by

In 2010 the St. Landry Sheriff’s Department welcomed a traffic accident reconstruction expert among its team as Captain Brian Hundley successfully completed a course on accident investigation and reconstruction. Especially in fatal accidents or in cases where there are no eye-witnesses, car crash experts can play a pivotal role in determining the most probable explanation for how the accident occurred.

In an investigation, a crash reconstruction expert must rely heavily on evidence gathered by the police at the accident scene. Although the expert can consider a variety of physical evidence, including the road layout and traffic markings, tire skid marks, and the damaged vehicles themselves that remain after the occurrence of the crash, much of the expert’s analysis must be based on observations made after the event. For this reason, it is critical that police officers who respond to an accident scene are extremely diligent in preserving and recording evidence once the medical needs of the victims are addressed.

The reconstruction expert will review photographs of the roadway and vehicles and obtain detailed measurements of the site in order to create a diagram of the situation. This diagram is important for establishing the vehicles’ positions both before and after the impact.

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

Fleeing the scene of an escalating argument, a driver injured two persons when he ran over them with his car. The incident happened in Minden on February 7, as reported by Jana Ryan. Local authorities believed the victims were merely bystanders and were not part of the argument. After brandishing a gun, the driver attempted to leave in his car, and he ran over the bystanders while trying to back away. The driver was later arrested on criminal charges of aggravated assault and aggravated battery stemming from the incident.

Events like this one often bring criminal charges against the person who injures another. However, the driver in this case may also be civilly liable to the injured victims; that is, in addition any criminal conviction, a court can hold him financially responsible for the injuries that resulted from his actions. To be held civilly, or financially, liable to a victim, generally a person’s actions must be the legal cause of the victim’s injury. The law does not even require that the person have intentionally injured a victim; a careless, or negligent, act may be sufficient to establish liability.

It is important to keep in mind, though, that criminal law and civil liability are administered very differently and that criminal convictions and civil remedies are distinct under Louisiana law. A conviction by a criminal court does not automatically ensure that a civil court will hold a convicted defendant financially liable for the injuries he caused. Nor will a person found innocent be guaranteed immunity from civil liability. Each type of court requires attorneys to establish different elements, and criminal courts require them to prove those elements with more certainty. This is true even if key words, such as “assault” and “battery,” seem to mean essentially the same thing in each court.

Continue reading

by

As reported on nola.com earlier this year, a $1.56 million project to build a 5.5 mile guardrail along Airline Drive is complete. The guardrail is a much needed addition, designed to prevent motorists from plunging into the canal, and is something that area residents have been calling for years.

The rail, from St. Rose to Norco has already stopped at least one vehicle from going into the canal. Around the beginning of 2010 a car hit the rail just east of Ormond Boulevard in Destrehan but didn’t go in.

Before the guardrail the area was the site of many deadly accidents over the years. In 2003 alone six people died in two accidents and one family in particular suffered a devastating loss.

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

According to a recent ABC News report, court documents from a class-action lawsuit against that has been filed against Toyota claim that the company is in possession of documents that show that the automaker documented confirmed cases of sudden acceleration without driver error as many as 7 years ago. Other alleged company documents show that Toyota has been able to recreate instances of sudden acceleration, again without driver error, within the last year.

The documents are referred to in a revised complaint that has been filed against Toyota in U.S. District Court for Southern California. In the suit, forty Toyota owners claim that sudden acceleration problems has caused them financial harm by reducing the resale value of their cars. The suit claims that, “Toyota failed to disclose that its own technicians often replicated sudden acceleration events without driver error.”

In a 2003 document quoted in the complaint, a technician reported a sudden acceleration incident where he found a “mis-synchronism between engine speed and throttle position movement.” The technician requested immediate action to correct the dangerous problem. Another document, from 2005, involved a Toyota dealership report that states that a dealer verified two separate acceleration incidents with a Toyota Sequoia. A 2003 report described what was called a “surge event,” despite no trouble code on a scan tool. According to consumer safety experts, many of the sudden acceleration problems could be resulting from a defect in Toyota’s electronic throttle control systems. The company has repeatedly denied that the vehicles have electronic problems.

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

As most motorists are aware, Louisiana law requires that the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident must stop the vehicle at the scene, give his or her identity, and provide reasonable aid to anyone who may be injured as a result of the crash. La. R.S. 14:100. The failure to do so is often called a “hit and run” accident, and in many cases the accident victim has no way to track down the fleeing driver.

In Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Hayden, No. 2010-CA-0015 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2010), the witness to a hit-and-run collision played a critical role in the resolution of the case. On February 18, 2007, William Dunham was driving his car in New Orleans near the intersection of Howard Avenue and Loyola Avenue. A silver Ford Taurus ran the red light at the intersection and hit Dunham’s car broadside. The driver of the Taurus continued on and fled the scene. Orelia Jones, who was riding in her sister’s car, happened to see the collision. Jones and her sister followed the Taurus until Jones was able to write down the car’s license plate number. She then returned to the scene of the accident and shared her information with the police.

The police traced the license plate number provided by Jones to a 2003 Ford Taurus owned by Amy Lips Hayden of Mandeville. Dunham’s insurance company, Louisiana Farm Bureau, sued Hayden for the damage to Dunham’s car in the accident.

Continue reading

by

Several prior posts have examined the critical role that expert witnesses can play in a personal injury lawsuit. The Peoples v. Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc., No. 09-1270 (Ct. App. of La., 3d Cir. 2010) case offers a similar example of how expert testimony can be invaluable to a plaintiff. (For a brief background on this case, please see Part 1 of this post series.)

In addition to the dispute over notice, Fred’s Store’s appeal also challenged the trial judge’s admission of testimony by Peoples’s expert witness, Michael Frenzel. Frenzel was a board-certified safety professional who owned a company that offered safety program mangement services. At the time of the trial, he had 35 years of experience in the safety field. Prior to the trial, Frenzel reviewed the accident report, photos of the accident scene, and a diagram of the store. He also personally visited the Fred’s Store in Tioga to view the premises. Frenzel testified that the two gazebo boxes that Peoples tripped over “amounted to a trip hazard that presented an unacceptable level of risk to Fred’s customers.” He explained that, regardless of their precise location, two boxes laying flat on the floor would pose a risk to a customer entering the store given that the customer’s attention would likely be drawn to the other merchandise. This was especially the case, according to Frenzel, because the boxes were white in color and had a low profile against the white background of the floor. Frenzel further referenced the “universal, industry-wide standard minimum height recommended for floor displays to prevent tripping hazards,” and even identified a section in the store’s own safety manual that addressed tripping hazards. Finally, Frenzel testified that in his opinion Peoples “did nothing wrong,” and that “only Fred’s could have taken corrective action in this situation.”

Fred’s Store sought to exclude Frenzel’s damning testimony on the basis that he was not an eyewitness to the fall and therefore could not contribute to the resolution of any issues of fact. Also, Fred’s Store argued that expert testimony is not necessary in a trip and fall case. The Court of Appeals cited Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 702, which provides:

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