Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The devil is in the details is a well-known idiom that holds true in this case. It was only upon a close examination of the factual details set out in the trial record that the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled in the plaintiff’s favor. In the case, the Fourth Circuit discusses the two-step process used to determine if the lower court correctly calculated its award of special damages.
Mr. Rosonette was injured while sitting in his wheelchair on a bus driven by Ms. Edith Cantrell, who failed to “use restraints” to secure the chair. The Rosonettes filed a lawsuit against her and St. Bernard to recover damages. The District Court granted $10,155.76 for special and general damages to Mr. Rosonette and denied Mrs. Ronsonette’s loss of consortium claim. They filed an appeal. Regarding damages, the Ronsonettes’ main argument was that in not granting the $26,077.03 cost of medical expenses the court abused its discretion (i.e. failed to properly apply the law or based its decision on an incorrect substantial fact). They argued there was no evidence in the court record to support the ruling. They also claimed St. Bernard failed to provide evidence proving the injuries suffered were not a result of the accident.
The District Court reasoned that Mr. Rosonette was not credible in communicating the extent of his injuries. In reviewing the case, the Court of Appeal did not determine the argument on credibility to be important because the District Court had already conceded that Mr. Rosonette sustained minimal injury as a result of the accident and did not challenge his trial testimony.
Louisiana law holds responsible those who cause injury to others by failing to repair unreasonably dangerous conditions in their custody or control. This type of liability is called “custodial liability.” For example, a university that fails to maintain its walkways so as to cause injury to pedestrians can be held liable for damages by injured persons. However, the university in this example would not be liable for conditions which are considered “open and obvious.” In a recent case, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal helped illustrate what is meant by “open and obvious.”
A jury’s verdicts can an often depend upon which party it believes the most. In a jury trial, the jury is indeed the trier of fact. It hears the evidence and makes findings of fact based on the credibility of witnesses and other evidence presented at trial. In a case out of Gonzales, Louisiana the verdict hinged on whether the Plaintiff, Mindy Weiley, appeared credible to the jury or whether she seemed to be a liar. 
The State of Louisiana has laws in place to protect whistleblowers with legitimate claims. These laws are critical to protecting workers and promoting healthy corporate self-governance. In Louisiana, 
Getting a judgment in your favor can often feel like a big win in court. After a judgment has been declared by the court many people believe the losing side simply gets out their checkbook and pays what they owe. While this may happen in some cases, many times after getting a judgment a person must fight an uphill battle to collect on that judgment. This is exactly what happened when a Louisiana company, Monster Rentals, obtained a default judgment against Coonass Construction of Arcadia (CCA). 
Language is key when it comes to the law. A court cannot give a plaintiff what he or she asks for if the request is vague. In a similar vein, a judgment’s lack of certain magic words can render it defective. Words have precise meanings in order to be given legal effect. This is illustrated by a recent of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. In this case, the Court of Appeal found that a trial court’s judgment lacked the required decretal language required to give the document legal effect.
The United States judiciary is often called upon to decide upon large-scale international disputes. From the trials of foreign government officials for human rights violations to the trials of multinational corporations for environmental damage the world over, U.S. courts play a critical role in international dispute settlement. In a recent case, a number of the coastline Mexican states filed lawsuits against BP and the other companies involved in the drilling base’s failure in the U.S. District Courts. These lawsuits raised complicated questions of international law, federalism, and nuanced negligence law. 
Excessive police force has become a nightly topic in the American news cycle. Ranging from discrimination to life-and-death situations, no one wants to be on the receiving end of mistreatment. In a recent case, a Louisiana woman experienced what she felt was excessive force by law enforcement officers in her own home. The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed. In its decision, the Court of Appeal discussed the burden of proof necessary to succeed on civil rights claims against government officers.
Nursing homes have become an integral part of our society due to America’s aging population. Families need nursing homes to help them care for elderly parents and relatives, disabled individuals, and other people requiring increased care. Most nursing homes treat their residents with industry-standard care; but what if you discovered that someone you love had been mistreated, or even abused, by the nursing home you trusted to care for them? This is what happened with the family of Ms. Lessie Porter.
In recent years, many have reported on America’s crumbling infrastructure. Reports show roads, bridges, and dams in disrepair, and raise significant questions about whether governments are applying appropriate modern standards when it comes to our infrastructure. In a recent case, the plaintiffs alleged that the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development contributed to the death of a teenager in failing to apply appropriate standards in the Highway 923 overlay project. In this case, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal discusses some of the evidentiary issues involved in establishing legal liability.