Civil Matter

December 7, 2011

Court Explores Standard of Review in Baton Rouge Car Wreck Case

On August 7, 2002, James Wilson was driving his car southbound on Essen Lane in Baton Rouge. When he attempted to make a left turn onto the on-ramp for I-10, Wilson pulled into the path of an oncoming car driven by Barbara White northbound on Essen. The crash left Wilson with serious injuries. Following the incident, Wilson filed suit against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (“DOTD”). His complaint alleged that the DOTD negligently installed lane delineators on Essen Lane at the intersection with I-10; Wilson’s negligence theory was based on his assertion that the lane delineators blocked drivers’ view of oncoming traffic. Wilson asserted that the DOTD’s negligence caused his accident because he couldn’t see White’s car when he attempted to turn onto I-10. After a trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the DOTD. It found that the DOTD was not negligent and that its installation of lane delineators did not cause the accident. Wilson filed a motion requesting a JNOV which was denied by the trial court. Wilson then appealed on the basis that the jury’s verdict was not supported by the evidence.

The First Circuit began it analysis with a recitation of the standard of review for a challenge based on the jury’s alleged manifest error. Because the determination of negligence is a factual one, an appellate court must apply a two part test to reverse the jury’s finding. Part one involves the appellate court’s deciding that a “reasonable factual basis” does not exist in the record for the jury’s finding; part two requires the appellate court to determine that the record establishes that the jury’s finding is “clearly wrong.” Additionally, when

factual findings are based upon the jury’s weighing of witness credibility, “great deference” must be given its decision. The rule of thumb is that where there are two or more permissible views of the evidence, the jury’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous.

December 5, 2011

Louisiana Wrongful Death and Punitive Damages Award in Oil Refinery Release (Part II)

by Berniard Law Firm

The Bailey case, as discussed, was determined based upon the precedent set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc. The focus here is on two causes of action, Whether a plaintiff can file both, and receive punitive damages for, a wrongful death and survivorship cause of action.

The Plaintiffs in Bulot were two families who sued the defendant oil refinery for wrongful death and survival. The District Court granted summary judgment, meaning there were no genuine issues of material fact, in favor of the defendant as to one family’s wrongful death action and its claim for punitive damages in its survival action. The Court also granted the defendant’s exception of no right of action as to punitive damages for the second family’s wrongful death action.

Each family had a family member that died after being exposed to radioactive waste. One family alleged that the deceased had worked for a company that engaged in the cleaning of oilfield tubing and pipes. He died of pancreatic cancer in 1999, allegedly as a result of exposure to radioactive waste while employed by the company. The second family’s family member died while La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315.3 (‘the statute’) was in effect (between 1984 and 1996). The statute provided that punitive damages may be awarded, in addition to general and special damages, if it is proved by the plaintiff that the sustained injuries were caused by the defendant’s “wanton or reckless disregard for public safety in the storage, handling, or transportation of hazardous or toxic substances.”

December 3, 2011

Louisiana Wrongful Death and Punitive Damages Award (Part I)

by Berniard Law Firm

The Bailey v. Exxon Mobil Corporation case finds its conclusion based on the precedent set forth in Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services. The focus is on the application of a statute, and differentiating events that take place prior to the statute’s enactment, and how the Court will analyze events that continuously occur which began before the enactment of the statute and continue after its enactment.

The issue before the Court in Bailey is whether the plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages in a wrongful death action are precluded by Bulot. The plaintiffs in Bailey alleged that either they or their decedents were exposed to naturally occurring radioactive material at over 600 pipe yards throughout Louisiana, six other states, and overseas, through their work with, or with a subsidiary of, the Exxon Mobile Corporation. They also alleged they were entitled to punitive damages under former Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315.3.

Punitive damages are intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in similar conduct to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Punitive damages are not intended to compensate the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff often receives most if not all of the punitive damages award. The Court states that the statute in question, La. C.C. art. 2315.3, effective September 3, 1984 and repealed April 16, 1996, provided for punitive damages “if it [were] proved that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the defendant’s wanton or reckless disregard for public safety in the storage, handling, or transportation of hazardous or toxic substances.” The court in Bulot states that “punitive damages cannot be recovered by way of a wrongful death action. The right to a punitive award is a different kind of right or legally enforceable claim than the right to compensatory damages. As such, a claim for damages pursuant to La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315.3 cannot exist as a component of a wrongful death action, as that is limited to compensatory damages for the survivor’s (victim’s) own injuries.”

December 1, 2011

Trial Necessary to Determine Jones Act Applicability (Part 2)

by Berniard Law Firm

Not all employees furthering a vessel’s mission are seamen. They can provide short-term or even land-based support. If so, they aren’t seamen under the federal Jones Act. Whether Kerry Becnel was a seaman when he was injured was the issue considered in Becnel v. Chet Morrison, Inc., No. 2010-CA-1411 (La. Ct. App. 4 Cir. 8/31/11). The court of appeal reversed the St. Bernard 34th Judicial District Court and sent the case back for trial.

In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, the first question to determine whether an employee is a seaman is simple: did the employee “contribute[ ] to the function of the vessel or accomplishment of its mission.” Becnel did contribute. He worked 17-hour days in preparing meals, cooking food, and cleaning. He sustained injuries when he fell off a barge at the end of one of those long working days. The parties did not dispute that Becnel met this test.

The second part of the Chandris test is harder: “whether that employee had a connection to a vessel in navigation which was substantial both in terms of duration and nature.” Two questions arise. Did the employee have a connection to a vessel in navigation? Was that connection substantial in its duration and nature.

November 29, 2011

Court Determines if Injured Temp Qualifies Under Jones Act

by Berniard Law Firm

Kerry Becnel was injured while working on a barge, but his relationship with the vessel is not clear cut, making it difficult to determine whether he was a seaman under the federal Jones Act. In Becnel v. Chet Morrison, Inc., No. 2010-CA-1411 (La. Ct. App. 4 Cir. 8/31/11), the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the St. Bernard 34th Judicial District Court and sent the case back for trial.

Becnel was a cook on a quarters barge owned by Chet Morrison Contractors, Inc. (CMC). One night in 2005, he was walking from one barge to another to reach a water taxi used to get to his living quarters. Before he reached the water taxi, he fell several feet into the water. Becnel claimed that “there was no safety device, railing, chain, rope, or other safety feature to prevent falling from the side of the vessel,” and the owner knew this. To add to the danger, the only light near where he fell was not working. He said he could not avoid the danger because he could not see it.

Becnel sued his employer, Coastal Catering, L.L.C., which had contracted Becnel’s services to CMC. He also sued CMC and the companies’ insurers. The battle became one between the companies and their insurers. Coastal’s insurer, State National Insurance Co. (SNIC), claimed that Coastal’s maritime general liability insurance policy did not cover CMC’s potential liability for Becnel’s injuries, but the district court decided it did.

November 27, 2011

Lawsuit Alleging Medical Malpractice Against Nurse Highlights Cap Limitation Elements

by Berniard Law Firm

This post serves as a concluding piece on the Oliver Medical Malpractice case reviewed in our previous two entries:

The higher burden in a medical malpractice case requires that the state show that the discrimination furthers a legitimate governmental interest. The Taylors argued that by including nurses in the categories of medical practitioners who have limited liability, those in Taylor’s shoes have inadequate remedy. The state argued that it was creating this distinction for the overall purpose of protecting individuals who are in situations just like Taylor.

Ultimately, the state argued that by creating the liability limit for nurses in the act, it had in mind the future consequences of unlimited liability. They argued that by creating the cap the amount of liability is reduced, which means that it costs less overall for a nurse to practice within the state of Louisiana. The state goes on to argue that this reduction in cost insures that there will be a sufficient number of nurse and medical practitioners who practice within Louisiana. This, they argue, ensures people like Taylor that someone will be there to help them. Moreover, the state argues that a lower liability limit means that nurses like nurse Duhon will have at least enough money to cover the costs up to the cap and that with unlimited liability, it would not be guaranteed that nurses would have the sufficient amount of resources to compensate victims of malpractice.

November 25, 2011

Medical Malpractice in Oliver Case Sees Ruling Highlighting Financial Disparity

by Berniard Law Firm

Ultimately, the Olivers sued the nurse practitioner alleging malpractice. A jury awarded them over one million dollars in damages. Eventually, the award of general damages, which in Louisiana included medical and non-medical costs, was reduced to $500,000 as required by the statute. Needless to say the Olivers were distraught at the low value the court ascribed to Taylor’s injury.

The Oliver’s challenged the constitutionality of the statute by alleging that it violated the principle of equal protection. When a statute is constitutionally challenged one of the most important aspects of the case is what burden the state has in defending the act. If the act does not violate the equal protection clause of the 5th and 14th amendment, the state only needs to prove that the act has a rational basis connected with a legitimate government interest. Generally, this standard is not very hard to meet. On the other hand, if the act violates equal protection, a higher standard is used to evaluate the act. The Louisiana equal protection clause states the following:

“No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law. No law shall discriminate against a person because of race or religious ideas, beliefs, or affiliations. No law shall arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably discriminate against a person because of birth, age, sex, culture, physical condition, or political ideas or affiliations.”

November 23, 2011

Oliver Medical Malpractice Case Sees New Opinion From Courts

by Berniard Law Firm

In some states, the legislative branch creates certain protections for classes of residents. These protections can come in the form of protective presumptions, statutory liability limitations, or any other form which the legislative branch thinks is necessary for its state. In most states, statutes protect those in the medical field from unlimited liability. The reality is that these protections are necessary in order to protect doctors and hospitals from being involved in numerous civil cases. If doctors could be sued freely, chances are that the cost of liability insurance would sky rocket. If this happens, medical professionals would be wary to establish a practice in that particular state. Needless to say, this would create a huge crisis in the medical field.

These protections generally do not apply if there has been an egregious act by a doctor. Moreover, these protections do not apply if a doctor has intentionally committed an act against a patient. In Louisiana, for a general claim of malpractice, the award of general damages is limited to $500,000. This protection exists for doctors, hospitals, and some types of nurse practitioners. However, if an exception to the statutes application exists, the shield will not be helpful to medical practitioners.

In a recent case Joe Oliver vs. Megnoila Clinic, the protection did not apply to a nurse practitioner. The statute involved was expanded to include nurse practitioners of the type the defendant was. However, one of the requirements was that the nurse practioner consult with a medical doctor on issues before giving medical advice. Susan Duhon, one of the defendants in the case, was a nurse practitioner. She was seeing the Taylor Oliver who was an infant at the time that she was first brought to Ms. Duhon’s office. Taylor was brought in because she was crying a lot and the parents could not figure out what the problem was.

November 21, 2011

Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal Punishes For Duplicitous Suits

by Berniard Law Firm

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

November 15, 2011

Baton Rouge Plaintiff Loses Defamation Claim Due to Prescription

by Berniard Law Firm

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.