Miscellaneous

August 18, 2010

Hit-and-run Incident Illustrates Civil and Criminal Trial Issues

Fleeing the scene of an escalating argument, a driver injured two persons when he ran over them with his car. The incident happened in Minden on February 7, as reported by Jana Ryan. Local authorities believed the victims were merely bystanders and were not part of the argument. After brandishing a gun, the driver attempted to leave in his car, and he ran over the bystanders while trying to back away. The driver was later arrested on criminal charges of aggravated assault and aggravated battery stemming from the incident.

Events like this one often bring criminal charges against the person who injures another. However, the driver in this case may also be civilly liable to the injured victims; that is, in addition any criminal conviction, a court can hold him financially responsible for the injuries that resulted from his actions. To be held civilly, or financially, liable to a victim, generally a person’s actions must be the legal cause of the victim’s injury. The law does not even require that the person have intentionally injured a victim; a careless, or negligent, act may be sufficient to establish liability.

It is important to keep in mind, though, that criminal law and civil liability are administered very differently and that criminal convictions and civil remedies are distinct under Louisiana law. A conviction by a criminal court does not automatically ensure that a civil court will hold a convicted defendant financially liable for the injuries he caused. Nor will a person found innocent be guaranteed immunity from civil liability. Each type of court requires attorneys to establish different elements, and criminal courts require them to prove those elements with more certainty. This is true even if key words, such as “assault” and “battery,” seem to mean essentially the same thing in each court.

August 11, 2010

Toyota Has Reportedly Been Able to Duplicate Acceleration Problems

by Berniard Law Firm

According to a recent ABC News report, court documents from a class-action lawsuit against that has been filed against Toyota claim that the company is in possession of documents that show that the automaker documented confirmed cases of sudden acceleration without driver error as many as 7 years ago. Other alleged company documents show that Toyota has been able to recreate instances of sudden acceleration, again without driver error, within the last year.

The documents are referred to in a revised complaint that has been filed against Toyota in U.S. District Court for Southern California. In the suit, forty Toyota owners claim that sudden acceleration problems has caused them financial harm by reducing the resale value of their cars. The suit claims that, “Toyota failed to disclose that its own technicians often replicated sudden acceleration events without driver error.”

In a 2003 document quoted in the complaint, a technician reported a sudden acceleration incident where he found a “mis-synchronism between engine speed and throttle position movement.” The technician requested immediate action to correct the dangerous problem. Another document, from 2005, involved a Toyota dealership report that states that a dealer verified two separate acceleration incidents with a Toyota Sequoia. A 2003 report described what was called a “surge event,” despite no trouble code on a scan tool. According to consumer safety experts, many of the sudden acceleration problems could be resulting from a defect in Toyota’s electronic throttle control systems. The company has repeatedly denied that the vehicles have electronic problems.

August 8, 2010

Louisiana Fist-fight Illustrates Appeal Process, Injuries and Damages

by Berniard Law Firm

In the late evening of May 28, 2006, Grant Lee Williams and his girlfriend, Lisa Lobrano, visited the Saddle Ridge Bar at the Louisiana Boardwalk in Bossier Parish. Also at the establishment was Michael Moore, who at one point approached the bar where Lobrano was sitting and tried to pick her up. Williams observed that Moore inappropriately touched Lobrano and hurried over to fend him off. Williams told Moore that he was Lobrano’s boyfriend and warned him to leave her alone. After this exchange, Williams and Moore turned together toward the exit and within a moment, Moore struck Williams in the face. Williams, having sustained multiple fractures to his face and a broken nose, sued Moore for battery.

Much conflicting evidence was presented at the bench trial. Lobrano testified that she did not see either man hit the other, but that as she got up from the bar she turned to see Williams with blood on his face before he fell onto the floor. At that point, according to Lobrano, Moore kicked Williams several times in the ribs. Williams admitted in testimony that he may have pushed or bumped Moore as they walked away from the bar, but that he was blindsided by Moore’s punches. Williams also testified that Moore kicked him in the ribs after he fell to the floor. Moore denied ever touching Lobrano and testified that Williams approached him at the bar, pushed him, and then punched him in the eye. Moore explained that he swung at Williams and admitted he must have hit Williams since it was clear that Williams was injured. Several other bystanders offered testimony, but none saw exactly who threw the first punch.

The trial judge did not determine who hit first, but found that both Williams and Moore were equally at fault for the altercation. The judge awarded Williams general damages in the amount of $40,000 and $30,901 for medical costs, but reduced the total award by half in light of Williams’s own fault.

August 4, 2010

Tioga Slip and Fall Case Study Part 2: The Importance of Expert Witnesses

by Berniard Law Firm

Several prior posts have examined the critical role that expert witnesses can play in a personal injury lawsuit. The Peoples v. Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc., No. 09-1270 (Ct. App. of La., 3d Cir. 2010) case offers a similar example of how expert testimony can be invaluable to a plaintiff. (For a brief background on this case, please see Part 1 of this post series.)

In addition to the dispute over notice, Fred’s Store’s appeal also challenged the trial judge’s admission of testimony by Peoples’s expert witness, Michael Frenzel. Frenzel was a board-certified safety professional who owned a company that offered safety program mangement services. At the time of the trial, he had 35 years of experience in the safety field. Prior to the trial, Frenzel reviewed the accident report, photos of the accident scene, and a diagram of the store. He also personally visited the Fred’s Store in Tioga to view the premises. Frenzel testified that the two gazebo boxes that Peoples tripped over “amounted to a trip hazard that presented an unacceptable level of risk to Fred’s customers.” He explained that, regardless of their precise location, two boxes laying flat on the floor would pose a risk to a customer entering the store given that the customer’s attention would likely be drawn to the other merchandise. This was especially the case, according to Frenzel, because the boxes were white in color and had a low profile against the white background of the floor. Frenzel further referenced the “universal, industry-wide standard minimum height recommended for floor displays to prevent tripping hazards,” and even identified a section in the store’s own safety manual that addressed tripping hazards. Finally, Frenzel testified that in his opinion Peoples “did nothing wrong,” and that “only Fred’s could have taken corrective action in this situation.”

Fred’s Store sought to exclude Frenzel’s damning testimony on the basis that he was not an eyewitness to the fall and therefore could not contribute to the resolution of any issues of fact. Also, Fred’s Store argued that expert testimony is not necessary in a trip and fall case. The Court of Appeals cited Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 702, which provides:

August 2, 2010

Tioga Slip and Fall Case Study Part 1: The Plaintiff’s Burden of Proving Notice

by Berniard Law Firm

In a previous post, we explored the elements of a negligence action that arose after a customer slipped and fell on a pool of vomit left by another customer while visiting a store in Farmerville. One of those elements is “notice,” or whether the merchant created or was aware of the unsafe condition that caused the plaintiff’s injury. In the Farmerville case, the plaintiff was unable to show that the store owner had notice of the vomit on the floor that caused her fall, and so her suit was not successful.

The recent case of Peoples v. Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc., No. 09-1270 (Ct. App. of La., 3d Cir. 2010), illustrates how the plaintiff’s ability to prove notice can result in a different outcome. On August 10, 2004, Virginia Peoples and her husband, Wyndell, entered the Fred’s Store in Tioga. Upon passing through the entranceway, Peoples tripped over some boxes laying on the floor just inside the door which extended into the walkway. The boxes contained gazebos that were part of a clearance sale. Peoples fell forward into a display of stacked coolers, where she hit her chin before landing on the concrete floor. Pain in her neck and right wrist, shoulder, and arm prompted her to go to the emergency room at LaSalle General Hospital, where she was diagnosed with a pinched nerve and a radicular neck injury.

Peoples sued Fred’s Store for negligence, a bench trial was held, and Peoples was awarded nearly $200,000 in damages. Fred’s Store appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial judge improperly concluded that Fred’s Store had notice of the improperly placed boxes that caused Peoples’s fall.

July 27, 2010

Louisiana Appeals Finds Unreasonably Dangerous Condition in Premises Liability Case

by Berniard Law Firm

Jeanine Pryor of Lake Charles was injured when she fell exiting bleachers at a football came and filed a claim for damages due to injuries she sustained. Her claim was denied at the trial court level and in a recent decision, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and awarded Ms. Pryor a significant damage award (over $500,000), even after reducing her damages by 30% due to a finding that she was partially at fault for the accident.

Ms. Pryor, of Lake Charles, went to New Iberia to watch her grandson’s team play a playoff football game at Lloyd G. Porter Stadium. The facility is owned by the Iberia Parish School Board. Spectators at the field sit on either west or east side spectator seating. According to reports the west side, where home team fans sit, is a much nicer facility made of concrete that sits well off the ground and has ramps leading to the seats. The east side of the field, where visiting teams traditionally sit, contains metal frame bleachers with wood seat boards and foot boards and rails around the rear and upper portions. The bleachers have no aisles for walking up into the stands or rails to help someone walking up rows.

When she arrived at the stadium, the 69 year old Ms. Pryor walked to the visitor side of the stadium, balancing on the uneven ground with her daughter’s help. Because the players and cheerleaders standing on the sidelines blocked the view of the game from the bottom rows, Ms. Pryor needed to climb up into the stands. Because she could not step up the eighteen inches from the first board to the second she had to grab the second board and lay on her side to swing up her legs one at a time. During halftime, Ms. Pryor needed to use the restroom so, again, with her daughter’s help, she walked down the bleachers. When she came to the second seat board, she stepped down slowly the extended distance to reach the first board and fell back. She dropped her daughters hand and suffered a broken leg and other injuries.

July 23, 2010

Lafayette Case Provides Important Lesson on Peremptory Challenges and Proving Racially Based Jury Exclusion

by Berniard Law Firm

In a recent Court of Appeals decision, plaintiff Ryan George appealed a jury verdict that rejected his damage claim following his 2007 car accident in Lafayette. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s decision and found that defendants did not improperly challenge jurors during the selection process while one of Mr. George’s challenges was deemed to be discriminatory.

Trials can be made or broken if the jury is sympathetic to one side or the other. This case shows how important it is for plaintiffs to have an experienced attorney involved in jury selection process. A good attorney will not only make the right decision about who should be struck from a jury via peremptory challenges, but will also be prepared to object to the other sides’ challenges if they are a pretext for discrimination while being able to provide a articulable non-race reason for excluding should one of their own challenges are questioned.

The accident occurred at the intersection of Simcoe Street and Evangeline Thurway in Lafaeyette when a vehicle driven by Horace McBride rear ended a vehicle driven by Richard Benoit, Jr. as Benoit was turning left. McBride was working for Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. and driving his employer’s vehicle. George was a passenger in Benoit’s vehicle and was injured, requiring extensive treatment.

July 13, 2010

A No-Show in Court Does Not Mean Default Judgment Success

by Berniard Law Firm

When Robert Williams, Jr. and Tyson Smith got into an altercation that resulted in a broken jaw for Williams, the Williams family brought a lawsuit against both Tyson Smith and the Northeast Louisiana Marine Institute, Inc. (NLMI). NLMI is an alternative school in Tallulah, LA. The event occurred one January morning in 2007 at NLMI with both teachers and other students present.

Even though both defendants were served with notice of the suit neither responded in a timely fashion. When a defendant does not respond to a claim against him or her, the court has the ability to enter a judgment despite a party’s failure to show up and present a defense. If a party has made any appearance in the process, however, then the party’s representative must be given notice of the default judgment before the judgment is confirmed.

The trial court in this case entered default judgment against the defendants. The court found NLMI liable for the incident and awarded just over $60,000 to the plaintiffs. NLMI appealed this decision, and, even though they did not present a defense at trial, were able to get the ruling overturned.

July 1, 2010

Court of Appeals Examines the Scope of Employment Requirement for Vicarious Liability

by Berniard Law Firm

In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeals decision, Janika Johnson appealed a verdict in favor of Gilley Enterprises, owner of a Monroe McDonalds. Johnson, as a customer at the McDonald’s in 2006, was involved in an altercation with an employee. There was a history of ill feeling between Johnson and the employee because Johnson was dating the father of the employee’s child. Johnson called the other woman over to the counter, and a conversation ensued which turned loud and heated. The employee reached over the counter and struck Johnson in the face. Other store employees intervened. Johnson was told to leave and started towards the door. The other woman picked up a cup, dipped it into an open vat of hot grease, and threw the hot grease on Johnson, who suffered serious burns on her face and body.

Johnson filed suit against Littleton (the employee) and Gilley Enterprises, contending that Gilley was liable because their managers were negligent in hiring, training, and supervising Littleton and that Littleton’s attack occurred in the course and scope of her employment, making Gilley vicariously liable. Gilley responded that all of Johnson’s causes of action had prescribed. The trial court granted Gilley’s exception for the negligence claim but denied it pertaining to vicarious liability. Gilley filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the remaining vicarious liability claims arguing that Littleton was acting outside the course and scope of employment, the trial court agreed and Johnson appealed. On appeal Johnson argued that the trial court erred in concluding La.C.C. art 3493.10 was inapplicable to her claims of negligent hiring, training and supervision.

Louisiana C.C. art 3493.10 states:

June 21, 2010

Area Residents Fortunate in Monroe Train Derailment

by Berniard Law Firm

Residents of Monroe, Louisiana, and the surrounding area are fortunate that a train derailment appears benign. The train derailed the evening of Saturday, February 20th, in the vicinity of Highway 165. Fortunately, other than the damage sustained by the derailed cars and the train tracks, the accident seems to have caused little harm.

According to a report by Zack Southwell that appeared on thenewsstar.com, the cause of the accident was initially unclear and under investigation. But Caldwell Parish deputies have assured the public that the accident poses no danger to the surrounding area. The report quoted Chief Deputy Glen Gilmore as saying, “We had (hazardous materials) crews out here also, making sure the wreck caused no danger. They declared the area safe shortly after midnight [on Sunday].” A representative of Union Pacific indicated that “most of the cars that derailed were empty,” but she added that some were carrying a non-hazardous fuel oil additive.

The folks living near the accident site are indeed lucky that the derailed cars were not carrying more hazardous substances. Train derailments are not always so harmless. For example, during a 2008 derailment near Lafayette, the damaged BNSF cars leaked 11,000 gallons of toxic hydrochloric acid onto the ground surrounding the accident site. As reported by newsinferno.com, the acid gathered in yellow pools and emitted vapors that formed a toxic cloud around over Lafayette. The spill forced the evacuation of 3,000 local residents, shut down businesses and closed roads until officials could neutralize the acid and remove all contaminated soil. In addition to lost business and property damage resulting from the accident, several folks required treatment for medical ailments related to the spilled acid.