Articles Posted in Miscellaneous

by

Hotel owners, like other hospitality business operators, have a general duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety and security of their guests. The duty extends to protecting guests from harm caused by other guests and visitors to the premises. This does not mean that hotels are liable for any injury or loss that a guest suffers–generally, the victim must show that the hotel (through the actions of its employees) was negligent before the hotel faces liability. To help protect against this exposure, hotel owners typically buy liability insurance policies to cover the property in the event of a problem. However, these insurance policies frequently include substantial limitations. In particular, many policies exclude coverage for any injuries that arise from the service of alcoholic beverages on the premises. Other exclusions include denying coverage for physical assaults. In Piligra v. America’s Best Value Inn, Inc., No. 10-254 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2010), the court examined–and upheld–this very type of coverage exclusion.

Susana Piligra visited the nightclub inside the America’s Best Value Inn hotel where she consumed an excessive amount of alcohol and passed out. An employee of the hotel took Piligra up to a room on the second floor and, on the way, they came upon an unknown male who helped get Piligra to the room. The hotel employee left Piligra in the room with the unknown male. When Piligra’s friend later went to check on her, the friend opened the door to find the unknown male “climbing off her with his pants down.” Piligra went to a local hospital where it was determined that she was apparently raped by the unknown male while she was unconscious. Piligra filed suit against the hotel and its liability insurance carrier, Evanston Insurance Company, alleging that the hotel negligently transported her to a room without her consent and failed to attend to her in a responsible manner given her condition. Evanston filed a motion for summary judgment based on the exclusions contained in the hotel’s policy. The trial court granted Evanston’s motion, and both Piligra and the hotel appealed.

The Third Circuit reviewed that an “insurance policy is interpreted like any other contract,” and that “[i]nsurance companies are permitted to limit coverage through policy exclusions as long as the limitations do not conflict with statutory provisions or public policy.” Ledbetter v. Concord Gen. Corp., 665 So.2d 1166 (1996). With those principles in mind, the court examined the policy Evanston issued to the hotel and found a provision that clearly excluded coverage for any claim arising out of “assault and/or battery.” The court noted that “Louisiana courts have upheld [limitations] similar to the Evanston policy [limitations] that preclude coverage for assault and battery, including rape.” Thus, the court reasoned, “[b]ecause rape is a battery and because the assault and battery exclusion in the Evanston policy is unambiguous, we find that the exclusion is applicable and precludes coverage for Ms. Piligra’s injuries.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision of the trial court to dismiss Evanston Insurance Company from the suit.

Continue reading

by

In late 2010, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, shed some light on how the sale of a company may impact claims made by employees against the successor company in Pichon v. Asbestos Defendants AG. The plaintiffs in the case were the wife and children of the deceased Mr. Pichon. The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Pichon was exposed to asbestos between 1955 and 2004. Mr. Pichon died in 2006 from Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer, which the plaintiffs argue was as a result of his exposure to asbestos. One of the defendants in the case was Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC). DDC filed for summary judgment stating that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The Court broke its discussion down into two time periods: (1) Pre-1988 exposure by Mr. Pichon, before the creation of DDC, under which plaintiffs argued that DDC is liable under the theory of successor liability and (2) Post-1988, after the creation of DDC, under which plaintiffs argued that Mr. Pichon was exposed to asbestos as a result of DDC manufacturing.

In 1970, GM merged its Diesel Division with its Allision Division to create the Detroit Diesel-Allision Division. This division manufactured marine engines at Halter Marine. In 1988 GM and Penske formed DDC as a joint venture. Subsequently, DDC purchased the assets of most of the division that produced the marine engines. The sales agreement between DDC and GM stated that DDC would not be liable for GM’s conduct or for claims relating to products manufactured, distributed, or sold by GM prior to closing. The Court stated that there were three ways in which a successor company could be held liable for the actions of the selling company: (1) When the successor company clearly assumed the liability or obligations (2) When the buying company was merely a continuation of the selling company or (3) Where is it found that the transaction occurred only to avoid liability. The Court stated that it was clear that DDC expressly denied any pre-sale liability for the actions of GM. However, the plaintiffs argued that DDC’s liability was as a result of test number two, namely that DDC was a continuation of GM’s Diesel-Allision Division.

In response to plaintiffs argument concerning the second test for successor liability, the Court cited to a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that successor liability could be found on the basis of the buying company being a mere continuation of the selling corporation where the sale was for all of the company’s assets. The issue for the plaintiffs in this case was that DDC clearly did not purchase all of GM’s assets. Further, DDC did not even purchase all of GM’s assets concerning manufacturing of marine engines. DDC only purchase those assets relating to the Redford Operations. Because the plaintiffs were unable to provide evidence that DDC purchased all of GM’s assets, the Court granted DDC’s summary judgment on this claim and plaintiffs thus lost on this point.

Continue reading

by

In a post earlier this week, we reviewed the Third Circuit’s treatment of a medical malpractice case that arose from a double knee replacement surgery. In addition to her enumeration of error about the faulty opinion returned by the state medical review panel, the plaintiff, Margie McGlothlin, also asserted there was no “reasonable factual basis” for the jury’s conclusion that the hospital was not liable for her injuries. As part of its de novo review, the court examined the record for details on the two incidents that McGlothlin pointed to as the cause of her kneecap dislocation. The first involved her transfer between a wheelchair and her hospital bed at the rehabilitation center during which a nursing assistant, working without help, dropped McGlothlin. The other incident similarly involved a nursing assistant–again working unaided–who dropped McGlothlin as she was transferring to the restroom. The court reviewed the applicable standard of care for these situations:

The transfer from wheelchair to either bed or toilet of a bilateral knee replacement patient weighing almost 300 pounds requires at least two people assisting in the transfer together with the use of a gait belt.

Whether the hospital employees breached that standard of care, and whether that breach caused McGlothlin’s injury, are questions of fact usually left to the jury. The second incident, in particular, involved several factual discrepancies. McGlothlin testified that, after she fell while attempting to make her way to the bathroom, she immediately called for her doctor, explained what happened, and submitted to an x-ray which revealed the dislocation of her kneecap. The nursing assistant caring for McGlothlin during this time, however, denied that the restroom incident occurred at all and maintained that McGlothlin never suffered injuries of any kind. The hospital further argued that McGlothlin’s kneecap became dislocated as a result of activities during rehabilitation and without any negligence on the part of hospital employees. In reviewing the account of McGlothlin’s progress, the court found no evidence of a “traumatic event” during therapy that could have caused the injury. However, the report did make note of McGlothlin’s increased pain in her left knee and a corresponding reduction in recommended exercise by her therapist. Ultimately, the court found that McGlothlin’s allegations had “credibility.” Reviewing the entire record, the court concluded that McGlothlin carried her burden of establishing that during the restroom transfer, the nursing assistant breached the duty of the care, and that this breach resulted in an injury to McGlothlin’s left knee. Accordingly, after considering the appropriate level of damages, the court reversed the trial court’s judgment dismissing McGlothlin’s claims and rendered judgment in her favor and against Christus St. Patrick Hospital. The court awarded McGlothlin the statutory maximum of $500,000.00 in damages, plus $62,341.29 in past medical costs and the expenses of reasonable future medical treatment.

Continue reading

by

Previously in this blog we have examined a number of cases involving medical malpractice claims. One common thread in these cases is the involvement of the state’s medical review panel. This is because claims brought against healthcare providers under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act must be reviewed by a medical review panel before proceeding to court. The panel is made up of three doctors and one attorney. The panel’s purpose is limited: its authorized by statute only to determine whether the evidence supports the plaintiff’s allegation that the defendant healthcare provider failed to observe appropriate standard of care in the plaintiff’s treatment and, if the standard was not met, whether the failure contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. The panel is specifically prohibited from rendering conclusions about issues of material fact that do not require on an expert opinion. The panel’s report, which it issues in writing, is considered an expert opinion which, though not conclusive, is admissible in any subsequent legal action.

In this post, the first of two on the case of McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital, we will explore the Third Circuit’s treatment of the trial court’s erroneous admission of the medical review panel’s faulty opinion. The facts are as follows: In 1999, after nearly a decade of suffering with osteoarthritis, Margie McGlothlin checked into Christus St. Patrick Hospital in Lake Charles for a double total knee replacement. The surgery was successful, and McGlothlin’s initial recovery uneventful. Three days after the procedure, McGlothlin was transferred from the main hospital to the rehabilitation wing. While there, McGlothlin alleged that she fell and injured her left knee on two separate occasions when the nursing assistants who were attempting to transfer her did so without assistance. McGlothlin, claiming that these falls caused the dislocation of her knee cap, first submitted her claim for damages to a medical review panel as required by the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act. The panel rejected McGlothlin’s claim, and she filed suit. During the trial, the parties did not dispute that McGlothlin sustained a kneecap dislocation while under the care of the hospital and that the standard of care for moving a double knee replacement patient requires the assistance of more than one trained attendant. But the hospital denied that either of the two falling events alleged by McGlothlin occurred at all and instead suggested that her dislocated kneecap resulted from physical therapy (a risk with all knee replacement procedures). Following a three-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for Christus St. Patrick’s, and McGlothlin appealed.

One enumeration of error offered by McGlothlin centered on the trial court’s admission of an edited version of the medical review panel’s report. The editing resulted from McGlothlin’s objecting during the trial to the hospital’s attempt to introduce the report into evidence. McGlothlin argued that the report contained non-expert conclusions of issues of material fact, which violated the limited authority granted to the panel by state law. Specifically, the panel determined that there was “no violation of the applicable standard of care without even stating what that standard of care was. Instead, the panel’s written reasons addressed only the factual conflicts raised by the information” presented by the parties. In an effort to preserve as much of the panel’s report as possible, the trial court redacted from the report the panel’s conclusion as well as part of the last sentence, which stated “but we feel that the versions of both of the incidents by the patient and her family appear to have numerous inconsistencies.” The Third Circuit stated, “a clear reading of what remains of the medical review panel’s opinion establishes to the reader that the underlying dispute was factual and not legal.” Furthermore, one of the hospital’s trial witnesses was an orthopedic surgeon who served as a member of the medical review panel. Although the trial court ruled that the witness could not, during testimony, state what the panel’s (redacted) conclusion was, the witness “made it clear in his testimony that his opinion and that of the panel were based on factual findings.” Thus, despite the trial court’s attempt to shield the report’s impermissible conclusions from the jury, its members were “fully informed” about how the panel’s opinion was reached and that it had concluded the hospital did not violate the standard of care. The court held that the trial court’s improper admission of the medical review panel’s redacted opinion and the surgeon’s direct testimony about the inner workings of the panel “tainted the integrity of the trial.” Accordingly, the court determined that a de novo review of the record was required.

Continue reading

by

Mesothelioma, also known as asbestos cancer, is cancer of the mesothelium, and is usually found on or around the lungs an individual has had prolonged exposure to asbestos in their homes or at work. Although the disease has become easier to detect in recent years, asbestos manufacturers have actually been sued by victims who have contracted the disease since as early as the 1920s and there is evidence that people were getting sick as early as the end of the 19th century.

Despite this long history, and high profile cases that have gone as far as the Supreme Court with nearly a billion dollars in compensation paid out, no Federal laws have been passed to delineate the compensation available to victims. The sad reality is that many suffering patients end up not getting the compensation they truly deserve due to the lack of regulation and confusion over what victims are entitled. This would seem to be an obvious case of injustice and is an unfortunate reality as working men and women simply cannot afford to aggressively pursue legal action against corporations, especially those that may have closed decades before.

The link between meso and asbestos was officially proven in the 1960s when scientists confirmed the presence of the disease in over 30 people who had been exposed to asbestos in South Africa. In 1962 mine workers were discovered who had mesothelioma and the condition was proven to cause cancer. Once workers are diagnosed with mesothelioma they can no longer work. This is just one reason why they must be properly compensated by their employers for their lost wages. Employers my be hesitant to pay damages; the reality is they could have provided the proper protective equipment to their workers that would have allowed them to work safely with asbestos and remain disease free. The question then significant to many is how you can tell if a person has contracted mesothelioma?

Continue reading

by

A recent Louisiana 1st Circuit Court of Appeal decision has raised many eyebrows by overturning a large portion of a lower courts award of $1 million to a group of residents in Baton Rouge’s University Place subdivision. The 360 plaintiffs joined in alleging that the nearby Sewage Treatment Plant was causing them numerous problems. Specifically, the plaintiffs were alleging that the “operation and maintenance of the waste treatment facility caused petitioners personal inconvenience, mental suffering, embarrassment, and personal injuries. Plaintiffs also alleged a grave threat to health and safety by exposure to contaminated air and increased risk of serious disease to themselves, their family, and their progeny.” The plaintiffs further contended that their property value had been permanently damaged by the presence of the sewage treatment plant. The court ultimately held that only one plaintiff out of the 360 plaintiffs initially named in the suit deserved compensation. The court came to this decision after the plaintiffs did not pass procedural requirements and/or missed vital legal requirements in order to remain in the suit. Exploring this case will illustrate that if proper procedural steps are taken and legal requirements understood and applied then case decisions are more likely to be affirmed and not overturned.

One of the major issues the court explored was the issue of prescription. The law governing the prescriptive period in this matter is La. R.S. 9:5624, which provides, “When private property is damaged for public purposes any and all actions for such damages are prescribed by the prescription of two years, which shall begin to fun after the completion and acceptance of the public works.” This affected the plaintiff group’s case due to the fact that the treatment plant had been originally built in 1960, yet, had been expanded several times, the last expansion began in 1997 and was completed in 1998. Thus, the time period of the last expansion to the filing of the suit would be the determined to be the legal time period in which plaintiffs would be allowed to complain and allege damages. This led the lower court to find that the last expansion of the sewage plant must be viewed as a new public work event for purposes of La. R.S. 9:5624, stating, “After all, it would neither be equitable nor just to hold parties responsible for filing a suit within two years of the plant’s original completion date (i.e. 1960) when their property was not damaged until the plant was expanded in 1998.” Thus, damages had not prescribed when the suit was filed; however, only the time period in which the last expansion was completed to the time the plaintiffs filed their claim would count towards calculating any potential damages.

The number of plaintiffs steadily declined as the lower court progressed due to the fact that they either did not follow legal requirements or they were not legally recognizable. The first 148 plaintiffs who testified gave conflicting testimony or testified that the expansion of the sewage treatment facility produced little or no change in their prior circumstances. Thus, most of these class members failed to establish that the action taken by the City-Parish in so far as expanding the treatment plant had caused them any health problems or defects that did not exist prior to the expansion. Essentially, the plaintiff’s needed to allege that the expansion, which was what was legally at issue, was the main source of their problems, problems which did not exist prior to the expansion. A further dilemma the plaintiffs faced was that their expert testimony further supported the Court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that they had suffered any legal damages caused by the sewage treatment plant. One expert even stated that it was hard to have a sewage treatment plant without an odor. Additionally, many plaintiffs lived in the area prior to the expansion without bringing suit. As a result, these individuals were aware of the various odors and impacts the sewage plant had upon the neighborhood. Therefore, the court held that since the plaintiffs gave conflicting testimony, did not prove their claims, and did not have supporting expert testimony, the 148 testifying plaintiffs should be dismissed from the case.

Continue reading

by

According to state law, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) has a duty to maintain the public highways in a condition that is reasonably safe for drivers exercising care and reasonable prudence, and even for those who are slightly exceeding the speed limit or who are momentarily inattentive. Ferrouillet v. State ex rel. DOTD. If the DOTD is aware of a defect in the roadway that cannot be immediately corrected, it must provide adequate warnings of the danger. The warnings should be “sufficient to alert the ordinary, reasonable motorist, based on considerations of probable volume of traffic, the character of the road, and the use reasonably to be anticipated.” Generally, in order for the DOTD to be held liable for damages, injuries, or death on a roadway, the plaintiff must prove: (1) that the thing that caused the damage was in the DOTD’s control; (2) that the thing that caused the damage amounted to a defect that presented an unreasonable risk of harm; and (3) that the defect was the actual cause of the plaintiff’s damages. It is well settled, however, that the DOTD’s duty “does not extend to protect motorists against harm which would not have occurred but for their grossly negligent operation of a motor vehicle.” The tragic case of Lyncker v. Design Engineering, Inc. provides an illustration of this point.

During the afternoon of September 15, 2004, William Lyncker consumed a substantial quantity of of beer as he made preparations to his home, boats, and business equipment for the arrival of Hurricane Ivan in New Orleans. Around 8:00 PM, Lyncker decided to drive to a family member’s restaurant to help with hurricane preparations there. The route to the restaurant would take him eastbound on Highway 90, which had earlier that day been closed by the DOTD approximately three miles east of the intersection with Highway 11 due to the installation of a floodgate in anticipation of the rising waters. Lyncker made his way toward Highway 90 on Highway 11 where, upon encountering a barricade, he drove off the road and over an earthen levee to avoid it. Lyncker continued toward the intersection with Highway 90 when he came upon additional warning signs and more barricades. Nevertheless, Lyncker turned onto Highway 90 and drove at speeds approaching 75 MPH. Lyncker did not slow down when he approached the caution-lit steel barricades that the DOTD had installed in front of the floodgate. In fact, Lyncker struck the barricades without even applying his brakes, and one of the barricades became trapped under Lyncker’s truck. Still, Lyncker continued speeding towards the Highway 90 floodgate as the barricade dragged beneath his truck. Lyncker’s truck was discovered crashed into the floodgate, which had collapsed. Lyncker was killed in the collision, and subsequent toxicology reports showed that Lyncker had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.21 percent (the legal limit is 0.08 percent) at the time of the accident.

Lyncker’s family filed a wrongful death action against Design Engineering, Inc., the Orleans Parish Levee District, and the DOTD alleging negligence in the construction and maintenance of the floodgate, as well as failure to warn. The DOTD filed a motion for summary judgment based on the Louisiana Code Section that provides immunity when a driver sustains damages or death while driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs and is over 25 percent negligent. La. Rev. Stat. ß 9:2798.4. The district court granted the motion, finding that “any reasonable fact finder would be compelled to find [Lyncker] in excess of twenty-five percent negligent.” On appeal, the Fourth Circuit noted that “since Mr. Lyncker crashed through the lighted barriers while heavily intoxicated and without slowing down, in this case, no warnings may have been enough to prevent the accident.” The court agreed with the district court’s finding that there was no issue of fact over Lyncker’s being at least 25 percent at fault and further concluded that “Lyncker’s intoxication is the sole and proximate cause of his fatal accident.” Accordingly, the court upheld the district court’s granting of summary judgment to DOTD under the immunity statute.

Continue reading

by

An attorney owes a fiduciary duty to his client. This means that, in keeping with the special relationship of trust between them, the attorney must put his client’s interests ahead of his own and avoid harm to his client to the best of his ability. At its most basic level, the duty requires the attorney to avoid errors that other attorneys would reasonably avoid in the same situation. If an attorney fails to uphold this duty, his client may have an action for legal malpractice. Under Louisiana law, to establish a case for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must prove the following three elements: (1) that an attorney-client relationship existed; (2) that the attorney was guilty of negligence in his handling of the client’s case; and (3) that the attorney’s misconduct caused the client loss, damage, or injury.

Proving that an attorney-client relationship exists typically requires demonstrating that the client had engaged the attorney to represent him in some matter. This is often accomplished with a copy of the attorney’s engagement letter, but this is not required. Nor is the exchange of a retainer or other payment necessary to prove the relationship. Proving an attorney’s negligence requires establishing the standard of care for the legal services in question and demonstrating how the attorney’s conduct deviated from this standard. Usually, this requires the input of an expert witness who can review the attorney’s work and offer an option as to how it fell short of generally accepted practices. Finally, the client must be able to point to some tangible and quantifiable negative consequence of the attorney’s negligence. If a plaintiff is unable to prove any one of these elements, his claim will be defeated. Additionally, even if a plaintiff can prove negligence, he can have no greater recovery against the attorney than would have been available in the underlying claim. Costello v. Hardy. This limitation served as the basis of the appeal in the case of Wharton v. Bell.

In February of 2006, Kirk Wharton hired an attorney (hereafter referred to as “the attorney”)after the mortgage-holder on Wharton’s house in East Baton Rouge Parish filed a petition to foreclose on the property. The property was eventually sold by judicial sale to Mortgage Electronic Registration Service (MERS) on September 20, 2006, over Wharton’s objection. Due to a faulty assignment of the morgtage note and other irregularities in the transaction by MERS, Wharton, represented by the attorney, successfully had the sale set aside by the court in the foreclosure proceeding and settled with MERS. Yet, shortly thereafter, Wharton obtained other counsel and filed a malpractice action against the attorney, alleging that “had [the attorney] acted in a reasonably prudent and diligent manner and in accord with professional legal standards,” the judicial sale could have been avoided altogether. Wharton’s former attorney’s malpractice insurance carrier, Continental Casualty Company, filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that because of Wharton’s settlement and dismissal of his claims in the original foreclosure proceeding, he had suffered no damages and was therefore barred from pursuing the malpractice claim. After a hearing, the trial court granted Continental’s motion and dismissed all of Wharton’s claims. Wharton appealed.

Continue reading

by

Mar’Kirney Holland, only four years old, died tragically in Orleans Parish after allegedly receiving negligent medical care in Lincoln Parish six years ago. This story provides a lesson on how important procedural motions are to a case. Plaintiffs often choose a certain jurisdiction because of different factors. Sometimes certain jurisdictions are chosen because of ease and convenience to parties and witnesses. Other times, plaintiffs have heard that certain courts or judges are more amenable and therefore, more likely, to rule in their favor. No matter the reasoning, deciding which court to proceed in is an essential decision that plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ attorneys must make. In this case, Holland v. Lincoln General Hospital, No. 2010-CC-0038 (La. Oct. 19, 2010), Defendants were successful in having the case moved from Plaintiffs preferred location of Orleans Parish to Lincoln Parish.

Mar’Kirney was born prematurely on November 12, 1999, and from an early age suffered from hydrocephalus, a condition where cerebrospinal fluid pools in the brain. At Tulane Hospital in New Orleans, doctors inserted a shunt to drain this fluid. Most, if not all, of the treatment related to the shunt took place at Tulane Hospital. The most recent “shunt revision” took place at Tulane Hospital two weeks before her death.

However, when Mar’Kirney began to suffer headaches, nausea, and vomiting, her mother, Latisha Holland, took Mar’Kirney to the closer hospital, Lincoln General Hospital. There, after fruitlessly waiting an hour, leaving, and coming back, Latisha claims that the doctor diagnosed Mar’Kirney with an upper respiratory infection. This was not the case. Mar’Kirney worsened and had to be transferred to Tulane Hospital after CT scans revealed that the shunt was blocked. Mar’Kirney died less than 24 hours after arriving at Tulane’s Pediatric Unit. Latisha brought a wrongful death and survival action against Lincoln General Hospital.

Continue reading

by

Many of Louisiana’s woes are from recent disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the Gulf oil spill. However, for Plaintiffs in David v. Velsicol Chemical Corporation, their woes began long before then. Plaintiffs were residents and property owners in the Cow Island area of Vermilion Parish when they discovered that their lands had high levels of arsenic in the ground water, in some instances eighty times the Environmental Protection Agency’s acceptable levels. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ product, Cooper’s Cattle Dip, contaminated their land and drinking water with arsenic and other hazardous chemicals causing the high rate of cancer in the area.

Plaintiffs’ story begins before 1970 when Cooper’s Cattle Dip was used in dripping vats located on, or adjacent to, all of the Plaintiffs’ properties. The dip solution contained high concentrations of arsenic and other poisonous chemicals. After being dipped in the solution, the cattle would stand as the dip slowly dripped its poison into the Plaintiffs’ lands. Although this dip eradicated the ticks that were killing cattle across the United States, it was deadly to humans and animals. This poisonous dip was simply allowed to run off into the ground and, as Plaintiffs alleged, contaminate the ground and eventually the water.

Despite this, the trial court ruled that twenty-one of these Plaintiffs had no cause of action and no standing to proceed in the case. Just recently, the Third Circuit Louisiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling allowing the twenty-one Plaintiffs a chance to prove their case under pre-Louisiana Product Liability Act (LPLA) strict liability law. As a side note, this case is governed by pre-LPLA strict liability law because the contamination occurred before enactment of the LPLA. For further discussion on the LPLA, please see an earlier entry on the blog.

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