Civil Matter

May 12, 2010

An Example of the Duty of Care For Stores and Injured Customers

The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of the owner of a Lafayette hardware store and affirmed the trial court’s granting of Summary Judgment against a customer who was bitten by a spider while shopping there.

While in the store, Lee Johnson picked a rosebush from an outdoor display at the Ace Hardware store owned by Defendant Stine LLC (Stine Lumber/Ace Hardware). An employee carried the bush inside so Johnson could buy it. When Johnson picked it up from the checkout counter several wolf spiders emerged, one of which bit Johnson’s finger. He suffered extreme swelling, slurred speech, and memory loss as a result of the bite and sued the owner of the store for damages.

Two significant issues came up in the Court of Appeals’ opinion that provide insight into what must be proven in a case like this one. First, the Court found that spoilation of evidence with respect to the spider did not apply.

May 11, 2010

Oil Pollution Act May Provide an Extra Source of Compensation to Those Affected by Gulf Coast Oil Spill

by Berniard Law Firm

In the aftermath of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon and the disastrous oil spill that now encroaches on Louisiana’s coastline, many individuals and business will be looking for a way to handle the massive financial burden associated with clean up and recovery. Luckily, the law provides a way for them to collect some damages.

The Oil Pollution Act

In 1989 the Exxon Valdez spilled over 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound in Alaska. At the time, the U.S. did not have adequate funds to respond to the spill and only very narrow compensable damages could be recovered. The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) was passed by Congress in 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701-2761) to address these shortcomings. The OPA created a comprehensive regime to prevent, respond to, and compensate for vessel and facility caused oil pollution. The law also provided for federal oversight of maritime oil transportation through increased environmental safeguards.

May 10, 2010

Officials Warn of Oil-Related Health Hazards to Louisiana Residents

by Berniard Law Firm

The massive oil slick drifting ominously in the Gulf of Mexico has state officials worried for the health of Louisiana residents who live along the coast. Since April 20, when the oil rig Deepwater Horizon exploded and subsequently sank, oil has been flowing into the Gulf at a rate of up to 200,000 gallons per day. The fact that the oil has not yet reached land is largely the result of favorable winds and currents, both of which are subject to change at any moment. As of Friday afternoon, underwater robots had begun positioning a four-story tall, 100-ton box made of concrete and steel over the gushing well on the sea floor. The device will permit crews to recover most of the oil from the well, but it will not entirely stem the flow. It will also do nothing to address the oil that has already escaped and looms ever closer to the coast.

According to an AP story carried by Yahoo News on May 7, state and federal authorities are gearing up to deal with the many hazards to human health that will result if and when the oil reaches land. Officials are advising coastal residents to take precautions now. “We don’t know how long this spill will last or how much oil we’ll be dealing with, so there’s a lot of unknowns,” Dr. Jimmy Guidry, Louisiana’s state health director, said. “But we’re going to make things as safe as humanly possible.”

Last week, in what many saw as a preview of things to come, a foul stench drifted over parts of lower Louisiana. According to Alan Levine, secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, the oil was likely to blame. Levine’s office received numerous complaints, some from state legislators in New Orleans, who were more than 130 miles from the epicenter of the disaster.

May 9, 2010

The Importance of Timing in Making an Asbestos Claim

by Berniard Law Firm

Employees injured on the job are usually bared from filing a claim against their employers because they are fully compensated under the Louisiana Workers Compensation Act. However, while the act provides for most injuries, it does not provide for all. Whether or not your injuries are covered by Workers Compensation requires a look at recent Louisiana statutes.

In the case of employee’s claiming injuries due to asbestos exposure, Louisiana’s Workers Compensation Act can may be tricky to pinpoint. Because asbestos usually manifests itself years after initial exposure, deciding which statute applies, and thus which injuries are covered, may be difficult. The time at which a claim arises is usually measured from the injury producing event, that is in this case, the initial exposure to asbestos. The injury producing event, in addition to providing a timeline for a cause of action, also determines the law controlling the event. Laws are amended and changed over time, so the date of asbestos exposure actually determines which statute will be applied to the injury claim.

In 1996, Royce Thomas filed a claim against his former employer, Anco Insulations (“Anco”). He claims that his job, from 1968 to 1971, exposed him to large quantities of asbestos, and he contracted lung cancer and asbestosis as a result of the exposure. His employer challenged the claim, alleging that the injuries were covered under workers’ compensation. This is where the importance of the injury producing event becomes evident. Royce claimed that his lung cancer and asbestosis were related to pre-1975 exposure to asbestos. Under Louisiana law at that time (pre-1975), asbestos was not a substance covered under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Therefore, Royce had a valid cause of action because the injury producing event occurred at a time when asbestos, and lung cancer for that matter, were not injuries covered by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act.

May 8, 2010

Long History of Accidents Near Sharp Addis Curve Serves as Sufficient Constrictive Notice to DOTD

by Berniard Law Firm

A February 1996 car accident led the First Circuit Court of Appeals of Louisiana to find that testimony indentifying an ample history of car accidents near a sharp curve in Addis, Louisiana, established that the curve had presented a problem for a significant period of time. The Court found that the testimony was sufficient to support a finding of constructive notice of a problem with the roadway to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). Constructive notice, one of the requirements necessary to find an entity responsible for a faulty element, is highly essential when trying to prove responsibility after an accident or incident involving injury.

Around 7:45 p.m. on the evening of the accident, Jerry Goza was traveling westbound on Louisiana Highway 989-1. While traveling, he came upon a sharp curve at the point where Highway 989-1 intersects with Highway 989-2. Goza’s vehicle ran off the roadway into a cane field, eventually running into a ditch, striking a culvert, and flipping over. Goza sustained serious injuries requiring surgery and rehabilitative treatment.

Goza filed a suit for damages against the DOTD alleging that the design, construction, and signage of Highway 989-1 were defective. Following a four-day jury trial, a verdict was rendered in favor of Goza, and the DOTD was allocated twenty five percent fault. The DOTD filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The trial court granted the motion in part, amending the jury’s award of damages, but maintaining the awards and fault allocations rendered by the jury. The DOTD appealed both the original jury verdict and the JNOV.

May 7, 2010

Police Chief’s Complications Good Example of Workers’ Compensation Limits

by Berniard Law Firm

If you or someone you know has been injured on the job, there’s a good chance that

workers compensation was a topic of conversation. By law, employees injured during and in the course of their employment are entitled to monetary benefits. However, the right to collect worker’s compensation does not stretch indefinitely. Most jurisdictions place a “statute of limitations” of a “prescription period” on personal injury claims, limiting the amount of time an injured party has to file a compensation claim. As soon as the injury occures, the statutory “clock” starts ticking. When that clock reaches the statute of limitation period, any workers compensation claim is effectively barred. This is a serious issue for many workers injured on the job and is important to know to report an injury as soon as possible.

In 2002, City of Brusly’s Chief of Police was injured during the course of employment. His claim for compensation, however, was not filed until December 2004, nearly two and half years after his injury. The question at issue in this case was whether prescription, that is, the filing of his claim after Louisiana’s one-year limitation placed on personal injury claims, prevented the Chief from filing his action for worker’s compensation benefits.

May 6, 2010

Understanding the Term “Medical Malpractice”

by Berniard Law Firm

Many people believe that the term “medical malpractice” means a doctor can be sued any time a doctor harms or makes a mistake while treating a patient. Like most states, Louisiana’s Medical Malpractice Act protects doctors from frivolous, or meritless litigation, meaning incidental harm or minor mistakes made by a doctor will probably not result in a malpractice violation. The person bringing a malpractice claim against a doctor must prove certain elements exist, most commonly that: (1) the patient suffered a significant injury; (2) the doctor or hospital staff did not meet the standard of care typical of medical professionals; and (3) the medical mistake or lack of care was the direct cause of the patient’s injury.

To help you understand, please consider the following examples:

(A) A patient comes into a doctor’s office complaining of chest pains and indigestion. The doctor fails to make a diagnosis or provide treatment and sends the patient home. The patient suffers a heart attack the next day.

May 5, 2010

Understanding the Process of an Asbestos or Mesothelioma LawSuit

by Berniard Law Firm

The majority of asbestos cases in Louisiana involve corporate defendants: domestic and foreign corporations responsible for the individual’s exposure to the dangerous chemicals. Claims against corporations are subject to the procedural rules of venue. The venue is determined to be the place in which the injured party may bring their case. This is a very important concept in civil procedure that can have a tremendous impact on a case. Under the general rules of venue:

An action against a domestic corporation (Louisiana corporation) shall be brought in the parish where its registered office is located. Also, an action against a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the state shall be brought in the parish where its designated primary business office is located. An action against a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in Louisiana and without an agent for service shall be brought in the parish of plaintiff’s domicile.”

With multiple defendant corporations, it may be in the injured party’s benefit to show that the defendants are solidary obligors. Solidary Obligors is a term used in Louisiana for parties that share responsibility for a person’s injuries. Proving this relationship makes it easier on the injured party to file claims in the proper court (venue) because they need only show that venue is proper as to one of the defendants. This relieves some of the pressure of ensuring jurisdiction over each defendant corporation to their claim. Many cases can become very complex in arguments over appropriate venue and this doctrine can allow a claimant in Louisiana to litigate in a convenient venue where at least one of the defendants fall in Louisiana.

May 4, 2010

Underinsured Motorists and Protections Available to Louisiana Drivers

by Berniard Law Firm

Louisiana law requires motorists to carry liability insurance on any automobile they own. This coverage pays for property damages or personal injury for which you may be legally responsible. Unfortunately, not everyone on the road has insurance. However, insurance companies have built in protection for drivers that are injured by an uninsured/underinsured motorist.

In 1999, Carol Tedeton was injured during her employment with an automobile service station. She was hit by a minor without adequate car insurance. To recover for her injuries, Carol argued that she was covered under the garage’s uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM”) policy.

Under La. R.S. 22:1406(d), any person who enjoys the status of insured under a Louisiana motor vehicle liability policy which includes uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage enjoys coverage protection simply by reason of having sustained injury by an uninsured/underinsured motorist.

May 3, 2010

Two New Orleans Pit Bull Attacks in 18 Hours

by Berniard Law Firm

A five year old and seven year old were injured in pit bull attacks in New Orleans March 30 and 31. Shockingly, these attacks both occurred within only 18 hours! First, a five year old girl was mauled in the Gentilly area. A mere eighteen hours later a seven year old was attacked in Algiers and suffered an injury to her ankle.

In Gentilly, the girl was playing basketball with other kids around 6:40 p.m. near the 55000 block of Warrington Drive. Three dogs charged the children. An intact pit bull (not spayed or neutered) chased the girl into a yard and cornered her, biting her on the head, ears, shoulder, and chest. A neighbor called police who arrived on the scene while the child was still under attack. The officers were able to lure the dog away before shooting and killing the animal. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) cited the dog owner for owning a vicious animal and having a roaming dog. The municipal violations could later be upgraded to criminal charges. An investigation has shown that someone may have let the dogs out of the owner’s possession. The owner was unaware his dog was involved in an attack.

The second incident involved a seven year old girl who was walking between two homes in her Algiers neighborhood when she was attacked by a brown pit bull. The girl was shaken up and unable to tell authorities what happened. Witnesses saw other dogs fighting with the pit bull shortly after the attack. The owner of the brown pit bull was cited for owning a vicious dog, allowing it to roam at large, and having no proof of a rabies vaccination. The dog will be held for ten days while a rabies test is completed before a judge decides its fate.