Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer BlogA fire has broken out at a chemical factory in Livingston Parish.
More information will be posted as it becomes available.
Breaking News: Chemical fire in Denham Springs under control
The previously mentioned fire at a Coco Resources chemical factor in Denham Springs is now under control.
Information will be updated on this site as it is reported.
Louisiana’s Chinese drywall problem not likely to be as bad as Asbestos
Residents of Louisiana, Florida, Virginia and at least twenty-nine other states have reported problems associated with the use of imported Chinese drywall. Reported problems include the emission of foul odors and physical damage to property. In addition, some homeowners have complained of health problems such as headaches, coughing and general respiratory problems.
Although U.S. government investigations into the Chinese drywall issue are ongoing, a recent U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (‘the Commission’) study identified a link between Chinese drywall and the corrosion of metal components in homes. As part of its ongoing investigation, the Commission has issued a precautionary fire alert.
Many affected homeowners have taken a proactive approach. In one U.S. District Court case in New Orleans, plaintiffs’ attorneys have requested that the court require Chinese drywall manufacturer Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. (‘Knauf’) to pay to restore an affected house to the condition that it was in before corrosive gases allegedly damaged property. Although Knauf’s attorney agreed that Knauf should remove the drywall from the affected home, the company’s attorney argued that Knauf should not be held responsible for the restoration of the home, questioning the claim that Chinese drywall corroded fixtures. According to one source, at least 2,100 people in the U.S. have sued in federal courts, claiming damage from Chinese-made drywall.
Asbestos Exposure: Proving your Case When There are Multiple Defendants
According to a 2004 decision of the Louisiana Court of Appeals, the survivors of a New Orleans longshoreman will not be able to recover damages from corporate defendants Buck Kreihs and Dixie Machine. The Plaintiff, Mr. Vodanovich, worked as a longshoreman from 1948 to 1986. Part of his job was to load and unload asbestos cargo at several wharves along the Mississippi. It was at this job that he sometimes worked alongside the defendants employees who performed maintenance on the same ships.
Vodanovich was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in 2001. He died in 2002. Prior to his death he brought a lawsuit against Buck Kreihs and Dixie Machine. The defendants were granted summary judgment in 2003 when a trial court found that there was no issue of material fact as to whether or not the defendant’s actions led to the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and caused his death. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court and affirmed the defendants’ summary judgment motion.
Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, answers, admissions, and affidavits on file in a case show no issues of material fact to be decided by a jury. As such the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment effectively dismisses the case of a party that, according to the court, will not be able to prove their burden if the case to go to trial.
Family of Deceased Grambling Basketball Player Sues for Damages
As reported by the Ruston Daily Leader in January of this year, the family of Henry White has filed a lawsuit against Grambling State University, its supervisory panel, and the Louisiana Board of Trustees of State Colleges.
In August 2009, 21 year old Henry White was a criminal justice major and basketball player for GSU. He collapsed during what the school termed a “conditioning” drill that involved White and other students running without water in 100 degree heat. White was taken to the hospital after players tried to revive him by pouring water on him. No one called for assistance for 20 minutes. White died a little less than two weeks later.
According to the article, Natalie Wood, White’s mother filed the suit and alleges that
Accident in Rosepine Shows Neither Driver at Fault when Intersection Light Glows Green for Both
A malfunctioning traffic signal located in Rosepine, Louisiana, caused much confusion for two drivers one October morning in 1978. Going about their day, both drivers were given the green signal from their respective sides of the signal. As both drivers moved forward expecting the other to stop they collided. One driver filed suit, and the case that arose from the collision provided an opportunity for Louisiana’s Third Circuit Court of Appeal to clarify who is at fault in that type of situation. Through this ruling the court developed precedent for the responsibility in the event of malfunction. At fault was Louisiana’s Department of Transportation and Development (Department).
The Court first verified that the traffic signal was malfunctioning at the time of the accident. Both drivers and many uninterested witnesses testified as to the condition of the light. It was described as appearing to have been struck, being twisted, and turning from green to yellow and back on all sides.
The Court then looked to Article 2317 of Louisiana’s Civil Code to see who would be held liable for the plaintiff’s damages. The Article provides in part:
A “Rules of the Road” Analysis Determines Outcome in Cotton Valley Negligence Case
When traffic accidents occur, courts must examine the basic “rules of the road” that govern drivers’ conduct in determining fault. The violation of a traffic regulation is a frequently-used basis for finding that a driver was negligent when the violation results in a crash.
The case of Dyck v. Maddry, 81 So.2d 165, 167 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1955), was one such case where the court referred to basic traffic rules in determining fault. On the evening of June 2, 1954, Ms. Gladys Maddry was driving her Chevrolet coupe south on State Highway 90 just outside of Cotton Valley. Mr. Elmer Dyck approached Highway 90 from a street that intersected but did not cross it, thus forming a “T” intersection. The intersecting street was marked with a stop sign, while traffic on Highway 90 had the right-of-way. Mr. Dyck testified that he approached Highway 90, stopped at the intersection, and after confirming there were no oncoming vehicles, proceeded to make a left turn onto the highway. After he had traveled about 90 feet south of the intersection, Mr. Dyck’s car was struck from the rear and overturned by Ms. Maddry’s automobile. Ms. Maddry testified that Mr. Dyck drove suddenly into her path and that she immediately applied her brakes to try to avoid the collision.
At trial, the court found that both Mr. Dyck and Ms. Maddry were contributorily negligent and denied their claims against each other. The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of the trial court. Regarding Ms. Maddry’s negligence, the court noted that Louisiana law
How Might Toyota Defend Itself?: A Lesson in Pure Comparative Negligence
How does the law treat someone bringing a lawsuit who may be somewhat at fault for the incident? Let’s assume an injured Louisiana resident wants to sue another driver for crashing into her vehicle. In his defense, the defendant driver argues that the plaintiff failed to properly yield, and is therefore at least partly to blame for the accident.
Depending on whether the jurisdiction follows the contributory, purely contributory, comparative, or purely comparative negligence regime, the defendant may be fully liable, partly liable, or not liable at all for the damages sustained by the plaintiff. These legal tests of contributory and comparative negligence are critical for injured plaintiffs to understand, as they may decide just how much or how little one can recover from a defendant if the accident was not fully the fault of just one party. Louisiana follows a pure comparative model. Whereas other negligence regimes might bar a plaintiff from recovering damages if they are more than 50% at fault for the injuries, the Louisiana model allows a jury to award damages as long as the defendant is simply a little bit at fault.
The defense of comparative negligence is critical in products liability litigation. Recent headlines regarding the Toyota recalls reveal that the car manufacturer may already be laying the groundwork for this type of defense in anticipation of future litigation.
Case of West Monroe Paper Mill Demonstrates Changes in Mesothelioma Law
Louisiana law governing a victim’s recovery for on-the-job exposure to hazardous substances like asbestos has changed quite a bit in the last half-century. The amount a victim can recover – and the way in which they must do so – can be very different depending upon when the victim was exposed to asbestos. One particular case involving a West Monroe paper mill illustrates how critical the date of exposure to asbestos is to a victim’s ability to recover.
The case of Graves v. Riverwood International Corp., 949 So.2d 576 (La. Ct. App. 2007), starts with a fairly straightforward story. Walter Graves worked at a paper mill in West Monroe from 1943 until 1986. During the term of his employment there, he was frequently exposed to asbestos-containing insulation materials. His employer failed to warn him about asbestos, provide him with protective equipment, or educate him about techniques to minimize his personal danger. When Walter was later diagnosed with mesothelioma, he sued the owners of the mill because of the frequent and excessive exposure to asbestos on the job. Walter died shortly after being diagnosed. His family carried on the lawsuit.
The courts had little trouble determining that Mr. Graves’ employer was liable to Walter and his family for exposing Walter to asbestos. The courts found Walter’s employer was “strictly liable” because asbestos poses an unreasonable risk of harm to others. Furthermore, Walter’s employer had control and ownership of the dangerous materials. Finally, Walter endured “significant exposure” to that asbestos, which resulted in his injury – mesothelioma.
Asbestos a dangerous matter for all involved
In 1994, Conoco, Inc. initiated construction on a project that required the demolition of abandoned homes in Westlake, Louisiana. Along with demolition, the project required the evacuation and removal of soil. The soil, which contained asbestos, was distributed to homeowners that spread the soil on the lawns of their homes.
According to La. C.C. art. 2315.2:
“In addition to general and special damages, exemplary damages may be awarded, if it is proved that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the defendant’s wanton or reckless disregard for public safety in the storage, handling, or transportation of hazardous or toxic substances.”