Semi Truck Accident

January 24, 2013

Admissibility of Photos One Part of Drive-Through Accident Involving Ambulance

In the case of Johnson v. Smith, an ambulance driver drove his vehicle into the rear panel of another driver’s vehicle. This occurred in the drive-through lane of a Taco Bell. The defendant ambulance driver was determined to be at fault and lost at trial. On appeal, the defendants urged that certain pictures that had been deemed inadmissible at trial were crucial to their case. They claimed that it constituted reversible error on the part of the trial court not to admit the photographs in question. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s opinion.

The first reason for the appellate court’s decision on the matter of the admissibility of the photographs was that the photographs were not properly authenticated. While the law does not require photographs to be perfect representations of what they stand for, there is a standard that must be met. Photographs must be “sufficiently correct” before being admitted at trial. A trial court is permitted to admit photographs that have inaccuracies as long as the inaccuracies are explained. In this case, the police officer who was attempting to authenticate the photographs as taken by him may or may not have appeared in one of the photographs. This put the true origin of the photographs into question for the trial court. Because evidentiary rulings of a trial court are given great deference on appeal, the appellate court would only have disturbed this finding if it had found an abuse of discretion. Finding no such abuse of discretion, the court did not reverse on these grounds.

Another interesting reason for the appellate court’s decision in this case is that the court did not find that the photographs, if admitted, would have been at all helpful to the defendants who were urging the admission of those photographs. The court noted that the photographs may have been helpful to the plaintiffs in this case but found that the photographs would not have advanced the cause of the defendants. This type of harmless error is not going to result in a new trial for an aggrieved party. The appellate court found that the only real purpose that these photographs served was to establish the identity of the vehicles involved in this accident. None of the parties to the suit disputed the identity of the vehicles involved in the underlying accident.

January 21, 2013

Identifying the Wrong Defendant in Civil Suit Can Lead to Lost Opportunity

by Berniard Law Firm

The civil justice system has a few bare minimum requirements that must be met before a party can be successful in any given litigation. In order for a party to be successful in a civil action, that party’s case must make sense to the court in terms of the party accused, injury presented, etc. Initiating action against the correct defendant seems like it would be a given, however that is not always the case. Ms. Charise Thomas was injured in a particular location, eventually suing the owner of the location, Mr. Antonio Harris, due to the incident. Ms. Thomas also sued that man’s father, Mr. Aaron Harris. Unfortunately for Ms. Thomas, she did not initiate action against the estate of one Mr. Thirkield J. Smith, the owner of the property on the date of her accident.

The trial court granted Aaron Harris a peremptory exception of prescription and Antonio Harrris a summary judgment. These two different types of relief are granted for different reasons, having similar results but different standards of review on appeal. Each requires different elements in order to be granted to the moving party. In this case, they were also both upheld by the appellate court.

An exception of prescription is granted by a trial court when a certain time period has elapsed between the incident giving rise to a particular suit and the filing of that suit. Since Ms. Thomas never ended up filing against the appropriate party, Aaron Harris’ peremptory exception of prescription was granted and upheld on appeal. The trial court’s decision is given a fairly high amount of deference on appeal and is reviewed under the manifest error standard. If the trial court is found not to have abused its discretion, its decision will not be overturned.

January 14, 2013

Location Dictates Applicable Law, Law Dictates Fault in Marksville

by Berniard Law Firm

Location can be crucial in determining what law applies to a given situation. When an ambulance driver struck Mr. Dwight Johnson’s truck in the Marksville Taco Bell drive-through lane, Mr. Johnson and his friend were injured. His truck was damaged as well. Since this accident occurred in a parking lot, the general tort law of Louisiana applies to the case; the Highway Regulatory Act, while potentially persuasive, is not controlling in a situation like this. Relying solely on this source of law could prove detrimental to a party in a personal injury action. The defendants in this case, Smith v. Johnson, were unsuccessful for many reasons, not the least of which was that they failed to convine the court to place the blame for the accident anywhere but on themselves.

One plaintiff in this case, Mr. Johnson, testified that he saw the ambulance, noticed that it was stopped and noted that its brake lights were illuminated. Only then, according to his testimony, did he proceed. There was no testimony concerning Mr. Johnson’s view being obstructed, nor was there evidence that he was speeding presented at trial. Mr. Smith, the ambulance driver, testified that he felt the impact with the other vehicle rather than saw it and evinced that he was not paying attention to the situation in front of him while proceeding forward in his vehicle. The Highway Regulatory Act is not binding on activities in parking lots. It is, however, persuasive. In this case, it was persuasive against the defendants.

This case was not the first time that the Louisiana appellate courts have allocated fault in accidents that occurred in parking lots. The court mentioned two notable cases in its analysis in this case. In Gatheright v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., a standard of due caution was set that applied to all motorists proceeding in a parking lot. In that case, the plaintiff was traveling too fast and not applying her brakes. As a result, she was found to be 100 percent at fault for the accident giving rise to the case. The standard set forth in this case appears to have been refined and clarified in a line of cases that have come after it.

November 14, 2012

Questions Over Uninsured Motorist Coverage Rejection in Bossier Parish

by Berniard Law Firm

Louisiana law, in providing for uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM”) coverage, reflects the state’s strong public policy of providing full recovery to victims who suffer damages in car accidents. If an at-fault driver lacks sufficient insurance coverage, the UM provision of the victim’s own policy will operate to make up the shortfall. UM coverage will be read into an insurance policy by default unless the coverage is rejected, and rejection “shall be made only on a form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance,” where the “form shall be provided by the insurer and signed by the named insured or his legal representative.” The following requirements must be met in order to create a valid rejection: 1.initialing the rejection the UM coverage; 2. printing the name of the insured or legal representative; 3. signing the name of the insured or legal representative; 4. filling in the policy number; and 5. dating the form. In cases of dispute, the insurance company bears the burden of proving that the insured rejected UM coverage, but a properly completed form “creates a rebuttable presumption that the insured knowingly rejected UM coverage.” A dispute over the waiver of UM coverage formed the basis of a case that came before Louisiana’s Second Circuit Court of Appeal earlier this year.

On July 21, 2008, Richard Gunter, a Bossier Parish police jury employee, was injured when the parish-owned vehicle he was riding in as a passenger was struck by another vehicle. Gunter filed suit against the driver of the other vehicle and her insurer, Gunter’s own insurer, and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. Gunter alleged that St. Paul provided UM coverage for the police jury. St. Paul filed a motion for summary judgment, stating that the police jury had rejected UM coverage under its policy. The trial court granted summary judgment on behalf of St. Paul; Gunter appealed on the grounds that material facts about whether the police jury knowingly and properly rejected UM coverage were in dispute.

St. Paul’s position that the police jury rejected UM coverage was based on the fact that the parish administrator had completed a UM waiver form on September 27, 2007. Yet, the parish president’s testimony via affidavit revealed uncertainty as to whether the administrator had the authority to reject UM coverage, or whether such an action required approval by the parish finance committee. The court noted that “the record does not show that [the parish administrator] acted with the agreement, knowledge, or approval of the police jury in rejecting UM coverage for the policy period at issue.” Thus, “considering the strong public policy favoring UM coverage,” the court concluded that there were “genuine issues of material fact as to whether [the parish administrator] was authorized … to reject UM coverage on behalf of the police jury as its legal representative and whether the police jury knowingly rejected UM coverage for the relevant policy period.” Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment.

October 29, 2012

School Bus Held to Certain Standard in Injury/Accident Circumstances

by Berniard Law Firm

Black’s Law Dictionary defines a common carrier as “A commercial enterprise that holds itself out to the public as offering to transport freight or passengers for a fee. A common carrier is generally required by law to transport freight or passengers . . . without refusal, if the approved fare or charge is paid.” Common carriers include vehicles such as buses, planes, trains, and even taxis. Generally, the individual who is driving or running the vehicle is unknown to the passengers and those passengers are, in effect, putting their lives in the hands of a complete stranger. As a result, a common carrier has special, heightened obligations to the people they are transporting. Therefore, if someone is injured, then the common carrier is more likely to be held liable.

The danger involving public transportation is especially apparent in situations where there are children involved. For example, in a recent case involving the Avoyelles Parish School Board, they were held liable for an injury that a child sustained on a school bus. In this case, a child was injured as a result of the bus driver backing up into a wet, grassy area and getting the school bus stuck in the mud. The school bus had to be hauled out of the mud while the children were on it. The child involved injured his knee; he suffered from bilateral knee contusions after he hit his knee on the back of one of the chairs.

The school bus is considered under the definition of a common carrier even though the children do not directly pay for their transportation as they get on the school bus. As a result, law surrounding the common carrier doctrine governs the school bus case. Although Louisiana generally relies on codes to make up their laws, the common carrier doctrine exists even in this state.

October 19, 2012

Following the Rules to the Letter: The Need for Careful Lawyer Behavior

by Berniard Law Firm

In order to sue, there are certain rules and procedures you must follow. There are not only federal rules; there are also state rules and local rules. All of these rules should be combined in order to correctly deal with the court system. In many cases, if you do not comply with these extensive rules, then the court will not hear your case. Obviously, these rules are important, but can be very time consuming to follow.

A recent case provides us with an excellent example of following the rules to the letter. In this case, an individual was killed on Highway 90 near Iberia Parish. His accident occurred on a temporary road near a construction zone; he was the only person involved in the accident. As a result, his mother sued for wrongful death. She listed Toyota Motor North American, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., and the Department of Transportation and Development.

One of the many procedures that must be followed is the service of process. Service of process involves giving the other party a letter or some kind of notification that they are being sued. Its purpose is obviously to inform the other party that they are being sued, but also let them know that they will need to respond and possibly go to court to defend the suit.

October 11, 2012

Tragic Accident on Beauregard Parish Highway Leads to Action Against DOTD

by Berniard Law Firm

Late in the afternoon of April 15, 2001, Geraldine Fruge and her eight-year-old granddaughter, Hannah Lejeune, were involved in an auto accident on US Highway 171 in Beauregard Parish. Fruge, who was driving southbound, lost control of her Pontiac and veered into oncoming traffic. Tragically, both she and Lejeune were killed when their car struck a Ford pickup truck heading northbound. It had been raining on and off throughout the day and Highway 171 was wet at the time of the crash. The victims’ family brought a wrongful death action against Louisiana’s Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). The plaintiffs alleged that due to the highway’s construction, water was allowed to collect and pond on the roadway. They alleged that this condition amounted to a defect that caused Fruge’s car to hydroplane. After jury returned a verdict in favor of DOTD, the plaintiffs appealed.

The primary duty of Louisiana’s DOTD is to maintain the public roadways in a condition that is reasonably safe and which does not present an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists who exercise ordinary care. As discussed in this prior blog post, a plaintiff must prove the following elements in a tort action against DOTD arising from accident on the roadway: (1) that the condition that caused the damage was in DOTD’s control; (2) that the condition amounted to a defect that presented an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) that the DOTD was aware or should have been aware that the defect existed; and (4) that the defect was the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Upon review, the Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit began “with the second element: whether Highway 171 contained a condition that created an unreasonable risk of harm.”

The court reviewed the record and examined the testimony presented by eyewitnesses, experts, and accident investigators, much of which centered around the ridges or ruts in the travel lane that on the day of the accident held water on the road. The court noted that “it is clear that the jury could not have come to any conclusion other than the fact that the travel ruts on both lanes of Highway 171 were holding some water at the time of the accident. Thus, the pivotal question is whether this retention of water was a defect in the highway that created an unreasonable risk of harm.” After an exhaustive review of matters such as rut depth, roadway gradient, tire tread depth, and the physics of hydroplaning, the jury found that the condition of the road did not present an unreasonable risk of harm. “The issue to be resolved by a reviewing court is not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder’s conclusion was a reasonable one.” Accordingly, the court held that “the evidence in the record provides a reasonable factual basis for the jury to have concluded that Highway 171 was not defective,” and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

September 19, 2012

How Louisiana Determines Damages for Personal Injury

by Berniard Law Firm

When a court award damages, the judges commonly look to whether or not that pain and suffering can be attributed to the defending party, the amount of time a victim suffered, and how much pain and suffering occurred. The cause is perhaps the most important aspect of whether or not a party will be awarded damages. It makes little sense for a defendant to have to pay for pain and suffering to the plaintiff if the defendant’s actions did not cause that pain and suffering. Then, the length and intensity of the suffering will help determine how much money will be awarded.

In a recent case, the plaintiff appealed from the Parish of Lafayette to the State of Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit based on the issue of damages. In this case, the plaintiff was in a car accident where she suffered significant damage to her back. As a result of this injury, she spent approximately twenty-eight months with the chiropractor attempting to correct the damage sustained to her lower back.

Although the victim visited the chiropractor before the accident occurred, the doctor recorded the services rendered before and after the accident. The doctor stated that the victim’s injuries worsened and the accident definitely caused the worsened condition. The lower court awarded general damages and medical fees, but it only ordered enough general damages that would cover seven months after the accident. It explained that the victim was already seeing the chiropractor; therefore, the services she received after the accident were only relating to a condition that was already present before the accident.

July 27, 2012

Train Accident Tests Requirements of Accident Liability

by Berniard Law Firm

Doyle, a resident of Eunice, Louisiana, lost his appeal of the summary judgment verdict denying him damages resulting from injuries he received in an automobile-train accident. On March 5, 2009, Doyle finished up an evening of cards with friends and a half pint of whiskey before getting in his car to drive home. While he was crossing the train tracks, a train owned by Union Pacific Railroad Co. collided with his car. When Doyle’s blood alcohol level (BAC) was tested at the hospital, it measured .108% – the legal limit in Louisiana is .08%. A toxicologist testifying for the defense argues that his BAC at the time of the accident would have been well above a level associated with mental and physical impairment. This impairment significantly increased his risk of ending up in a car accident.

As a result of this intoxication, unfortunately Louisiana Statute § 9:2798.4 bars Doyle’s claim. The statute does not permit recovery to a driver if the driver was (a) legally intoxicated, (b) more than twenty-fiver percent negligent, and (c) his or her negligence was a contributing factor in the accident. Many states have similar laws on their books due to the public policy concerns of allowing an intoxicated person to recover for injuries that resulted from his own voluntary intoxication. If someone chose to drive while intoxicated, why should the other party have to pay for the drunk driver’s negligent behavior? However, in order to prevent injustice, most of these laws have a requirement that the intoxicated person’s actions be somewhat negligent and that that negligence be a relevant factor of the accident.

Doyle admitted that he hadn’t looked for the train when he crossed. The crossing was marked with lights and there is evidence that the lights were flashing and the train honked its horn to warn of its approach, despite Doyle’s argument to the contrary. The first responder to the scene, a police officer, testified that the lights were working when he arrived and the event recorder on the train showed the engineer began blowing the horn 25 seconds before the collision. These two signals would have alerted a reasonable person to the train’s proximity. The trial court concluded and the appellate court affirmed that no reasonable juror could come to the conclusion that Doyle was less than 25% negligent in the cause of his own accident due to his intoxicated state and his failure to look properly for an incoming train while crossing the tracks. While the train company could be considered at fault in this case, Doyle was also at fault for driving while impaired under alcohol. Since no reasonable juror could find in Doyle’s favor in this case, summary judgment was appropriate.

July 16, 2012

Deposition Two-Step: Conflicting Reasons for Quitting Job Early Leads to Perjury Charge

by Berniard Law Firm

This case is a welcome reminder of how an attorney’s advice may sometimes lead to more harm than good. Brown brought suit against his former employer, Skagit, under Title VII claiming racial harassment and constructive discharge. In a deposition, Brown testified that his sole reason for quitting his job at Skagit was due to racial harassment. However, in a deposition four months earlier in an unrelated personal injury case, Brown testified that he left Skagit solely because of debilitating back pain suffered during a car accident. Skagit sought dismissal of Brown’s claims based on his conflicting testimony, which the district court allowed and dismissed with prejudice. The court also went one step further finding Brown committed perjury. Brown’s appeal is based on a matter of fairness, arguing that a less severe sanction is in order and that he was entitled to explain the discrepancy between the testimonies.

To emphasize the facts, in the first case, based on racial harassment and constructive discharge under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e, Brown testified as to how he felt endangered by his co-workers’ threatening behavior, which involved dropping heavy plates and pipes near him. He was also distraught by his co-workers flinging derogatory remarks at him on a daily basis. He felt compelled to quit his job, as his supervisors purportedly ignored this behavior. When asked why he quit his job, he testified that the only reason he quit was because of the racial harassment. He reiterated that there were no other reasons for his quitting.

In a completely unrelated deposition for a personal injury claim, Brown testified that the exclusive reason he left Skagit was due to his debilitating back pain, which prevented him from performing his job as a welder. He again emphasized and confirmed that this was his only reason for leaving his job.