Litigation

July 27, 2023

Can A Renter Be Liable For An Injury Caused By a Leaky Apartment Ceiling?

defense_gov_news_photo_526-1024x680 When renting an apartment, tenants expect a safe and secure living environment. However, what happens when an accident occurs due to negligence by the apartment owner and management company? If a leaky roof in your apartment injures you, can you make a claim for your injuries? The following lawsuit answers that question.

Kim Faciane lived in the Golden Key Apartments. After moving out, she filed a lawsuit against Golden Key, who owned the apartment complex, and Ohio Management, who managed the complex, and its insurer (collectively, the defendants). She claimed one night, while asleep in her apartment, sheetrock fell from the ceiling because of the leak. She claimed it hit her leg and caused her to slip and injure her back and neck. She claimed the defendants were liable because they kept the apartment in disrepair, did not repair the ceiling after being informed it leaked, and otherwise not properly maintaining or inspecting the apartments.

The defendants filed a summary judgment motion, arguing that the lease had a provision that required Faciane to hold them harmless for any property or personal injury claims. They argued under La. R.S. 9:3221, Faciane was responsible for the premises’ conditions unless they were neglectful or failed to take action after she notified them in writing of a defect. They argued they did not know of any issues with the roof until after the accident occurred. Faciane countered the defendants had been notified about issues with the apartment’s ceiling at least two times before. The trial court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissed Faciane’s lawsuit, who appealed.

July 26, 2023

City and Emergency Responders Not Liable For Injuries Sustained En Route To Hospital

by Berniard Law Firm

ambulance_ambulance_service_1666012-678x1024 Medical emergencies call for swift and professional response from emergency medical personnel. However, what happens when a patient sustains additional injuries during transit due to unforeseen circumstances? The following case highlights the complexities of dealing with immunity laws for government employees and emphasizes the importance of seeking legal counsel to navigate statutory requirements and potential exceptions when considering legal action in such situations.

One morning, Clovina Stein felt like she was having a heart attack at her home in Gretna, Louisiana, so she requested emergency medical services. They took Stein to the hospital in an ambulance. While in transit to the hospital, the driver had to make a sudden stop. That caused one of the emergency medical technicians to fall on top of Stein.

Once at the hospital, Stein was treated for a heart attack. Stein filed a lawsuit against the city of Gretna, the responding emergency personnel, and other defendants, claiming she suffered severe injuries when the emergency medical technician fell on her while in transit to the hospital.

July 25, 2023

Judge’s Retaliation Claims Dismissed For Failure To Show Violation Of Constitutional Right

by Berniard Law Firm

paragraph_attorney_judge_process-682x1024 Working in a courthouse may seem like an environment where the rule of law reigns supreme, but even within its hallowed halls, employees can encounter workplace issues and retaliation. In the following case, a Louisiana State Judge became embroiled in a dispute involving a law clerk’s alleged illegal and unethical behavior. As a result of this disagreement and the actions taken by her colleagues, the Judge claimed she suffered unfair treatment, false accusations, and the violation of her constitutional rights. A lawsuit was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging retaliation for exercising her First Amendment right to freedom of speech. However, the courts were tasked with determining whether her claims truly amounted to violating her constitutional rights or merely involving unfriendly conduct.

Sharon Ingram Marchman was a Louisiana State Judge in Louisiana’s Fourth Judicial Court. She claimed a law clerk had been involved in illegal and unethical behavior. Marchman claimed that due to a disagreement among judges and staff at the Fourth Judicial Court on how to deal with the law clerk, she was treated unfairly by the other employees and falsely accused of disclosing confidential information. Marchman claimed this culminated with her resigning as chair of the personnel committee.

Marchman filed a lawsuit against the law clerk, some of the other judges, and various other individuals. Marchman claimed they violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment right to free speech. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The trial court agreed Marchman had not stated a claim as she did not adequately allege any violation of her constitutional rights and dismissed her case. The trial court explained at most, Marchman’s allegations involved unfriendly or unprofessional conduct but not a violation of her constitutional rights. Marchman appealed.

July 24, 2023

Is Nursing Home Fall Medical Malpractice or Tort?

by Berniard Law Firm

disabled_disabled_human_being-1024x734 Many of us provide support to elderly folks in our lives through our time and money. We expect the utmost attention and respect when we send a loved one to a care facility. Sometimes accidents happen, whether by negligence or by accident, that result in injury to patients. Regardless of the cause of injury, a lawsuit can help hold medical professionals responsible for the type of care they provide. The difference between a tort and a medical malpractice claim for nursing home injuries is examined in the following case.

John Lee was a resident at Woldenberg Village nursing home located in New Orleans. Lee was labeled a fall risk and therefore had a fall-detecting device attached to his wheelchair that would sound if he attempted to stand up. When installed correctly, the device is not accessible to the wheelchair user. A nurse found Lee lying on the ground with the alarm device in his hand. Lee’s hip was injured and required surgery due to the fall.

Lee’s estate filed a tort lawsuit against Woldenberg for damages relating to the fall. Woldenberg filed an exception of prematurity because the claims related to medical malpractice and were therefore required to undergo investigation by a medical review panel before litigation. Lee’s estate appealed the lower court’s findings of prematurity.

July 23, 2023

Look Both Ways Before You Cross!: Pedestrian Fault Allocation

by Berniard Law Firm

crosswalk_pedestrian_crossing_407023-1024x656 People often assume that pedestrians always have the right of way. While this adage is partially true, pedestrians who avoid proper safety protocols can be found more at fault for an injury than the car that struck them. If avoiding physical trauma is not motivation enough to look both ways before crossing the street, the following lawsuit may encourage you to take proactive steps to avoid being hit.

Wilson Jolivette was walking on a service road near Louisiana Highway 90 when he was struck by a passing truck driven by Ray Hebert. Hebert was employed by Hanagriff’s Machine Shop and was driving a large flatbed truck owned by the Shop. Jolivette broke both his wrist and ankle due to the collision. Hebert’s driver’s license documents partial vision loss in one eye, and he testified that he did not see Jolivette walking on the road.

Witnesses to the events described Jolivette walking into the road, being struck by the truck’s side mirror, and spinning into the air. Jolivette admitted that he did not look both ways before crossing the service road and consequently did not see the truck coming. Jolivette sued the Shop for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of earnings. The jury found him 70% at fault for the accident and the Shop at fault for the other 30%. The jury also awarded Jolivette $10,000 for pain and suffering and other awards. Both parties appealed their assignments of fault. Jolivette appealed the $10,000 ruling.

July 22, 2023

Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court’s Approval of Settlement Agreement in Property Contamination Lawsuit

by Berniard Law Firm

oil_oil_production_oil-1024x768 Can a trial court’s approval of a settlement agreement in a property contamination lawsuit be upheld without determining remediation requirements and the deposit of funds into the court registry? This question lies at the heart of the following case, which features an appeal of the trial court’s judgment approving a settlement agreement regarding property contamination caused by historic oil and gas operations. The appeal raises issues of statutory interpretation and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law. The resolution of this question has significant implications for the approval process of settlement agreements in similar cases governed by Act 312.

In this case, Certain Insurers appealed the trial court’s approval of a settlement agreement in a property contamination lawsuit. The insurers raised two issues for the court to decide: (1) whether the trial court erred by not determining whether remediation was required before approving the settlement, and (2) if remediation was necessary, whether the court erred by not ordering the deposit of funds into the court registry.

The litigation involved historic oil and gas operations in Jefferson Davis Parish, and the plaintiffs sued Riceland and BP for damages and remediation. Riceland, in turn, filed a third-party demand against Certain Insurers seeking coverage under applicable insurance policies. After years of litigation, the plaintiffs, BP, and Riceland reached a compromise to resolve all claims. The settlement agreement included provisions for remediation by state regulatory standards, and Riceland assigned its rights against Certain Insurers to the plaintiffs.

July 21, 2023

Vicarious Liability Doesn’t Always Extend Liability for an Employees Actions

by Berniard Law Firm

new_zealand_accident_insurance_0-1024x768 Vicarious liability in the context of work-related accidents is a complex legal issue that necessitates careful analysis of the state’s code. The case of Sarah Barber serves as a compelling example of the potential consequences when a government employee causes an accident while performing their job duties. Understanding the nuances of vicarious liability and the specific provisions governing such cases is essential to determine the employer’s liability for the actions of their employees.

Sarah Barber (Barber) was driving her car with passengers on Highway 107 in Pineville, Louisiana, when her car collided with Larry Jeane (Jeane), heading northbound on the highway. The collision occurred when Jeane’s car crossed the median and hit Barber’s vehicle. Mr. Jeane succumbed to injuries, while Barber’s passengers sustained severe injuries. The passengers in Barber’s vehicle filed a lawsuit against the City of Pineville, its insurer, and several other defendants.

The primary issue discussed in this case was whether the State was vicariously liable for the accident caused by Jeane because he was on the job as a state Marshal when the accident happened. The Plaintiffs claimed the state was vicariously liable for Jeane’s actions since Jeane’s job is directed by the State Legislature. For the passengers to be successful in their vicarious liability claim, they needed to show the state was responsible for the Marshal’s actions under La. C. C. art. 2320 and La. R.S. 42:1441.4.

July 20, 2023

Time is of the Essence in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits

by Berniard Law Firm

time_take_time_cosmetics-1024x652 When it comes to medical malpractice, time can be both a friend and a foe. Trusting doctors to safeguard the well-being of our loved ones makes the process of bringing a lawsuit challenging and emotionally charged. Yet, within the legal field, there exist specific time frames and procedural intricacies that can make or break a case. Once the clock runs out on a particular timeframe, a lawsuit is deemed barred, leaving individuals without recourse. In the midst of this intricate dance between justice and time, the story of Rita Foster and her family shines a light on the importance of understanding legal procedures and seeking qualified legal representation.

In August of 2012, Rita Foster was hospitalized, during which time Dr. Olisa, a physician at Ochsner Health System, ordered that Foster have a CT scan of her chest. When a 2-centimeter speculated appeared on her lung, Olisa recommended that Foster have a follow-up CT scan in three to six months. Foster’s children (plaintiffs) claimed there was no documentation of this recommendation in any medical records and thus contributed to Foster not obtaining the recommended follow-up for the CT scan of her chest.

In the following days and years, Foster was treated for other issues by multiple physicians and healthcare providers working within and outside the Ochsner Health System, with no other communication to order a repeat CT scan.

July 19, 2023

Seeking Justice After a Car Accident: The Importance of Legal Representation for Fair Compensation

by Berniard Law Firm

accident_car_accident_car-1024x683 Being involved in a car accident is unfortunate, especially when it leaves you with long-term pain and suffering. If your injuries are a direct result of a car accident, you may be entitled to compensation from those who caused them. Rather than risk representing yourself in the legal process and walking away with little to nothing, you need to be represented by a qualified attorney who can assist in getting you the damages you deserve.

Brenda Brown was stopped at a red light when she was rear-ended. The driver of the other vehicle was Homer Sargent, who had been employed by Evans Environmental and Geological Science and Management. Both vehicles were rentals from Enterprise Car Rental.

Brown claimed the car accident caused her numerous personal injuries, entitling her to compensation for not only past, present, and future physical pain and suffering, but also past, present, and future lost wages and earnings. Additionally, she argued she was entitled to damages for her diminished quality of life as well as for severe emotional and mental anguish.

July 17, 2023

Proving Racial Discrimination Claims: The Role of Essential Evidence in Workplace Litigation

by Berniard Law Firm

taiwan_shilin_district_court-1024x768 Racial discrimination in the workplace is a pressing issue that demands attention and action within our legal system. However, bringing a claim of racial discrimination or a hostile work environment requires the ability to substantiate crucial factors. The following case highlights the significance of providing essential evidence when pursuing racial discrimination or hostile work environment claims.

Bobby Whitlock was terminated by his Monroe employer, Lazer Spot, Inc. after it claimed he left the vicinity of a loading dock while the light remained red. Next, Whitlock filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Two years later, Whitlock, who is African American, filed a claim against Lazer Spot, Inc., alleging both a hostile work environment and racial discrimination. Lazer Spot, Inc. then filed to dismiss Whitlock’s motion, arguing that his challenges did not state a claim. Next, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted Lazer Spot, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and found Whitlock did not state a claim for either his discriminatory discharge allegation or his hostile work environment complaint. This appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal follows.

To be successful with a motion to dismiss claim, the Court of Appeal found, under law, that a complaint has to have adequate factual matter to bring a claim of relief that is facially plausible, including when a plaintiff pleads facts that permits the court to reasonably infer the defendant was liable for the alleged misconduct. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly.