experts are able to move backwards and determine what variables were in place to lead to the results suffered.

Continue reading

by

Louisiana courts, like those in most other states, enforce a prohibition in jury trials known as the “golden rule.” During a closing argument, the plaintiff’s attorney may not ask the members of the jury to imagine themselves in the place of the plaintiff when deciding how much to award the plaintiff in damages. The rationale for prohibiting such a request is that the jury’s sympathy may be unfairly invoked, resulting in an inappropriately large award of damages. So, while the jury should not be asked to imagine themselves going through the same experience that the plaintiff endured, the plaintiff’s attorney may simply direct the jury to consider the pain and suffering the plaintiff has been through.

An alleged violation of the golden rule was one basis of the appeal in Tingle v. American Home Insurance Co., No. 10-71 (La.App. 3d Cir. June 11, 2010). On March 5, 2006, Brian Montgomery was driving his tractor-trailer while intoxicated in Lake Charles. He ran a red light and slammed into the car of Levi and Tasha Tingle. The Tingles’ two-year-old daughter, Madison, who was also in the car, was killed; her parents suffered severe injuries. The Tingles settled with Montgomery’s employer, Boots Smith, for the limits of his primary liability insurance policy. The Tingles then filed suit against Smith’s excess insurance carrier, American Home Insurance Co. At the trial, the jury awarded the Tingles over $10 million in damages, of which approximately half were punitive damages.

On appeal, American argued that the trial court erred in permitting the Tingles’ attorney to “implore the jury to put themselves in the [Tingles’] shoes.” (The court did not include in its opinion exactly what the Tingles’ attorney said in his closing argument.) But the court declared that it “prefer[s] to allow the trial court latitude to conduct a trial,” citing a line of Louisiana cases espousing the view that

Continue reading

by

John C. Elliott, 26, of Zavalla, Texas was driving a 1999 GMC pickup east on LA.8 and he lost control while passing another vehicle in a curve. He collided with several trees before the truck stopped on La. 8 facing the other direction. Elliot was injured seriously and taken to Lake Charles Memorial Hospital. There were two passengers in the car.

As reported in the Leesville Daily Leader

His two passengers,19-year-old Susie Dixon and an infant, both of Zavalla, Texas, suffered minor injuries and were transported to Byrd Regional Hospital.

Continue reading

by

In certain situations, a person that witnessed another get physically injured has a legal claim against the person that caused the physical injury—even when the witness suffered only mental anguish, without any direct physical injury. The rule allowing this recovery is known as the bystander recovery rule.

Louisiana’s bystander recovery is governed by Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315.6 and the Louisiana Supreme Court case of Trahan v. McManus. As stated in Trahan, the bystander recovery rule does not “compensate for the anguish and distress that normally accompany an injury to a loved one under all circumstances.” Rather, the bystander recovery rule is more limited and has four requirements in order for a bystander to recover damages for his mental anguish from witnessing another’s injuries.

Those four elements are:

Continue reading

by

On April 17, 1968, Doris Brantley of Oak Grove, Louisiana was involved in an automobile accident when her car struck by a vehicle driven by Albert McKee. Mrs. Brantley was immediately taken to a local hospital and was released the next day. Her painful injuries included numerous abrasions, bruises, and lacerations, as well as trauma to her neck, back, and knees. She received care from a general practitioner for several weeks following the collision and then sought treatment from an orthopedic surgeon in Greenville, Mississippi.

At the time of the crash, Mrs. Brantley was 40 years old and in good health. She worked at the Lamont Glove Factory in Oak Grove as an inspector, where she earned $1.92 per hour. The trial court awarded Mrs. Brantley $5,000 for her personal injuries resulting from the accident, and an additional $1,313.85 for her lost wages and expenses she incurred in repairing her car. Mr. McKee, the other driver, appealed the judgment on the sole basis that the damages awarded by the trial court were excessive.

The principle that “much discretion” must be afforded the trial judge or jury in awarding tort damages has been a part of the Louisiana Civil Code since 1825. (Currently, the provision resides in Section 3 of Article 1934.) According to William A. Sherwood, who wrote about this matter in a note that appeared in the Tulane Law Review in 1974, its inclusion in the Code

Continue reading

by

Louisiana workers’ compensation law creates a system that provides medical treatment and monetary income to employees who suffer injuries while on the job. The law is designed to benefit both employees and employers. Workers are protected against the difficulties that result from job-related injuries such as the expenses of medical care and lost wages from being unable to work. An injured employee can receive bi-weekly income payments and free medical treatment, but must forfeit any right he may otherwise have under the law to sue his employer over the injury. The employer benefits by avoiding a potentially costly and unpredictable lawsuit in exchange for accepting limited liability under the structured system that seeks to protect the interests of both parties. Under this system, the issue of fault or negligence is not at issue—it is enough for the employee to show that he suffered an injury while performing work for his employer.

One important procedural obligation on the part of an injured worker is that he must report the injury to his employer in a timely manner. According to Louisiana statute,

No [claim] for compensation shall be maintained unless notice of injury has been given to the employer within thirty days after the date of the injury or death. This notice may be given or made by any person claiming to be entitled to compensation or by anyone on his behalf. La. R.S. 23:1301.

Continue reading

by

Policy makers have expressed doubt multiple times this year about whether enough is being done to protect the millions of drivers on the road. The recent Toyota recall of a multitude of cars with defective parts is a clear illustration of product liability and the measures to which a manufacturer is liable for problems with their items.

Representative Darrell Issa of California, the leading Republican on the Committee, complained during the hearings held regarding the automobile issues that Toyota knew about sticking gas pedal problems and improperly placed floor mats for years and delayed addressing the problems on cars sold outside of Japan.

Although the exact cause of the safety lapses is undetermined at this point, politicians have their own theories, as expressed at back-to-back congressional hearings just a few days. Business Week, for example, reports that John Mica, a Republican Congressmen from Florida, believes Toyota saved millions of dollars in 2007 by knowingly delaying a recall over unintended acceleration matters.

Continue reading

by

Some time ago in Louisiana a young Reserve boy fell asleep on his school bus and awoke to find himself alone in the parking lot of the St. John the Baptist Parish School District central office. The upset kindergarten student stumbled into a school board meeting in progress and interrupted the proceedings with a frantic knock on the door. His parents were called and he was taken home unharmed, but the incident was a cause for concern among the School Board. So much so that Superintendent Courtney Millet called an emergency meeting with district bus drivers shortly thereafter.

As noted in an L’Observatuer article,

Millet said at the well-attended meeting she went over a list of notes concerning bus safety.

Continue reading

by

In the late evening of May 28, 2006, Grant Lee Williams and his girlfriend, Lisa Lobrano, visited the Saddle Ridge Bar at the Louisiana Boardwalk in Bossier Parish. Also at the establishment was Michael Moore, who at one point approached the bar where Lobrano was sitting and tried to pick her up. Williams observed that Moore inappropriately touched Lobrano and hurried over to fend him off. Williams told Moore that he was Lobrano’s boyfriend and warned him to leave her alone. After this exchange, Williams and Moore turned together toward the exit and within a moment, Moore struck Williams in the face. Williams, having sustained multiple fractures to his face and a broken nose, sued Moore for battery.

Much conflicting evidence was presented at the bench trial. Lobrano testified that she did not see either man hit the other, but that as she got up from the bar she turned to see Williams with blood on his face before he fell onto the floor. At that point, according to Lobrano, Moore kicked Williams several times in the ribs. Williams admitted in testimony that he may have pushed or bumped Moore as they walked away from the bar, but that he was blindsided by Moore’s punches. Williams also testified that Moore kicked him in the ribs after he fell to the floor. Moore denied ever touching Lobrano and testified that Williams approached him at the bar, pushed him, and then punched him in the eye. Moore explained that he swung at Williams and admitted he must have hit Williams since it was clear that Williams was injured. Several other bystanders offered testimony, but none saw exactly who threw the first punch.

The trial judge did not determine who hit first, but found that both Williams and Moore were equally at fault for the altercation. The judge awarded Williams general damages in the amount of $40,000 and $30,901 for medical costs, but reduced the total award by half in light of Williams’s own fault.

Continue reading

by

A recent decision from the Louisiana Court of Appeals provides insight into precisely what a medical provider must get from a patient in order to create the presumption that they consented to medical treatment under Louisiana law.

This litigation arose from a procedure performed at St. Patrick Hospital in Lake Charles. Dr. Charles Humphries, a family practitioner, performed a colonoscopy on James J. Price, IV. Dr. Humphries detected several polyps in Mr. Price’s colon during the procedure and immediately aborted the procedure and had a gastroenterologist, Dr. Francis Bride, surgically excise the polyps–removing three of four of them without incident. During the removal of the fourth, the electrocautery snare being used malfunctioned causing a deeper burn of the colon that was desired. Dr. Bride visually inspected the area to rule out the possibility of an acute perforation of the colon. Dr. Bride did not see a perforation but ordered abdominal x-rays to confirm his lack of suspicion, with x-rays negative for any danger signs. Mr. Price’s stay was extended to rule out a perforation, and he was released to go home.

The next day, Mr. Price began to experience symptoms of a perforation and was directed by Dr. Humphries to go the ER at St. Patrick’s hospital. Mr. Price was prescribed antibiotics in hopes that the perforation would seal on its own. When this didn’t work, surgery was required.

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