Articles Posted in Miscellaneous

by

Over the course of the last century, products liability law has become more detailed and specific in terms of protecting consumers from injury caused by products. If a product is found to be defective, in most cases any sellers along the chain of sale can be held liable. This means that, from the manufacturers to the retailer, all parties can be held liable if damage is caused by a product. The reason for this trend in the law is to give the benefit of the doubt to the consumer because the consumer needs protection. Further, stricter laws force manufacturers to produce better products. If they know that a defective product could potentially results in a multi-million dollar law suit, they will make sure the products they produce are safe.

This protection is especially true as it pertains to young children. Because children have less experience in life, there is a higher chance that they can make a mistake which would be unreasonable to make if it were an adult. However, even the law does not extend such benefits fully to all actions by children and teenagers. In a recent case, Payne v. Gardner, the Louisiana Supreme Court identified a point at which even a teenager could not be protected.

In 2004, in Rapides Parish, Henry Goudeau was playing around an oil well pump. The oil well pumps on oil wells move back and forth like a pendulum. As Henry was playing around the oil well pump, he noticed the movement of the pump and decided to use the pump as a pendulum type swing for recreational purposes. Afer he jumped on the pump when it reached its highest point, his leg got caught in another part of the pump which unfortunately lead Henry to be seriously injured. Henry’s mother decided to sue the manufacturer of the pump, Lufkin Industries. A serious battle arose as to whom the blame should fall upon. Should Lufkin have know that their pumps would be used as a ride? Should Henry have used better care in making a determination of whether it was safe to ride on the pump?

Continue reading

by

The term “venue” refers to the particular court where a plaintiff should file his suit. In the case of car accidents and other tort actions, the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure gives the plaintiff a choice of venue. The plaintiff can file the suit in the parish where the accident occurred or, alternatively, in the parish where the defendant driver resides. When a liability insurer is involved as a defendant, the suit can also be filed in the parish where the insurance company is registered. The case of Lopez v. Richard illustrates how the misapplication of the venue rules can have serious, undesirable consequences for a plaintiff.

On March 31, 2006, Gil Lopez was rear-ended by another driver in Lafayette Parish. The driver was Josette Richard, a resident of Lafayette Parish who was insured by Allstate. On the last day of the one-year prescriptive period (April 2, 2007), Lopez filed suit in Iberia Parish, which is the parish where he and his wife live. Richard and Allstate filed an exception for improper venue, and the parties agreed to transfer the case to Lafayette Parish in August of 2007. Once the case was transferred, Richard and Allstate filed an exception of prescription, arguing that Lopez’s action was not properly filed before the expiration of the prescription period. The Third Circuit agreed, stating that “it is well settled that the transfer of an action to a correct venue, after prescription has run, does not resurrect the plaintiff’s lawsuit.” In an attempt to preserve his cause of action, Lopez offered the novel argument that venue in his home parish was proper under the state’s “joint obligor” statute. That is, Lopez argued that because he was a beneficiary under Richard’s Allstate policy, he was also an “insured” under the terms of the policy which provided Allstate’s connection to Iberia Parish and permitted suit there. The court deemed this theory a misapplication of the law which was intended for suits involving Uninsured Motorist coverage, but not a direct policy such as the one Allstate had issued to Richard. Instead, Lopez is merely a “claimant” who will “be paid by Allstate on behalf of their insured, Richard, if Richard is found liable” for the accident. Thus, because Lopez filed his suit in the wrong parish and did not transfer it to a proper parish before the running of the prescription period, his case was dismissed.

The lesson from the Lopez case is that proper venue should be identified as early as possible to ensure that the prescriptive period does not expire before the suit can be filed in the correct court. Misfiling a suit does not toll the running of the period. Had Lopez not waited until the very last minute to file his original suit, he may have been able to transfer to the correct venue and avoid losing his case on a mere (but critically important) technicality.

Continue reading

by

A person’s worst fear when undergoing an invasive surgery, is for something to go wrong. For one patient, this fear came true when his doctor operated on the wrong knee. This severe error was not disputed by the Doctor, who admitted he erroneously operated on the plaintiff’s right knee when he intended to treat the plaintiff patient’s left knee with arthoscopic surgery. What was at issue in this recent Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision, is whether or not the injured plaintiff was awarded an appropriate amount in damages. Numerous factors are weighed when determining damages. However, in Louisiana, as well as numerous other states, there is a cap on how much a person may recover in a medical malpractice suit. Patients who have been injured face a litany of complicated issues and standards that are difficult to understand, thus, obtaining legal representation as soon as possible is highly recommended in order to protect legal rights throughout the process.

In a recent Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the court explored the amount of damages a patient was initially awarded for damages they sustained from an erroneously performed surgical procedure. The plaintiff patient complained on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding inadequate damages for past lost wages, past medical expenses, as well as pain and suffering. Additionally, the victim contended that the trial court erred in failing to award future lost wages and future medical expenses for the patient plaintiff and loss of consortium for his wife. The appellate court affirmed the trial courts damages award for numerous reasons, many based on statutory limits that are in place restricting the amount a patient may obtain. Yet, the decision is in large part held by the jury. The jury has the duty to hear the evidence and determine a price that may “make the plaintiff whole again.” In this case, the jury decided that the patient plaintiff had $40,000 in pain and suffering and $10,000 in loss of income. It may seem a harsh factor in the legal process, that despite the severity of a patients injuries, the numerical value given such injuries is designed to “fix” such issues. The plaintiff in this case felt that the jury’s damages award did not adequately resolve any of the issues he was experiencing after having the botched surgical procedure. Since the accident, the victim of this botched surgery had been experiencing serious issues in almost every part of his life, including that the knee which was erroneously operated on was in constant pain, decreased his range of motion, his sense of instability caused him to limp, insomnia, impaired ability to work, back pain induced by the limp which resulted in a herniated disk, and loss of consortium with his wife. Thus, the problems went deeper then the categorical terms such as “pain and suffering and loss of income.” The court however, explains and supports their decision by exploring the governing statutes at issue.

Juries factual finding decisions are highly regarded, and under Louisiana law such decisions may not be set aside unless the appellate court finds that it is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. The appellate court will review the witnesses testimony at trial in order to determine whether or not their may have been an erroneous decision. Here, the plaintiff alleged he had to undergo four surgeries due to the Doctor operating on the wrong knee plus a discogram of his back. To support the additional damages that were a result of the erroneous surgical procedure performed by the defendant doctor, the plaintiff offered the testimony of a doctor who contended that the plaintiff would need two back and neck surgeries and would have pain in his right knee for the rest of his life. Further, the plaintiff would have to get a total knee replacement at some point in his life. In consequence to the erroneous surgery, the plaintiff was declared disabled by Social Security and began receiving Social Security Income payments. Additionally, the plaintiff was unable to perform the part time work he was previously able to and the couple eventually went bankrupt. Despite these very sad consequences, the court has to abide by the regulations and statutes that are in place and govern medical malpractice issues.

Continue reading

by

As discussed previously on this blog, the primary duty of Louisiana’s Department of Transportation and Development (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 outlined in this recent post, a plaintiff must prove the following elements in order to hold the DOTD liable for damages arising from an 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; and (3) that the DOTD was aware or should have been aware that the defect existed. In addressing the extent of the risk of harm, litigants often rely on the standards established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (“AASHTO”) which, while not mandatory in Louisiana, offer a point of reference for whether DOTD’s design of a particular roadway presented an unreasonable risk. The AASHTO’s standards have evolved over time, however, and in many cases they have become stricter and more elaborate as vehicular traffic volume has increased. In light of this, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that DOTD does not have duty to bring old highways up to modern standards unless a major reconstruction of the highway is undertaken. The question of what qualifies as a “major reconstruction” was at the center of the recent case in the First Circuit Court of Appeal, Davis v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Co.

On the evening of April 22, 2003 Nathaniel Davis, a flatbed truck driver for the Purpera Lumber Company, legally parked his truck in the northbound lane of La. Hwy. 308 so he could deliver a load of lumber to a residential construction site adjacent to the highway. Davis parked in the travel lane because there was no driveway at the site that would accommodate his truck and because the road, which was maintained by DOTD, had no shoulder. Davis was severely injured when his truck was rear-ended by an elderly driver who made no attempt to slow down before she collided with the truck. Davis filed suit naming DOTD as a defendant. His theory of recovery was based on the road’s lack of a shoulder, a deisgn which violated the then-current AASHTO standards requiring an eight-foot extension of the highway. Presumably, the shoulder would have offered a safer location for parking his truck. Ultimately, the First Circuit reviewed a verdict in the trial court in which the jury determined that the lack of a shoulder posed an unreasonably dangerous risk to Davis. However, the jury also found that DOTD did not know (and had no duty to have known) about this condition and thereofre had no duty to cure the defect by constructing a shoulder. Davis argued that a resurfacing project undertaken by the DOTD some years prior to the accident qualified as “major reconstruction” which put DOTD on notice of its duty to upgrade the roadway to include a shoulder. The First Circuit court disagreed, noting that “there is no evidence from which to conclude that the roadway underwent a major reconstruction at that location or even that the State had obtained additional rights of way [necessary for such significant work] in the area of the accident site.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of DOTD.

This is another example in a long line of cases that demonstrates the challenge of winning a claim against DOTD under an ordinary negligence theory. The Louisiana legislature and courts have made clear that DOTD is not the “guarantor for the safety of all of the motoring public [n]or the insurer for all injuries or damages resulting from any risk posed by obstructions on or defects in the roadway.” As a result, an injured plaintiff must have a skilled attorney who understands the nature of DOTD’s responsibilities to those who use the highways.

Continue reading

by

As we have explored in several prior posts on this blog, claims brought against healthcare providers under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act must be examined by medical review panel before proceeding to court. Just over a year ago, the First Circuit Court of Appeal issued guidance to plaintiffs on the procedure they must follow if they should uncover new claims of negligence after the medical panel has completed its review of the original claims and issued an opinion.

On September 14, 1998 Doris Abel underwent surgery at the North Oaks Medical Center (“NOMC”) in Hammond. She died a short time later from complications arising from the surgery. Her family (the “Plaintiffs”) submitted a malpractice complaint against NOMC to the medical review panel in September of 2003, which rendered a decision in favor of NOMC. Plaintiffs then filed suit against NOMC that led to a protracted period of pre-trial discovery. During that time, Plaintiffs discovered new claims of negligence against NOMC and petitioned the court to amend their complaint to include these claims. NOMC objected on the grounds that the medical review panel had not examined these new claims and requested a new trial. The trial court denied NOMC’s request and instead remanded the matter to the original medical review panel for the sole purpose of reviewing Plaintiffs’ new allegations. NOMC sought review by the First Circuit, urging that the there is no procedure in the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (the “Act”) for remanding a case back to a review panel once it has rendered its opinion and a suit has been filed.

The First Circuit began its analysis by noting that the Act’s language “must be strictly construed.” The court, in reiterating that the Act requires that “all malpractice claims against health care providers covered under the Act shall be reviewed by a medical review panel,” concluded that the “use of the term ‘shall’ in these statutory provisions indicates that these procedures are mandatory.” And, although the Act does not specifically address late-discovered claims, the court concluded that “the procedures the legislature mandates for filing a request for review by a medical review panel also encompass malpractice claims that are discovered after the panel has rendered an opinion and suit has been filed.” The court found additional support for this conclusion in the statutory language that describes the review panel’s duty to “express its expert opinion as to whether or not the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant or defendants acted or failed to act within the appropriate standards of care.” The panel must be presented with all evidence in order to discharge this duty. Further, the court decreed that once a panel renders an opinion, its duty has been discharged. “Therefore, if additional malpractice claims are discovered… these new claims must be presented for review by a new medical review panel.” Accordingly, the court found that the trial court erred by remanding the matter back to the original medical review panel. It reversed the judgment and remanded the case back to the trial court so it could arrange for a new panel to review the Plaintiffs’ late-discovered claims before trial.

Continue reading

by

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be employed by a plaintiff to establish the defendant’s breach of duty in the absence of direct evidence of the defendant’s negligent conduct. However, use of the doctrine “does not relieve the plaintiff of the ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence all of the elements necessary for recovery.” To prevail in a negligence claim based on the “ruin, vice, or defect in things,” the plaintiff must show that the defendant knew or should have known of the defect and that the harm to the plaintiff could have been prevented by the defendant’s reasonable care. See Cangelosi v. Our Lady of the Lake Medical Center.

As the plaintiff in Shuff v. Brookshire Grocery Co. learned, the doctrine cannot be invoked to circumvent this fundamental burden.

On October 15, 2006, Ashley Shuff entered the Super One Foods grocery store in Bastrop with her two children. Upon arrival, Shuff placed her 20-month-old daughter, Cloe, into the child seat that was built into one of the store’s shopping carts and fastened the seat belt. Shuff admitted that the belt mechanism appeared to be working properly when she buckled Cloe in. A short while later, Cloe fell from the seat to the store’s concrete floor and broke her arm. A store patron who observed the incident later inspected the seat and discovered that a prong on the belt’s snap was broken. Shuff sued the grocery store on behalf of her daughter on a negligence theory for damages caused by “ruin, vice, or defect in things.” In the trial court, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Shuff argued that the store’s liability for the incident was governed by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur becuase it had responsibilty to maintain the seat and its safety belt. The court denied Shuff’s motion and dismissed her claims.

Continue reading

by

In our last post, we explored the basic elements of class action certification, including the rules that guide a trial court’s decision on whether to grant the certification. Although the trial court is granted wide discretion on this question, it must reach its decision through serious analysis; the failure to substantiate its analysis can result in reversal by the appellate court as illustrated in the recent case, Madison v. Chalmette Refining LLC. On January 12, 2007, a group of students, teachers, and parent chaperones visited the Chalmette National Battlefield. During a historical reenactment, the nearby Chalmette Refinery released a significant amount of petroleum coke dust that was carried to the battlefield area. Five individuals (the “Plaintiffs”) filed suit in federal court against Chalmette Refining, demanding compensation for a variety of damages including “including personal injury, fear, anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychiatric and psychological damages, evacuation, economic damages, and property damages.” The suit sought to represent all individuals who were exposed to the coke dust, specifically:

“all persons entities [sic] located at the Chalmette National Battlefield in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, in the early afternoon of Friday, January 12, 2007 and who sustained property damage, personal injuries, emotional, mental, or economic damages and/or inconvenience or evacuation as a result of the incident.”

The district court allowed the parties to conduct discovery on the issue of class certification. Chalmette Refining took the deposition of each of the five named class representatives, yet the Plaintiffs conducted no discovery at all. At the hearing on the motion to certify the class, no evidence was introduced; at the conclusion, the district court orally granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

Continue reading

by

In this post, we will explore the basic concepts of a class action lawsuit. In particular, we will examine the rules that govern the process by which the court decides whether to recognize a class and permit a group of plaintiffs to litigate under one single action. In a subsequent post, we will examine a recent case from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in which the defendant, a petroleum refinery, challenged the district court’s certification of a class of plaintiffs following a chemical release in Chalmette, Louisiana.

A class action is appropriate when numerous plaintiffs who have experienced similar harm collectively bring a suit against the defendant. For actions filed in federal court, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets out the requirements for a court to certify, or recognize, a class in a particular case. The four central prerequisites include:

(1) numerosity–a sufficient number of plaintiffs that for each to bring a unique suit is impracticable; (2) commonality–questions of law or fact are common to each plaintiff; (3) typicality–the named parties’ claims are representative of those of all plaintiffs; and (4) adequacy of representation–the class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all plaintiffs.

Continue reading

by

According to Louisiana law, a landowner “owes a duty to a plaintiff to discover any unreasonably dangerous condition, and either to correct the condition or warn of its existence.” However, the courts have consistently held that landowners generally have no duty to protect against “open and obvious” hazards. If the facts show that the condition that caused a plaintiff’s injury should be “obvious to all,” the condition is less likely to be considered unreasonably dangerous; in such a situation, the landowner may owe no duty at all to the injured plaintiff. The determination of whether a crack in a Shreveport sidewalk was unreasonably dangerous was at the center of the recent case of Williams v. Rubens Residential Properties, LLC.

On the morning of May 4, 2006, Marion Williams was walking with her friend on Line Avenue in the Cedar Grove neighborhood. Williams tripped on a buckle in the concrete sidewalk, fall forward, and shattered her right wrist. After seeking immediate medical attention, Williams returned to the scene and took several photographs of the buckle. Over the next several months, she required several significant surgeries which left her with pins in her wrist and lingering pain which is expected to get worse over time.

Williams sued the City of Shreveport, which filed a motion for summary judgment in which it argued that it was obligated to provide a sidewalk in reasonably safe, but not perfect, condition and that it was not liable for the “open and obvious hazard which should have been observed by anyone in the exercise of reasonable care.” The City relied on the deposition testimony of its Superintendent of Streets and Drainage, Ernie Negrete, who explained that the City does not perform routine inspections of all its sidewalks because doing so would be too costly. Instead, the City takes corrective action based on the roughly 6,000 calls it receives from citizens each year to report problems. The City had no record of any calls about the particular location where Williams fell. Williams’s cross-motion urged that the sidewalk posed an “unreasonable risk of harm” of which the City did have notice, given that the buckle apparently had existed for over 15 years. The trial court denied the City’s motion and the matter went to a bench trial in February, 2010. The trial judge found Williams’s testimony and the testimony of her friend and husband “extremely credible” and accepted her assertion that she simply could not see the buckle in the sidewalk. The court awarded Williams almost $340,000 in damages including lost wages and medical expenses. In its appeal, the City argued that the trial court committed manifest error in failing to find that the defect in the sidewalk was open and obvious. The Second Circuit noted that the trial court’s decision was based on the testimony of three witnesses who claimed that from the pedestrian’s vantage point, the buckle was not apparent. Also, the City did not put on any evidence as to the height of the buckle or whether it was obvious to a pedestrian. Thus, the court concluded that the trial judge “was entitled to find that the condition was not open and obvious to a person walking straight down the sidewalk in the exercise of reasonable care.” Finding no manifest error, the court affirmed the trialc court’s judgment for Williams.

Continue reading

by

The primary duty of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) is to “continually maintain the public roadways in a condition that is reasonably safe and does not present an unreasonable risk of harm to the motoring public exercising ordinary care and reasonable prudence.” In a recent post, we explored the elements that a plaintiff must prove in order to find the DOTD liable for damages arising out of a highway accident. By placing this burden on a plaintiff, state law attempts to balance the need for roadway safety with the countervailing requirement that DOTD not become “the insurer for all injuries or damages resulting from any risk posed by obstructions on or defects in the roadway.” The case of Schysm v. Boyd offers an interesting example of a jury’s misapplication of this balancing test.

On February 22, 2003, Douglas Schysm visited the Isle of Capri Casino in Vicksburg, Mississippi. After consuming three beers, he left the casino around 1:00 a.m. and drove his truck into Madison Parish, Louisiana on I-20. Just outside of the community of Delta, Schysm’s truck collided with a horse which, after wandering into the roadway, had just been struck by another car and which lay in the right lane. Schysm’s truck shot into the air and landed upside-down next to a guardrail approximately 245 feet beyond the point of impact. Schysm suffered significant injuries as a result of the crash, including broken bones and nerve damage. He sued the owner of the horse, the owners of the property adjacent to I-20 where the horse was kept, and DOTD for damages related to the incident. Schysm argued that the DOTD failed to inspect and maintain a fence along I-20, allowed the fence to be cut for easier (but illegal) vehicle access, and failed to warn drivers that the cut in the fence would allow animals to roam onto the highway. After a trial, the jury assigned 50 percent fault to DOTD, 30 percent to the owner of the horse, and 20 percent to Schysm. It also awarded Schysm damages totaling $884,062. DOTD appealed, disputing any fault.

The Second Circuit reviewed the trial record for the evidence relating to two areas adjoining I-20 where DOTD either did not maintain a fence or did not build one in the first place. The area closest to the horse’s pen and where it most likely entered the highway was separated from the road by a fence; however, this fence had been cut by local motorists who used the path as a short-cut to access I-20. The other area apparently never had a fence at all. At trial, the parties offered expert witnesses who referenced the design guidelines published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (“AASHTO”) which establish fencing recommendations for lands adjacent to interstate highways. The experts disagreed about which version of the guidelines applied in the case, and further about whether fencing was recommended at all due to the particular construction method of the highway near the point of impact. DOTD’s witness, with whom the Second Circuit ultimately sided, explained that the purpose of the fencing along I-20 was “to control vehicular access, not to keep livestock off the Interstate.” Furthermore, “there was no duty under the 2001 AASHTO guidelines to have a fence along I-20.” The court found that if even if DOTD had a duty to construct fencing along the highway, it was only to restrict vehicle access to and from the interstate; “it was not intended to prevent a horse that had escaped from its pen from entering upon I-20.” The court observed that the horse’s pen was “not adjacent to I-20… In order to reach I-20, [the horse] had to cross a ditch, a gravel road, a paved road, and a grassy area. No unreasonable risk of harm was created for motorists under these circumstances by DOTD’s failure to maintain or erect a right-of-way fence in this stretch of I-20.” In light of the additional fact that there was no history of animals wandering onto the roadway in the area, the court concluded that the jury was “clearly wrong” in finding that DOTD was in any way at fault for Schysm’s collision.

Continue reading
Contact Information
1140 St Charles Ave
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 521-6000
Fax: (504) 617-6300

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design