Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

November 15, 2016

Personal Rights, Personal Problem: How Defining the Personal Nature of Mineral Rights Can Have Serious Implications for New Owners vis-a-vis Previous Lessees

Pollution
Louisiana has a storied history with oil and gas drilling. Tracts of land have been drilled all over the state in search of black gold. Typically the oil and gas companies are liable to clean up any pollution and restore the land as it was pre-drill when they are finished extracting minerals from the earth. So what happens if you purchase property that was once mined for resources but was not properly restored. Do you have a right to go after the driller to clean up the pollution? The following case out of St. Martin Parish discusses that question in the context of the “subsequent purchaser” rule and a lack of assignment of rights when the property was transferred.

Vincent Bundrick owned land that was previously leased to oil companies that located in St. Martin Parish. Prior to Bundrick’s ownership of that land it was subject to oil and gas drilling. Bundrick alleged that the companies who drilled on the land contaminated the property and therefore he filed a lawsuit against those companies seeking restoration of the property to its original condition and further damages.

The Defendants disputed the allegations of Bundrick and subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment stating that Bundrick had no legal right to bring such claims. Essentially a motion for summary judgment is a legal filing wherein one party seeks to avoid a trial by arguing that there are no facts in dispute as to the specific legal issue which that party believes should allow them to escape liability. In this case the Defendants argued that the “subsequent purchaser” rule in Louisiana did not allow Bundrick any legal right to establish claims against them. The trial court held a hearing on that motion and ruled in favor of the Defendants. Bundrick believed the ruling was incorrect and appealed the decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal for the State of Louisiana.

November 14, 2016

Injured by Revolving Door at a New Orleans Hotel, Who is At Fault?

by Berniard Law Firm

revolving-glass-door-1213987
We have all had that moment in a revolving door when the door seems to be moving just a bit too fast. You do your best to keep up but the back of the door knocks into your foot. No harm, no foul when you get a little bump on your foot. But what if an entire glass pane fell off the door and pinned you into the other side of the door. I would expect you would be pretty upset and you would want to figure out who is responsible for your injuries. Is it the hotel, the door manufacturer, the installer of the door? The following case out of New Orleans sheds some light on who might be responsible when a revolving door almost turned into a death trap for one unfortunate man.

In 2004 while working as a courier Huey Madison had deliveries to make at the Inter-Continental hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana. Huey alleged while exiting the revolving door of the Hotel the door panels collapsed and pinned him between the glass causing him injuries. Huey filed a lawsuit claiming damages resulting from the hotel’s failure to properly install, monitor, and repair the revolving door. Intercontinental answered Huey’s lawsuit, denying all claims while also asserting a third-party demand against Carolina Door, claiming Carolina Door had total control over the inspection and repairing of the door in question. Huey subsequently filed an amended petition with Carolina Door listed as a direct defendant.

Both the Intercontinental Hotel and Carolina Doors sought to escape liability by filing motions stating each were solely responsible for Huey’s injuries. These motions are called summary judgments and are standardly filed in cases such as this. If the party who files a summary judgment motion can demonstrate that there are no facts in dispute and according to the law they are not responsible they can evade responsibility. In response to those motions, Huey filed a memo in opposition and attached the affidavit of an expert witness in the field of construction. Huey argued the expert affidavit provided facts in dispute that would defeat defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Carolina Door subsequently filed a motion to strike Huey’s expert affidavit, arguing the introduction of an expert witness was too late and violated court orders. At the hearing on the motions for summary judgment and motion to strike, the trial court held Huey failed to produce factual support concerning negligence by Carolina Door, and thus granted Carolina Door’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court also denied Carolina Door’s motion to strike without much explanation.

November 13, 2016

Does Signing a Settlement Release Extinguish All Claims in Louisiana, Including Cancer?

by Berniard Law Firm

angel-of-final-judgement-1466539

Accidents happen, and sometimes it takes years before the effects of those accidents show up. So what happens in Louisiana if you are exposed to a toxic chemical and go through the traditional lawsuit process including resolving all of your claims but later develop cancer? Can you come back and file another lawsuit seeking recourse for your newly acquired damages? It depends on the language of the release that was signed when you settled the first lawsuit. The following case highlights the importance of receiving thorough legal consultation before signing a settlement agreement to ensure you know exactly what rights are being extinguished.

In 1996, Leonard Bracken was exposed to mustard gas while working for the Payne & Keller Company. A tort suit was subsequently filed against the company, but in 1999 before the case reached trial, Leonard agreed to settle his tort suit for $275,531. In addition to settling his tort claim, Leonard signed a compromise agreement where he released Payne & Keller and any other potential tortfeasors from any other claims arising under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act. Under the compromise, Leonard was forever barred from seeking compensation for any medical expenses or any other benefits from the company stemming from the 1996 chemical exposure.

Unfortunately, around six years after settling his lawsuit Leonard developed cancer. Believing that the cancer was related to his exposure to mustard gas Leonard filed a workers compensation claim against his employer, the Payne & Keller company seeking compensation relating to the 1996 incident. Leonard declared no wage benefits had ever been paid, his medical treatment had been discontinued, and his previous attorneys had filed and settled the workers’ compensation claim without his knowledge. Payne & Keller responded by filing exceptions raising the objection of prescription and additionally sought sanctions against Leonard. The Office of Workers Compensation (OWC) sustained Payne and Keller’s exceptions and order Leonard to pay sanctions as the OWC determined Leonard’s pleading violated Civil Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 863 by being frivolous and without merit. Leonard appealed the OWC’s decision. Additionally, Leonard turned to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2002(A)(1) in filing a motion with the OWC declaring the 1999 judgment should be nullified, as 2002(A)(1) states a final judgment shall be annulled if it is rendered against an incompetent person. The OWC did not hold a hearing on Leonard’s motion, rather it dismissed Leonard’s motion with no explanation.

November 12, 2016

Insurers Owe No Duty to Defend Against Exempted Claims in Bollinger Shipbuilder Lawsuit

by Berniard Law Firm

tall-ship-silhouette-1449207
It seems rare in insurance coverage litigation for a court to wholeheartedly agree with an insurer that the coverage requested is not in fact provided for in the contract for insurance. Yet, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did just that, upholding a decision out of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana finding without question that Bollinger Shipyards, Inc. was not entitled to defense by its insurers in a lawsuit brought against it by the United States.

Bollinger, a shipbuilder headquartered in New Orleans, won a multi-million dollar “Deepwater” modernization contract to upgrade eight (8) 110-foot U.S. Coast Guard cutters to make them 123-foot vessels. Despite the Coast Guard’s concerns that the boat hulls were not able to accommodate the 13-foot extensions, Bollinger pushed forward on the project. On several occasions, Bollinger submitted analyses to the Coast Guard purporting to show that the hull strength was sufficient. In reality, the hull strength was not sufficient which became apparent when one of the ships “suffered a structural casualty that included buckling of the hull.” The Coast Guard determined that the seven remaining ships were equally faulty and unusable.

Eventually, the United States filed a lawsuit against Bollinger over the faulty work. The Court allowed the United States to move forward with two claims under the False Claims Act. Days prior to the government’s filing, Bollinger notified its general maritime insurer, XL Speciality Insurance Company, and its excess insurer, Continental Insurance Company, of the impending claims in an effort to shift the burden of the expense of the defense to the insurers. In response, XL issued a “reservation of rights” letter stating that it was unsure if Bollinger’s policy included this coverage.

November 11, 2016

The Plight of the Luddite: Increasing Concerns for Plaintiffs of Age Discrimination Claims

by Berniard Law Firm

technology
A Luddite is a person who is opposed to technological innovation. A Luddite will refuse to learn about new technology and will not incorporate it into their skills, either at work or at home. Having this mindset has obvious drawbacks for workers in today’s world, but what happens to the individuals who do not necessarily avoid technology, but are slow to catch up?

In 2015, a 52-year old employee of Jefferson Parish fell into this unfortunate cohort. This employee had been working for Jefferson Parish for over twenty years of service. When it came time for Jefferson Parish to choose who to promote to the position of Executive Assistant, there were two options: Maria Cooper, a young 28-year old employee with technological know-how, or the 52-year old, an experienced and loyal employee.

To Jefferson Parish, the choice was obvious. Since the essential job requirements of the position of Executive Assistant included working knowledge in the maintenance and updating of all computers, servers, and wiring of the computer network, as well as experience in setting up Excel spreadsheets, Ms. Cooper seemed like the best fit. But what about the 52-year old? She was left in the dust. After being passed up for the position, the 52-year old filed a lawsuit against Jefferson Parish, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.

November 10, 2016

Louisiana Appeals Court Defines “Employee” in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit From Iberia Parish

by Berniard Law Firm

Employees Only
In the law, it is common for a case to turn on the definition of one word. A word that ordinarily may conjure a single image can explode with possibilities, nuances, and sometimes disastrous consequences during a lawsuit. For Mr. D that word was “employee.” In a recent case, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal helped define the term “employee” as regards workers’ compensation law and employment discrimination law.

In this case, Mr. D was hired by Lofton Industries, Inc., a staffing services company, that assigned Mr. D to work with National Oilwell Varco, L.P. (“NOV”). While at NOV, Mr. D alleged that he suffered both verbal and sexual harassment from coworkers. The harassment lasted until Mr. D was fired by NOV. Mr. D filed a lawsuit for sexual harassment against his harassers and NOV, as well as a separate negligence claim against NOV for the negligent hiring and supervision of its employees. This is where the definition of “employee” becomes important and interesting.

In order to maintain his claims against NOV, Mr. D had to meet the definition of employee under the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law (“LEDL”) but avoid being considered an employee under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act (“LWCA”). Confusingly, the District Court dismissed both Mr. D’s claims, finding that he was both an employee (for LWCA purposes) and not an employee (for LEDL purposes) at the same time.

November 9, 2016

CVS’s Wet Floor Not The Cause of Metairie Man’s Death

by Berniard Law Firm

pharmacy-1507606
A slippery floor can be a real hazard but even the slickest surface, for all its danger, doesn’t cause every problem. The Louisiana Court of Appeal for the First Circuit made that clear in a recent decision involving a CVS Pharmacy in Metairie, Louisiana.

Georgia Clesi and her husband, John Ellis, were visiting the CVS store when John slipped on an unknown liquid while he was walking to the store’s bathroom. Not long after falling at CVS John and his wife filed a lawsuit against the store seeking a reward of damages for his injuries. John sustained only minor personal injuries at the time of his slip and fall. However, while the lawsuit was still pending he unfortunately died after succumbing to cirrhosis. Georgia, beset by the tragic loss of her husband, amended the couple’s lawsuit for damages against CVS on the theory that John’s fall triggered significant injury and illness and the store was therefore responsible for John’s wrongful death.

The case proceeded to trial wherein John’s doctor, Dr. Parnell, testified that John suffered from MRSA – a chronic bacterial infection – as the result of an earlier hip surgery. The injuries from the fall, according to Dr. Parnell, could have caused the infection to become active again. To further bolster the case John’s widow Georgia also tried to submit various articles from medical journals that she believe supported their position. However, those medical journals were found to be inadmissible hearsay by the trial court and therefore the court would not consider the veracity of the claims contained within. See LA Code Ev 802 .

November 8, 2016

Do Drivers Entering Louisiana Highways Have a Duty to Yield to Traffic?

by Berniard Law Firm

truck-on-hwy-1615510 You are driving down a highway in Louisiana minding your own business when all of the sudden an eighteen wheeler pulls out of nowhere. BAM, you slam into the side of it, your back aches, your car is wrecked and now you are involved in a lawsuit. Who is at fault for this unfortunate circumstance? While this might seem like a no brainer many times great car accident lawyers will argue that the driver who was just driving down the road somehow caused the accident. The following case out of Port Allen, Louisiana demonstrates how the Courts assess liability when accidents happen between cars traveling down the highway and those that are entering into the highway.

In 2010 a motor vehicle accident occurred on Lobdell Highway. The highway is a four-lane stretch of road in Port Allen, Louisiana. Leroy Edmond was driving a GMC Sierra truck when he struck a flatbed trailer that was being pulled by an eighteen wheeler driven by Sherbaston Wilson. Wilson was attempting to make a lefthand turn out of a truck stop and at the time of impact Wilson’s trailer had not cleared the northbound lane. Edmond filed a lawsuit against Wilson, his employer, Jowin Express, Inc., and their insurer, Cherokee Insurance Company. Edmond alleged that Wilson was negligent in failing to yield to oncoming traffic while exiting from a private driveway and that Edmond sustained permanent injuries from the accident.

A trial occurred and the jury returned a verdict assessing 95% fault or the accident to Wilson and 5% to Edmond. The damages awarded in favor of Edmond were as follows:

November 7, 2016

Burger King Employee Loses Out On Workers’ Compensation After Misrepresenting Injuries

by Berniard Law Firm

burger-1320282-1024x771
When someone brings a workers’ compensation claim against an employer or former employer, they must not falsely represent any material fact, or the entire workers’ compensation claim will be forfeited. When the court finds that a plaintiff has misrepresented a material fact, they dismiss that claim in favor of the employer.

An example that illustrates this point occurred in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where an employee at the Burger King on Coursey Boulevard said she was injured when she stepped on a bread tray a co-worker had left on a walkway. Mrs. Watson, the employee who was injured, filed a workers’ compensation claim against Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company and Broadspire, Strategic’s third party administrator. Strategic argued that Mrs. Watson’s claim was invalid under La. R.S. 23:1208 due to false statements willfully made by Mrs. Watson while attempting to recover benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Judge dismissed Mrs. Watson’s claim, finding that she forfeited it due to her false statements. The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal agreed, and affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s ruling.

According to Mrs. Watson, the injury she suffered while working at Burger King had a dramatic effect on her daily life, severely limiting the activities she was capable of performing. She claimed she could not bend at the waste, drive a car, walk without help, and had lost the regular use of her left hand, arm, and knees. In a deposition given seven months after she sustained the injury, Mrs. Watson insisted that she suffered significant pain and suffered from the fall, which continued to affect her on a day-to-day basis. During the deposition, she testified that the pain in her arm was at an “8 or 9” out of ten, and claimed she couldn’t carry anything heavier than a cup.

November 6, 2016

Court of Appeal Discusses Louisiana’s “Lemon Law” Regarding Used Automobile Sales

by Berniard Law Firm

Buying an automobile can be an exciting experience regardless of whether one is trading in an old gas-guzzler for a newer, more efficient model or buying brand new. However, the process of buying an automobile can be a hassle if one happens to purchase a “lemon.” In Louisiana, a “lemon” is defined as a new automobile that has a defect that is significant enough to severely impair the automobile’s use and/or market value. With this being said, it is surprising that even with the abundance of information readily available via Internet, many individuals hastily purchase automobiles, rather than taking the time to gather information and make an informed decision. It is important to remember, as the buyer, that you should be in control throughout the entire process by (1) knowing the style of automobile you desire; (2) calculating the price you can afford; (3) researching the safety, quality, expert opinions, and owner opinions of the automobile you are planning to purchase; and (4) investigating the types of warranties readily available. In the event that one finds his/herself in the aforementioned situation, it is pertinent to retain an attorney, who specializes in Redhibition Law (i.e., Lemon Law) who will file a redhibition claim (i.e., lemon law claim) on your behalf.

The following redhibition action out of Houma, Louisiana discusses the conditions that must be proven by the buyer in order to obtain a favorable judgment. On September 3, 2013, Ms. Melissa Cadiere purchased a 2000 Lincoln LS with 199,684 miles from Wholesale Autoplex, L.L.C. Ms. Cadiere drove the Lincoln for thirty-seven days before her Lincoln failed to start, at which time she contacted Wholesale Autoplex. Wholesale Autoplex advised Ms. Cadiere that her Lincoln would need a new engine. After Wholesale Autoplex failed to repair or replace the engine, Ms. Cadiere filed a petition for redhibition.

Redhibition, in the context of automobiles, is the avoidance of a sale of some vice or defect in the automobile, which renders the automobile either absolutely useless, or severely compromises the function of the automobile in a matter that if known by the buyer at the time of purchase, the buyer would have chosen not to purchase the automobile. See La. C.C. art. 2520. In a redhibition claim, the buyer (i.e., plaintiff) must prove (1) that the seller (i.e., defendant) sold the good in a manner that renders the good absolutely useless for its intended purpose or its use is compromised in a manner that if known at the time of purchase, a reasonable person would have chosen not to purchase the good; (2) the good contained a hidden defect at the time of purchase; and (3) the seller was provided the opportunity to repair the defect. Crow v. Laurie, 729 So. 2d 703, 705-06 (La. Ct. App. 1999).