pexels-brett-sayles-1756957-1024x683A celebratory night out turned into a nightmare for Reuben Ellis when he was shot in a parking lot after attending a friend’s wedding reception at Bella Noche nightclub. Ellis’s quest for justice led him to sue not only the nightclub but also the property owner, Plaza Holdings, LLC. This legal battle highlights the complexities of premises liability and the extent to which property owners are responsible for the safety of their tenants’ patrons.

The Incident & Ensuing Legal Battle:

In the early hours of July 27, 2015, gunfire erupted in the parking lot outside Bella Noche, leaving Ellis with a gunshot wound to the neck. He sued several parties, including Plaza Holdings, the owner of the shopping center where the nightclub was located.

pexels-adrien-olichon-1257089-5230094-683x1024In the world of industrial contracts, the devil often lies in the details – especially when it comes to indemnity clauses. These clauses determine who bears the financial responsibility if something goes wrong, and they can be a source of heated legal battles. This is precisely what happened in the case of Godfrey T. Fagot v. Dow Chemical Company, et al., where Turner Industries and Honeywell International clashed over the interpretation of their contracts.

The Underlying Lawsuit:

Godfrey Fagot, a former pipefitter/welder, sued several companies, including Turner Industries and Honeywell, claiming he developed mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure while working at Honeywell’s facility. Turner, a contractor for Honeywell, had signed contracts in 1978 and 1985 containing indemnity provisions.

pexels-pixabay-532001-2-1024x683Emergency responders have a critical job, often requiring them to speed and navigate through traffic to reach those in need. But what happens when those actions result in an accident? Who’s at fault when an officer responding to an emergency collides with another vehicle? A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case, Karonda Washington v. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, et al., sheds light on these complex issues.

The Collision

Late one night in Baton Rouge, Karonda Washington was a passenger in a car driven by her daughter, Shankeyshia Jones. Two sheriff’s deputies, Brad Manuel and Tyler Comeaux, were rushing to a disturbance call with their lights and sirens activated. Jones moved her vehicle into the left lane to make a turn, and Deputy Manuel stopped behind her. As Deputy Comeaux attempted to pass, he rear-ended Manuel’s cruiser, pushing it into Jones’ vehicle and injuring Washington.

pexels-cadomaestro-3677150-722x1024A slip and fall accident in a nursing home can lead to devastating injuries, especially for elderly residents or those with underlying health conditions. But what happens when a lawsuit filed due to such an accident is dismissed because it was filed too late? That’s precisely what happened in the case of Penny Micken, whose legal battle against Heritage Manor of Napoleonville nursing home highlights the critical importance of adhering to legal deadlines.

In September 2015, Penny Micken, working as a sitter at Heritage Manor, slipped and fell on a liquid substance on the floor. The fall allegedly resulted in severe injuries. A year later, Micken filed a lawsuit, but she mistakenly named the wrong defendant, leading to a series of legal complications.

The Wrong Defendant and the Ticking Clock:

pexels-tomfisk-2116721-1024x682In today’s fiercely competitive business environment, safeguarding trade secrets and confidential information has never been more crucial. A recent legal clash between Brand Services, an industrial scaffolding company, and Irex Corporation, a competitor, illustrates the challenges of protecting intellectual property in the digital age. This blog post examines the dispute, the key legal arguments presented, and the court’s ruling on the Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act (LUTSA) and common law conversion claims.

The Alleged Misappropriation

Brand Services accused its former employee, James Stanich, of stealing trade secrets when he joined Irex. Stanich allegedly transferred sensitive files from his work computer, including information about Brand Services’ proprietary software used for invoicing and job tracking. Brand Services claimed that Irex leveraged this stolen information to develop similar software, giving them an unfair competitive advantage.

pexels-rdne-6669103-1024x683In a heart-wrenching incident, Dr. Alan Sandifer, an avid bow hunter, tragically lost his life in a freak accident involving his Hoyt compound bow. The Sandifer family’s quest for answers led them to the courtroom, seeking justice through a lawsuit against the bow’s manufacturer, Hoyt Archery, Inc. This blog post delves into the complexities of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the ultimate ruling that brought the Sandifers’ pursuit to a close.

The Unforeseen Tragedy:

Dr. Sandifer was at home, engrossed in his passion for bow hunting. While his wife was in another room, he was examining his Hoyt Vulcan XT500 compound bow, possibly making some modifications. A loud noise startled his wife, and she rushed to find her husband unconscious, the bow’s metal cable guard tragically embedded in his head. Dr. Sandifer succumbed to his injuries the following day.

pexels-pixabay-159832-1024x683In a recent decision, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, overturned a trial court’s ruling that had dismissed a plaintiff’s uninsured motorist (UM) claim against her insurer, USAA, based on a previous settlement with the at-fault driver’s insurance company. The case, Tonyel Singleton v. United Services Automobile Association, highlights the complexities of release agreements and the importance of considering the parties’ intent.

Case Background:

Tonyel Singleton was involved in a car accident and subsequently settled with the at-fault driver’s insurance company, State Farm, for their policy limits. The release agreement she signed included broad language releasing “all other persons, firms or corporations liable or, who might be claimed to be liable” from any claims related to the accident.

pexels-kelly-1179532-3794777-1024x683In a recent decision, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, overturned a summary judgment in favor of the City of Kenner and Veolia Water North America-South, LLC, in a personal injury case. The case, Candido Perdomo v. City of Kenner and Veolia Water, involved a garbage collector, Candido Perdomo, who was injured when a portion of the street collapsed under his garbage truck.

Mr. Perdomo, employed by Ramelli Janitorial Service, was collecting garbage for the City of Kenner when a section of 27th Street near the intersection of Salem Street crumbled beneath the weight of the garbage truck he was riding in. The collapse was attributed to a leaking sewer line.

Kenner and Veolia, the company contracted to operate and maintain the Kenner sewer system, moved for summary judgment, arguing that Mr. Perdomo could not prove they had prior knowledge (or ‘notice’) of the defect in the road, a crucial element in such cases. The trial court agreed and dismissed Mr. Perdomo’s claims.

pexels-rezwan-1145434-1024x683In a significant victory for the family of a deceased worker, the Louisiana Court of Appeal has overturned a previous ruling, ensuring they receive workers’ compensation death benefits. The case, Orozco v. Filser Construction & Aries Building Systems, Inc., centered around the complex issue of determining whether Serna Jr. was an independent contractor or an employee entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.

Case Background

Serna Jr. was working for his father’s company, Filser Construction, which was subcontracted by Aries Building Systems to perform work at a U.S. Navy facility. He was tragically killed while moving trailers on the job site. His alleged dependents, Mariana Orozco and Aggie Filiberto Serna Orozco filed a workers’ compensation claim against Filser and Aries.

pexels-sora-shimazaki-5673488-1024x683In a case highlighting the importance of carefully crafted real estate contracts, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, upheld a trial court’s decision awarding stipulated damages and attorney’s fees to sellers in a failed all-cash real estate transaction.

The case centered on a failed real estate purchase agreement, underscoring the importance of understanding contractual obligations and the potential consequences of non-performance.

Case Background:

Contact Information