by

business-law-1238207-1024x683Attorneys are known for being way too expensive to the general public. Most people think that attorney’s charge an obscene amount for every little task that they do pertaining to a case, such as talking on the phone with their client or sending an email. However, unknown to most people attorneys are not allowed to charge fees that are excessive. The courts have a system in place to assure that clients are not being taking advantage of when it comes to paying legal fees.

Recently, in the City of New Orleans the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeals affirmed a decision by the trial judge on a reasonable legal fee, to be paid to attorney Carolyn Gill-Jefferson. Ms. Gill-Jefferson was paid the legal fee For her expedited services rendered on behalf of the class counsel in connection with the court authorization of hundreds of minors’ settlements necessary to the disbursement of settlement funds. See Billieson v. City of New Orleans, unpub., 14-752 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015).

This case central issue is whether the award of $457,500 to Ms. Gill-Jefferson was excessive. There are several requirements that must be satisfied in determining a fee is reasonableness as stated in  Rule 1.5(a), Rules of Professional Conduct (emphasis added); See State, Dept. of Transp. and Development v. Williamson, 597 So. 2d 439, 442 (La. 1992).

Continue reading

by

caravan-1214115-1024x686Land within subdivisions is often subject to various restrictions. It is important to know and follow these restrictions to avoid potential legal action. The following case in Desoto parish discusses some of the legal implications of neighborhood subdivision restrictions in Louisiana.

The plaintiffs, Roy L. Flippo and Robert C. Treadway were landowners in Ranchland Acres Subdivision in DeSoto Parish, the same subdivision as Natosha L. Mann. They claimed that Mann lived in a mobile home that violated the subdivision restrictions. Despite being given written notice to remove her mobile home in order to comply with the restrictions, Mann failed to comply with the restrictions. Therefore, the plaintiffs argued they were entitled to a mandatory injunction ordering Mann to remove the mobile home within 30 days in order to comply with the restrictions.

Mann responded, arguing that R.H. Lending, who had a mortgage and security interest in the property, should have been joined as a party so that it could protect its interest. Plaintiffs responded that R.H. Lending’s interest was personal between it and Mann and therefore should not be a party in the action. R.H. Lending subsequently assigned the mortgage to First Guaranty, so Mann filed a motion to make First Guaranty a party so that it could protect its financial and security interest in the Property.

Continue reading

by

foot-bridge-1364767-1024x685Selling a home can be a stressful time with many issues to consider. You want to make sure you are getting a fair price and that the home appeals to potential buyers. One aspect you might overlook is potential liability for injuries that occur when potential buyers tour your home.

While touring a home in Bossier City’s Oak Alley neighborhood, Plaintiff’s Tammy Todd and Terr Michael Todd were shown an unfinished space above a garage. While walking down the steps, Mrs. Todd twisted her ankle at the landing, forcing her to have foot and ankle surgery and follow-up physical therapy. Mrs. Todd decided to file a lawsuit because she felt because the landing threshold was unsafe it created an unreasonably dangerous condition in the home.

Multiple summary judgments, were filed by the Defendants, in this case, each concerning the question of whether the landing was maintained in an unreasonably dangerous condition. In the first summary judgment, between the Plaintiffs and the Home Builders Association of Northwestern Louisiana (“HBA”), the court found that the condition was not maintained in an unreasonable way and granted summary judgment in favor of HBA. The second summary judgment, between Plaintiff’s and Mr. Angel (the homeowner), also found that the landing was not maintained in an unreasonable condition. Finally, HBA and their insurer, Ohio Casualty, filed a second summary judgment and used the trial court’s reasoning from Mr. Angel’s case to make a showing that the landing was not maintained in an unreasonable condition. Plaintiffs appealed the second summary judgment between HBA and Plaintiffs.

Continue reading

by

architecture-building-fire-exit-ladders-213976-1024x683Compensation for work-related injuries can be an area of concern for both employees and employer. But what happens when the employee provides inconsistent stories that refute the injury alleged to have been suffered? The Second Circuit Court of Appeal for Louisiana recently addressed the issue.

In August 2013, Kevin Tingle (“Tingle”) began to work at Page Boiler in Louisiana. Tingle was performing job duties at when he claimed to have fallen 20 feet off a scaffold into the boiler he was cleaning while working. Tingle was then airlifted from one hospital to another because of the seriousness of his injuries. Nurses in the emergency room recorded that Tingle had fallen t and that Tingle was complaining various pains. However, the scan of Tingle’s back showed a lack of evidence that he was injured. Tingle was discharged that same day and was instructed to seeek medical treatment with another doctor.

On September 27th, 2013, Tingle visited his primary physician complaining of terrible back pain. Tingle’s mother informed the physician that Tingle was unable to feed himself due to the pain. After Tingle’s X-rays came back negative, his primary physician referred him to another set of doctors who specialize in neck and back injuries. Tingle retained a lawyer, and the lawyer then notified Page Boiler’s insurance company, Argonaut, that Tingle had selected a doctor for the physician to deal with his neck and back complaints.

Continue reading

by

trucking-pics-1619675-1024x765You never know when a leisurely drive can turn into a lengthy lawsuit. Larry Dragna was on a drive in November, 2011, when his vehicle was hit by a driver for A&Z Transportation. KLLM Logistics hired A&Z to transport a freight load from Louisiana to Michigan. Before hiring A&Z, KLLM followed its internal selection policy by reviewing A&Z on a transportation industry review website, which showed that three of A&Z’s scores were at a point that indicated problems in certain categories. Although the indicators showed instances of unsafe driving, fatigued driving, and maintenance issues, there were no federal regulations that advised KLLM not to hire companies with scores like A&Z. KLLM, however, had an internal policy to not hire carriers with three troublesome scores until it had discussed the scores internally or with the carrier. There is no evidence if whether KLLM followed this policy when they hired A&Z.

The Dragnas sued KLLM, claiming that KLLM was liable under the theories of joint venture, vicarious liability, and negligent hiring of an independent contractor. The district court for the Middle District of Louisiana entered summary judgment in favor of KLLM on all three claims and the Dragnas appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided this case.

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute to any material fact in the case, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court in this case first applied this requirement to the issue of joint venture liability, finding that the Dragnas’ evidence did not create a genuine dispute of material fact about a joint venture between KLLM and A&Z. Under Louisiana law, there are certain requirements that must be met in order for there to be a joint venture. There must be contributions between two or more persons in determinate proportions, a joint effort between the parties, a sharing of profits, and a mutual risk of losses. See Cajun Elec. Power Coop., Inc. v. McNamara, 452 So. 2d 212, 215 (La. Ct. App. 1984). Those requirements were not met, as A&Z used its own resources in transporting the load, KLLM placed all of the risk of loss on A&Z, A&Z did not share in any profits made, but was paid upon completion of performance, and A&Z alone determined how to move the load. Summary judgment, was, therefore proper in regards to the first issue of joint venture liability.

Continue reading

by

home-sweet-home-1228389-1-1024x768There are times when a Trial Court may issue partial judgments that are non-appealable. But this does not always mean the lawsuit is over. When this happens it is important to have an excellent attorney to navigate the complex procedural processes to allow a party to reach the stage where an Appellate Court may review the factual issues of their case. That was the case for a Lafayette area man who ran into problems with a home he recently purchased.

Adam Bordelon purchased a manufactured home from Evangeline Home Center which was manufactured by Cappaert Manufactured Housing. Shortly after the purchase Mr. Bordelon noticed problems with the house. Mr. Bordelon alleged that the problems with the home were due to defects from Cappaert’s construction of the home. He also alleged that he requested these defects to be repaired but the repairs were never done.

Mr. Bordelon filed a lawsuit against Cappaert, the manufacturer, and Evangeline Home Center, the retail seller, for these unsatisfactory conditions and sought rescission of the sale. Mr. Bordelon also sought damages and attorney’s fees. Cappaert filed a motion to compel arbitration and for stay in the proceedings. Cappaert and Evangeline also argued that the dilatory exception of prematurity should dismiss the lawsuit. The dilatory exception of prematurity is a defensed used by defendants essentially saying that the lawsuit is not ripe for a court to make a ruling on. La.C.C.P. art. 933.

Continue reading

by

horse-1392212-1024x863While there are many steps that can be taken to prevent road accidents, accidents still happen. When accidents occur, we are left to determine who is at fault. For many people, automobile insurance is the only lifeline to help them recover from the accident. However, to automobile insurers, the question of who is at fault is incredibly important. Is there ever truly one party who is 100% at fault for a crash? How is a crash handled if it involves unconventional modes of transportation? Can someone be at fault if they are not legally negligible? These issues were explored in a case brought to the State of Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In February 2012 on Dave Douglas Road in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, Cyril Prejean and Jessyca Steward were riding Prejean’s horse Mississippi. At approximately 6:25pm, Prejean and Steward were hit by a GMC Yukon driven by the defendant, Russell Horton. Cyril and Steward did not receive serious injuries, however, Mississippi died from a gunshot wound to ease his suffering from injuries sustained in the crash. Horton was insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance. Prejean and Steward filed a lawsuit against Horton in November 2012. Following a trial in September 2014, the trial court found Horton was 100% at fault for the accident and awarded Prejean $17,969.50 in total damages and Steward $6,962 in total damages.

Horton and Statement appealed this decision citing that Prejean should have outfitted Mississippi with lights as required by Louisiana law and therefore Prejean should be 100% at fault for the accident. See  La.R.S. 32:53, La.R.S. 32:301, and La.R.S. 32:124.

Continue reading

by

girls-playing-1564125-1024x768What happens when a plaintiff is injured, and damages are denied? How can a plaintiff prove they suffered injuries from an accident? According to Louisiana law, a plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his or her damages were the result of an injury caused by the defendant. Wainwright v. Fontenot, 74 So.2d 70, 77 (La. 2000).  The following Louisiana Fifth Circuit case demonstrates the plaintiff’s burden of proof needed for a Louisiana court to award damages.  

On March 5, 2013, Regina, and her minor children, Darren and Darinesha were traveling northward in the center lane of Williams Boulevard when their car was sideswiped by a car driven by Mr. Hashim on Williams Boulevard in Jefferson Parish. The airbags in both cars failed to deploy, and the cars only sustained minor headlight and paint damage. The plaintiffs, Regina Tezeno, and her minor children, Darren and Darinesha Tezeno filed a lawsuit against Mr. Joel Hashim and his insurer.  

The district court attributed 100% fault to Mr. Hashim and awarded Regina Tezeno special damages of $1,035.00 and general damages of $4,500.00. Yet, the trial court dismissed the award claims to her minor children with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s refusal to award damages to the children.

Continue reading

by

rack-of-tires-1187131-1024x768Caveat Emptor. This is a common consumer warning, more easily recognized in English as “Buyer Beware.” But what if a defective product wasn’t actually bought, but given away for free? Monroe resident Jason Falcon faced this issue. In April 2012, Falcon called several local tire stores looking for a new tire for his pickup truck. He spoke to the manager of Ink’s Firestone (“Firestone”) of Monroe, Emmett “Ink” Cobb, who said he had a tire meeting Falcon’s specifications in stock. However, when Falcon arrived at Firestone to purchase the tire, Cobb said he did not have a new tire in the correct size available. Instead, Cobb invited Falcon to select a used tire from one of the piles outside the store for free. Falcon declined Cobb’s offer to mount the tire for $8.00 because Falcon, a mechanic at a local car dealership, planned to do it himself.

A few days after he installed the used tire, Falcon and his fiancee were returning from a trip to Baton Rouge when the tread came off the replacement tire. The tread separation caused Falcon to lose control of his truck, ultimately steering the vehicle into the median where it flipped over, landing upright. Falcon wasn’t injured, but his fiancee sustained minor injuries. The truck, damaged significantly, was a total loss

After the accident, Falcon filed a lawsuit against Firestone claiming that the defective tire caused the crash. The trial court rejected Falcon’s claim, reasoning that the tire could not have been defective because Falcon, as a professional mechanic, would have recognized the defective condition when installing the tire on his truck. Falcon appealed this judgment, claiming the trial court made three errors:  first, in deciding that the tire was not defective; second, in holding that Firestone was not negligent; and third, in finding that there was no sale of the tire in question from Firestone to Falcon.

Continue reading

by

crashed-car-1308788-1024x768A party to a lawsuit may wish to appeal a court’s decision that they find unfavorable. But under Louisiana law, in most situations only final judgments can give the Court of Appeal jurisdiction to hear the case.

In November of 2012, Jonathan Vince was the driver of a car in St. James Parish. Vince’s car crashed into a car driven by another person, Dale Koontz. Vince filed a lawsuit alleging that Koontz’s negligent actions caused the accident, which resulted in significant personal injury. Koontz denied the allegations and asserted that the collision was the sole responsibility of Vince or, that Vince’s driving was the reason for the accident. Koontz then filed a counter lawsuit within the lawsuit, a reconventional demand under La. C.C.P. art. 1060 alleging that Vince’s negligence caused the wreck. A reconventional demand is a claim filed against the plaintiff by the defendant in the same action.

At the trial, the parties agreed that Koontz’s reconventional demand would be decided by a judge should the jury find that Vince was liable for the accident. The jury returned a verdict in Koontz’s favor, determining that although Koontz was negligent, his negligence wasn’t the proximate cause of the car accident. The trial judge dismissed Vince’s complaint and deferred the reconventional demand ruling. Vince filed a motion seeking to get a new trial. He argued that the form used by the jury  to determined Koontz negligence was flawed as a matter of law. The trial judge agreed, finding the jury interrogatories were improperly written. Though he denied Vince’s motion for a JNOV, the judge granted a new trial.

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