Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer BlogHappy Holidays from the Berniard Law Firm! We will resume blog posting on Tuesday.
Articles Posted in Admiralty/Maritime
Lawsuit Over Jackson Parish Car Wreck Dismissed Due to Late Filing
Under Louisiana law, the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit may file his complaint with the court by fax. However, the plaintiff must, within five days of transmitting the fax, forward to the clerk of court the original, signed complaint and any fees that are due. If the plaintiff fails to forward the original document, the faxed copy will “have no force or effect.” La. R.S. 13:580. The fax option can potentially help preserve an action that is facing the expiration of its prescriptive period. However, as we will see with the recent case of Taylor v. Broomfield, the courts do not take lightly the requirement that the original complaint must be submitted to the clerk within the time frame outlined in the statute.
On September 17, 2009, Jarred Taylor was involved in a serious car accident in Jackson Parish. The other party to the collision was Brandon Goss who was driving a Mack truck owned by Broomfield, Inc. Taylor suffered various injuries including two broken ribs, multiple contusions, and lacerations to his face. Taylor’s lawyer initiated a lawsuit against Broomfield and its insurer on September 17, 2010 (exactly one year after the accident and the last day of the prescriptive period) by transmitting a faxed complaint to the Jackson Parish Court. The faxed complaint was not notarized. Although Taylor’s counsel had, according to Louisiana statute, until September 24, 2010 to send the original complaint to the court’s clerk, the original document was not filed until October 5, 2010. The original complaint filed with the clerk on October 5 included a verification notarized by one Donna Kay Tucker on September 20, 2010.
On November 12, 2010, Broomfield filed an exception of prescription requesting that Taylor’s suit be dismissed because it was filed after the one-year prescriptive period had elapsed. A hearing was held on January 13, 2011. In opposition to Broomfield’s exception, Taylor’s attorney argued that when his office faxed the complaint on September 17, 2010, his staff immediately mailed the original complaint, along with the filing fees, to the clerk of court. Several staff members from the law firm testified to this effect, but none of them could explain who the notary, Donna Kay Tucker, was or why the complaint’s verification reflected a date after the day the firm put the document in the mail. Ultimately, the trial judge denied the exception of prescription and held that the notary date was “merely harmless error” and that the complaint had been timely forwarded by Taylor’s counsel per state law. Broomfield appealed.
Closing Overview of Class Action Certification for Chemical Leaks, Other Disasters
In this, our final post of the Union Carbide/Dow Taft plant chemical leak series, we will consider the fifth requirement for class certification under Louisiana law: that the class is “defined objectively in terms of ascertainable criteria, such that the court may determine the constituency of the class for purposes of the conclusiveness of any judgment that may be rendered in the case.”Chalona v. La. Citizens Property Ins. Corp. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that the class is not “amorphous, indeterminate, or vague,” such that any potential class members are challenged to determine whether they are actual members of the class. Plaintiffs initially submitted a class definition that included “[p]ersons throughout Louisiana” who were exposed to the ethyl acrylate that escaped the Taft plant and who suffered injury or loss as a result. The court desired a more precise definition, however. It reviewed the zip code maps, weather data, and expert testimony in evidence and incorporated Dr. Williams’s method in describing the symptoms suffered by people who were exposed to craft its own definition. This action on the court’s part was specifically permitted by Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Art. 592(A)(3)(c), which envisions that the court may, prior to a final decision on the merits, enlarge, restrict, or otherwise redefine the constituency of the class. The court determined that its sharpened definition would mean that members “only need to determine if they were present in the geographically defined area on July 7, 2009, and if so, whether they experienced any of the symptoms commonly associated with the offending chemicals released.” This meant, in the court’s view, that its ultimate ruling as to whether the chemical released by the Taft plant caused the Plaintiffs’ injuries and losses would resolve the claims of all class members.
The court summarized its conclusions by reiterating that the substantive issue that will control the outcome of the case is whether ethyl acrylate “in the amount released can cause the damages as alleged by plaintiffs. This issue, along with the legal issues of duty of the defendants to the class … will predominate.” Accordingly, the court held that the Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that certifying the class would not result in the action “degenerating into a series of individual trials.”
As we observed previously in the class certification litigation related to the Chalmette Refinery leak in 2007, the court’s task in determining whether to certify a class is an extraordinarily fact-intensive one. In many cases, the certification process is just as complex and involved as the trial on the merits of the ultimate issue. In fact, the class certification in the Taft plant case has not yet been finalized. Subsequent to the issuance of Judge Cade’s Order on December 15, 2011, the Defendants filed a motion to appeal the class certification.
Second Part in Understanding the Anatomy of a Class Action Certification
In our previous post, we began a discussion of the Union Carbide/Dow Chemical Taft plant chemical leak litigation filed by the Berniard Law Firm. This post continues with a review of the court’s analysis of numerosity in certifying a class. Under this requirement, the class must be so large that joinder of all members is impracticable. La. Code Civ. P. Art. 591(A)(1). Generally, a class action is favored when there are so many plaintiffs that individual suits would unduly burden the court, and so the class action would be more judicially expedient than other available procedures. See Cotton v. Gaylord Container. There is no distinct number of plaintiffs needed to fulfill the numerosity requirement. In this case, the proposed class included all the residents of St. Charles Parish as well as certain residents of Jefferson and Orleans Parishes–clearly a large number. The court found persuasive the fact that “the size of the individual claims of class members is small enough that individual lawsuits are impracticable,” but that that “separate suits would unduly burden the courts.” In the court’s view, a class action would “be more useful and judicially expedient.” Thus, the court concluded that “numerosity exists,” but that “the class is not too numerous to manage effectively.”
The court next examined the issue of commonality, or whether there were questions of law or fact common to the class. To satisfy the commonality requirement, there must exist “as to the totality of the issues a common nucleus of operative facts.” McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services. of La., Inc. A common question is one that, when resolved for one class member, is resolved for all members. This issue is closely related to the predominance requirement, where the common questions predominate over any individual issues not shared among the class members. The Louisiana Supreme Court has indicated that predominance “entails identifying the substantive issues that will control the outcome, assessing which issues will predominate, and then determining whether the issues are common to the class.” The goal is to “prevent[] the class from degenerating into a series of individual trials. Brooks v. Union Pacific R. Co. The same court has also held that a mass tort can only be brought as class action if it arose from one single cause or disaster; however, this requirement does not mean that the amount or extent of damages must be identical for all class members. “[V]arying degrees of damages … does not preclude class certification.” In order to meet the common cause requirement, each member of the class must be able to show individual causation based on the same set of facts and law that any other class member would use. See Bartlett v. Browning-Ferris Indus. Chem. Services, Inc.
With these considerations in mind, the court analyzed the common threads identified by the Plaintiffs as to their claims. First, all class members were physically located in the identified parishes on the date and time of the chemical release. They all suffered various (but similar) physical injuries and financial losses as a result of the release. Also, common questions of law and fact surrounded the Defendants’ negligence in failing to maintain its plant and prevent the chemical release. The court concluded that it was “satisfied … from the evidence presented that common factual issues predominate with regard to whether Defendants took reasonable steps to prevent the release of [ethyl acrylate] that occurred on July 7, 2009 and whether or not the release could cause the harm as alleged by the Plaintiffs to the members of the class.” The court’s reasoning was based in part on the testimony offered at the hearing by Dr. Patricia Williams, a toxicology expert. Dr. Williams concluded that the symptoms described by the class were consistent with the type of exposure to ethyl acrylate that resulted from the release at the Taft plant. Although the Defendants offered its own expert witness to rebut Dr. Williams’s testimony, the court nevertheless found that “a method of assessing general causation for the whole of the class exist[ed].” This permitted the court to reach the conclusion that common factual issues were present. The court thus identified a “common nucleus of operative facts” that permitted a finding that “uniform allegations of complaints of harm amongst the large number of class members that stem from one central release event” involved common legal issues among all members that superseded any individual concerns.
“Law of the Case” Doctrine, Part 2
In our most recent post, we began a review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s application of the law of the case doctrine in a lawsuit that followed an auto accident in Vernon Parish. The plaintiffs, in opposing UUT’s motion for summary judgment, argued that UUT’s no-coverage arguments had previously been heard in a “peremptory exception of no right of action” filed by UUT which the trial court had denied. Both the Third Circuit and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs of appeal in that ruling; thus, the plaintiffs argued that the law of the case doctrine should “preclude UUT from re-litigating those same arguments” in the instant case. The plaintiffs also argued that the federal case cited by UUT offered “no precedential value in this state court action.” UUT’s reply asserted that the exceptions previously heard by the trial court “dealt with procedural, rather than substantive, matters,” and were not properly before the trial court at the exceptions hearing. In sum, UUT argued that the trial court’s rulings on the exceptions were interlocutory and therefore “subject to revision by the trial court at any time prior to rendition of final judgment.” The trial court granted UUT’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims based on the finding that there was no coverage under the UUT policy. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that UUT’s arguments had previously been heard and rejected in an earlier action (the peremptory exception) and therefore “the law of the case doctrine should have been applied because no new argument or evidence was produced by UUT.”
The Third Circuit concluded that UUT showed that “the policy it issued to Olympic did not provide coverage for the plaintiffs’ claims.” The truck Coronado wrecked was a vehicle leased from Olympic, and the UUT policy by its language excluded coverage for leased vehicles. Rather than refute UUT’s position on the merits, the plaintiffs simply “argued that the issue had already been litigated and that the trial court was bound to follow its earlier ruling.” The court rejected that the law of the case doctrine applied. It noted that UUT did not raise coverage issues when it filed its exceptions in the trial court. Instead, “the plaintiffs brought up the issue of coverage in their opposition to UUT’s exceptions.” In fact, UUT was not even made aware of the plaintiffs’ position on coverage until the day of the hearing. “Clearly,” the court concluded, “the issue of coverage under the UUT policy was not squarely before the trial court at the hearing on the exceptions.” In the view of the court, “[t]he issues raised in the motion for summary judgment filed by UUT … did not cause indefinite re-litigation of the same issue[s] as were raised in its [exceptions motion].” Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of UUT.
The Willis case is a stark reminder to litigants that the rules of civil procedure in Louisiana can be extremely complex. Even when the disputed issue in a case (such as whether an auto insurance policy covers a particular driver) is fairly straightforward, a plaintiff can face a complicated path to a resolution without the counsel of an experienced attorney.
Exploring the “Law of the Case” Doctrine in Vernon Parish Car Accident Litigation
Under the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, judgments are either interlocutory or final. A judgment that “determines the merits [of an issue] in whole or in part” is a final judgment, while a judgment that determines “only preliminary matters” is an interlocutory judgment. Generally speaking, final judgments can be appealed, but interlocutory judgments cannot unless there is a statutory exception that permits the appeal. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 2083. If a court renders a judgment that addresses fewer than all of the claims or that concerns fewer than all litigants in a case, that judgment is not final and may be revised by the court at any time prior to a final judgment. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B). With parallel reasoning, if a court of appeal denies a writ of appeal, thereby declining to exercise its supervisory oversight of a trial court, the court of appeal cannot affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment of the trial court. This means that “any language in the court of appeal’s … writ denial purporting to find no error in the trial court’s … ruling is without effect.” See Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc..
Related is the “law of the case doctrine.” This principle pertains to:
“(a) the binding force of trial court rulings during later stages of the trial, (b) the conclusive effects of appellate rulings at the trial on remand, and (c) the rule that an appellate court will ordinarily not reconsider its own rulings of law on a subsequent appeal in the same case.” Petition of Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans.
The Plaintiff’s Burden in Proving Special Damages
Under Louisiana jurisprudence, special damages are the category of damages that can be “established to a reasonable mathematical certainty.” Myers v. Broussard. Special damages include awards for past and future lost earnings, since a plaintiff’s forgone income can be numerically calculated by the court. Given the relatively high level of precision, “when a trier of fact assesses special damages, the discretion is more limited or narrower than the discretion to assess general damages,” Eddy v. Litton, though the standard of review is still abuse of discretion. The plaintiff carries the burden to prove that he has suffered a loss of income to induce the court to award damages for lost wages in an amount that equals what the plaintiff would have likely earned if he had not been injured by the defendant and been able to work. In cases where there is “no basis for a precise mathematical calculation of the amount of lost earnings,” the trial court may award a “reasonable” amount of damages. However, “to allow a plaintiff to recover damages for lost wages in the absence of independent support is highly speculative.” Turner v. Cleveland Trust Co.
The Third Circuit recently considered an automobile collision case in which the plaintiff was awarded damages for lost wages by the trial court. Lori Johnson claimed that, due to the injuries she sustained when her car was struck from behind by David St. Romaine on Highway 1 in Marksville, she was unable to perform her part-time weekend work as a farrier (horse-shoer). The trial court awarded Johnson $7,200 for loss of income, which St. Romaine appealed. The Third Circuit reviewed the trial record containing Johnson’s testimony that she was unable support a horse’s weight on her injured shoulder and therefore could not install the shoes. She estimated that she typically earned between $400 and $750 per month, but was unsure of the exact amount because it was a cash business and she did not keep records. Johnson also admitted that she did not report her income from the farrier business to the IRS. The court concluded that, “[a]lthough the uncorroborated testimony of the plaintiff can support a lost wage award, based on the facts of this case, we find that Johnson’s testimony regarding the lost wage claim is insufficient.” In the court’s view, Johnson’s wage calculation was a mere “guesstimate” that could not support an award for foregone income. Thus, the court concluded that it was error for the trial court to award damages for lost wages based on only this speculative information, and reversed that part of the judgment.
This case reminds litigants that claims for special damages must be corroborated by some minimum amount proof. Although the court allows that a plaintiff’s testimony alone can in some cases support a special damages award, the facts of each situation will weigh heavily on the court’s decision process. Clearly, here, the Third Circuit did not approve of the trial court’s treatment of Johnson’s claim for wages, perhaps particularly because Johnson did not report her income as taxable.
Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal Punishes For Duplicitous Suits
As part of our Constitutional right to due process, an individual is allowed to bring grievances before a court. However, certain judicial policies may be enacted to deny plaintiffs from bringing suits that have already been litigated, are being brought with the intent to harass, or are frivolous. The purpose behind such policies is to make courts as efficient as possible by deterring such actions. A recent case out of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal shines a light on several of these deterrents.
In Mendonca v. Tidewater, Inc., the plaintiff sought to nullify several final judgments made by the district court. Mendonca’s list of suits stretched over four years, with multiple appeals and pleas for annulment. However, none of Mendonca’s nullity claims or his appeals were successful. In his final appeal for anulment, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down three restrictions that laid Mendonca’s long line of cases to rest.
The first of these restrictions was the court’s upholding of the defendent’s plea of res judicata and failure to state a claim. When res judicata is enacted, the court declares one of two denials. First, that the claim has been subject to a final judgment and thus no longer qualifies for an appeal, or second, that the litigant cannot bring a claim against the same party in a second claim because all claims should have been brought against that party in the initial suit. The policy considerations supporting res judicata is to preserve court resources and protect defendants from being subject to litigation multiple times, with the possibility of having to pay damages more than once. A defendant’s plea that a plaintiff has failed to state a claim goes hand-in-hand with res judicata. If res judicata is applicable, then all duplicitous claims cancelled. In Mendonca’s case, this means that there were no new claims. Since there were no such claims, the court held that Mendonca’s nu
Baton Rouge Plaintiff Loses Defamation Claim Due to Prescription
The following case highlights the importance of waiting no time in bringing a cause of action that is available. In 2008, Debra Goulas worked as a bookkeeper for Sunbelt Air Conditioning Supply in Baton Rouge. Jessie Touchet, owner of Sunbelt, and Diane Jones, Goulas’s manager, accused her of stealing over $500 from the company during February and April that year. This serious accusation resulted in Goulas being tried for felony theft. The crime of theft is committed when one is involved in a trespassory taking and carrying away of the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the true owner of that property. Goulas was subsequently acquitted of this particular theft.
Following the criminal trial and Goulas’s ultimate accquital, she filed a lawsuit against Touchet and Jones in July, 2010 alleging defamation. Specifically, Goulas argued that Touchet and Jones “intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress” upon her, and that their accusations were “founded in malice to damage her person and reputation.” The complaint sought damages for medical expenses, physical and mental pain and suffering, and loss of wages. The defendants filed an exception of prescription. The basis of the exception was that Goulas’s claims were based on the defendants’ actions that allegedly occurred during February and April of 2008. By the time Goulas filed suit in 2010, more than one year had passed, thereby prescribing the claims. In October, 2010, the trial judge granted the defendants’ exception of prescription and dismissed Goulas’s claims with prejudice.
Goulas appealed, alleging error on the trial court’s ruling that her defamation claim was prescribed. Goula’s reasoned that she could not initiate her defamation action until her criminal trial was concluded in March, 2010; accordingly, she argued that prescription did not begin to run until Frederick Jones publicly accused her of theft when testifying at her trial. The First Circuit noted that Louisiana recognizes a qualified privilege that protects parties from charges of defamation related to statements they make during a trial. “It necessarily follows that, during this time, the one-year period that applies to the filing of a defamation action is suspended.” However, the court explained, the suspension of prescription applies “only to allegedly defamatory statements made by parties to a lawsuit.” In this situation, Frederick and Jones were not parties to Goulas’s criminal prosecution, so the prescription suspension did not apply. The court concluded that “since there has been no suspension of the 2008 alleged defamatory statements,” the trial court properly granted the defendants’ exception of prescription.
Oil Company Wins Another Chance to Recover Money It Paid to Clean up Gulf Oil Spill
The case of Jefferson Block 24 Oil and Gas, Inc. v. Aspen Insurance UK Limited highlights an important battle over money set aside for oil spill recovery, an obviously sensitive and important topic in the Gulf Coast. At the federal district court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the defendants won a motion for summary judgment and the court dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed the determination and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision and remanded the case for further hearing.
The plaintiff, Jefferson Block, owned and operated offshore gas leases, pipelines and a platform in the Gulf of Mexico. In November 2007, a drop in pressure in one of the pipelines was discovered that showed that oil was spilling into the Gulf. Jefferson Block cleaned up the oil under the direction of several government agencies and incurred a cleanup cost of approximately $3 million.
At that time, Jefferson Block owned an insurance policy which provided some coverage in the case of a leak, but was limited to the items set out in a “Declaration.” This declaration listed the oil interests that Jefferson Block had in the area but did not specifically reference the 16-inch pipeline that was the cause of the spill.