Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
When multiple people are injured in the same incident, you might expect they are all eligible to recover the same type of damages, even if the precise dollar amount varies. This case indicates how the categories of damages awarded can vary by plaintiff, depending on the testimony and other evidence presented at trial.
Fourteen workers at the Citgo Petroleum Corporation refinery in Lake Charles, Louisiana, were exposed to hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide following a gas release. The workers suffered various symptoms, including nasal irritation, headaches, and chest pain. The workers filed a lawsuit against Citgo, arguing their symptoms resulted from the gas release. The trial court awarded nine of the fourteen plaintiffs damages for fear of future injury. All fourteen plaintiffs received damages for mental anguish/loss of enjoyment of life. Citgo appealed.
On appeal, Citgo argued the trial court erred in awarding nine plaintiffs damages for fear of future injury because there was no evidence that the gas release could cause them future health problems. To recover for fear of future injury, a plaintiff must show a possibility of such damages from the tortious conduct. See Broussard v. Olin Corp. At trial, even the plaintiff’s expert witness did not testify that the plaintiffs were at risk for future health problems from the gas release. Additionally, there were studies presented indicating there were no known future health issues from similar exposures. Therefore, the appellate court found the trial court’s award of damages for future injuries was “mere speculation” and reversed the trial court’s award of damages for fear of future injuries to the nine plaintiffs.
While headlines often tout substantial monetary awards for injured workers, the intricacies of such compensation might remain shrouded in mystery. Behind every high-stakes verdict lies a meticulous process of presenting compelling evidence to substantiate the array of damages claimed. In a recent case involving workers at a Firestone Polymers plant, the multifaceted nature of damages is unveiled, shedding light on the need for robust legal representation to navigate the diverse categories of compensation.
Unraveling the complexities of jurisdiction is essential when determining which court has the authority to hear a lawsuit. Whether a case is heard in state or federal court can have strategic implications, but the path to federal court is paved with complex legal requirements. In this article, we delve into the intricacies of jurisdiction and explore the factors determining whether your lawsuit can be heard in federal court.
Exposure to naturally occurring radioactive materials generally increases due to human activity. Proving harm from these activities may be difficult, however. The following Jefferson Parish case demonstrates the need for substantiating your injury claim with evidence. It further shows the weight a court may place on expert witnesses. 
The legal system is complicated, with many “dos-and don’ts.” Whether or not you can have your case heard in court first requires following the rules guiding the sufficiency of your claim. If your complaint fails to show that you have a right to bring the case against your defendant, your case might be dismissed. But how strictly interpreted is this rule? What does it look like when a cause of action is sufficient to be heard or ripe for dismissal?
When another or a company’s actions harm a person, he is entitled to financial relief under Louisiana law. The law also requires proof of damages to prove entitlement to monetary compensation. Damages are proven by submitting facts to a trial court. Sometimes the parties agree upon the facts, and sometimes they are disputed. 
When a chemical leaks from a local business and spreads to a residential area, it is easy to assume that the company has exposed itself to liability for every person exposed to the leak. But what does someone have to prove to be compensated for their exposure? A case out of Avondale explores this question after twenty people were claimed to have been exposed to 
SHEILA GUIDRY, ET AL., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated VERSUS DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, ET AL., Eastern District Court of Louisiana, CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-12233 Class Members Please Take Notice of the Following Important Announcement:
The