This case examines the requirements for proving merchant liability in slip and fall cases, emphasizing the importance of evidence and the burden of proof.
Case Background
Lamarr Pierite sued Dollar General, alleging he slipped and fell in a liquid substance at their store, causing injuries. After a trial, the court found Dollar General liable and awarded Mr. Pierite $30,000 in general damages plus other costs. Dollar General appealed the judgment.
This case delves into a courtroom clash that spilled over into a legal battle, raising questions about the appropriateness of summary judgment when factual disputes remain at the heart of the matter.
Case Background
Felix DeJean, an attorney, got into a physical altercation with District Attorney Bradley Burget while discussing a case in a judge’s chambers. DeJean was later convicted of simple battery in a criminal trial. He then filed a civil lawsuit against Burget, seeking damages for injuries sustained in the altercation. Burget claimed he acted in self-defense, arguing that DeJean was the aggressor. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Burget, dismissing DeJean’s case.
The following case deals with the important legal concept of prescription (similar to a statute of limitations) and the rules for adding new parties to a lawsuit after the deadline has passed.
Case Background
Randall Iles was injured in a car accident and sued his auto insurer, State Farm Mutual, under his uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. Nearly five years after the accident, he amended his lawsuit to include State Farm Fire, his umbrella policy provider. State Farm Fire argued that the claim against them was prescribed (too late) because they weren’t a solidary obligor with State Farm Mutual. The trial court agreed and dismissed the claims against State Farm Fire.
The following case dives into the world of “slip and fall” lawsuits in Louisiana, where the law sets specific requirements for holding merchants liable for injuries on their premises.
Case Background
Gwendolyn Thibodeaux fell while shopping at a Super 1 Foods store in Lafayette. Although the fall was captured on video, the cause was not immediately clear. Ms. Thibodeaux sued Super 1, alleging they were negligent in keeping their floors safe. After a trial, the court ruled in favor of Super 1, finding that Ms. Thibodeaux failed to prove the store’s liability under Louisiana law.
The following case explores the concept of “permissive use” in the context of uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) insurance coverage. Specifically, it examines whether a son, given a company truck for work and personal use, had the authority to grant his father permission to drive the vehicle, thereby extending UM coverage to the father under the company’s policy.
Case Background
Randal Boudreaux was involved in an accident while driving a truck owned by AES Drilling Fluids, LLC, and insured by Commerce and Industry Insurance Company. The truck was assigned to Randal’s son, Micah, an AES employee. Micah had been given the truck for both business and personal use, subject to certain company policies.
A 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.
In 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.
Emergency 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.
A 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:
In 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.
Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog