Motorcycle Injury

February 7, 2011

Plaintiff’s Failure to Mitigate Damages in Shreveport Accident Results in Reduction of Damages Award

It is well-settled in Louisiana jurisprudence that an injured party has a duty to mitigate damages. In other words, a victim is required to make reasonable efforts to minimize the extent of injury or damage that results from a tortfeasor’s actions, even though the actions may be negligent or wrongful. The idea is that a plaintiff cannot just “sit idly by” while his situation becomes worse if there is something he could do to stop or lessen the damage. A plaintiff, however, is not required to make extraordinary efforts or to do what is unreasonable or impractical to minimize the damages. Instead, the efforts need only pass the test of being consistent with common sense.

For a defendant to invoke the defense of the plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages, the defendant must meet the burden of showing that: (1) the plaintiff’s conduct after the injury was unreasonable; and (2) that the plaintiff’s unreasonable conduct resulted in the aggravation the his harm. In light of the standard of reasonableness on the part of the plaintiff’s duty to mitigate, this is not a simple burden for a defendant to carry. The recent case of Britt v. City of Shreveport offers a look at the Second Circuit Court of Appeal’s treatment of this issue. On August 5, 2003, Carolyn Britt was driving her Chevy Astro van on Thornhill Street in Shreveport. The street was partially blocked by a crew of City employees that was trimming a roadside tree. One of the employees signaled to Britt to proceed through the area. As she drove through, a tree massive limb fell and landed on top of her vehicle. Britt suffered multiple injuries to her head, neck, shoulders, lower back, and legs, but did not immediately go to the hospital. Instead, she called her daughter to pick her up from the scene.

More than a week later, Britt sought treatment from a chiropractor who saw her over the course of the next six months. Although her condition improved, Britt continued to experience back pain, so the chiropractor referred her for an MRI. Britt refused the MRI but instead over the next year serially consulted four physicians whose recommendations she routinely ignored. After being told by the last physician that she was not a candidate for surgery, Britt visited a neurosurgeon in November of 2004. The neurosurgeon recommended surgery to correct her back problems. Britt then was examined by a physical therapist who suggested a physical therapy rehabilitation program to follow the surgery. Britt never underwent the surgery or enrolled in the therapy program. Instead, she filed a petition against the City of Shreveport to recover damages resulting from personal injuries, including pain and suffering, medical expenses, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, and loss of enjoyment in life. The City did not dispute its fault in the accident, so following a trial on the quantum of damages the court awarded Britt $371,963.96 in general and special damages. This amount included an unspecified reduction based on Britt’s failure to seek and follow proper medical treatment following the accident. The City appealed, arguing that the trial court’s award did not accuratly reflect that, had Britt submitted to the recommended treatments and physical therapy regimen, she would have substantially increased her chances of not needing surgery at all. In addition, the City argued that the trial court erred in determining that Britt was justified in refusing to undergo surgery because she would have been required to pay for the procedure out of her own pocket.

February 5, 2011

Passing Poses Problems: Automobile Accident Liability for Passing Vehicles on the Roadways

by Berniard Law Firm

Accidents are a common occurrence for automobile drivers. In fact, in 2009, there were 73,900 injuries caused by automobile accidents in the state of Louisiana. However, when one is injured in such an accident, liability is often difficult to assign. In other words, it takes a fact-finder to determine who is at fault for the accident and who is liable for damages incurred by any injured party. In a recent Louisiana court case, a passing motorist was found to be 100% liable for injuries sustained by an individual while the other motorist involved in the accident was not liable for payment of any damages.

On August 18, 1999, William Boyd was injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on Louisiana Highway 14 in Jefferson Davis Parish. Boyd, who was an inmate assigned to highway clean-up at the time of the accident, was a passenger in the prison van driven by Joseph Deville. A sixteen-foot trailer, used to carry tools and supplies needed for the work detail was attached to the rear of the prison van; also, a dump truck followed the van. The driver of the prison van was in search of a clear spot on Highway 14 to pull over and allow the inmates to eat lunch. Mr. Deville located a clear, shady spot on the left of the Highway and, as the prison van began to exit to the left, a passing car driven by Rosalinda Broussard hit the rear left side of the van. As a result of the accident, Mr. Boyd sustained injuries and brought suit against Mr. Deville, Wackenhut prison facility, Ms. Broussard and the insurance companies for the parties. Before trial, Mr. Boyd settled his claims against Ms. Broussard and her insurer. However, he proceeded with his claims against the three remaining defendants arguing that Mr. Deville began to make his left turn well after Ms. Broussard began her passing maneuver. In the bench trial, the trial judge found Ms. Broussard to be 100% liable for the injuries and dismissed the case against the other defendants. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals.

In order to reverse a trial court’s findings, “a reasonable factual basis [must] not exist for the finding of the trial court” and “the record establishes that the finding is not clearly wrong.” Otherwise, the decision would be reversed. When imposing liability for an automobile accident, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to exercise reasonable care while driving on the road and that duty was breached by failing to act like the average reasonably motorist. This failure must have proximately caused the plaintiff’s damages. While duty and breach are questions of law and determined by the court, causation and damages are questions left for the fact-finder to determine. In Louisiana, courts have found that allocating fault “is not an exact science nor is it a search for a precise ration. Instead, the courts must determine if the “allocated fault falls within a certain range that does not violate the manifest error rule. While finding that Mr. Deville was not at fault for the accident, the court quoted a Louisiana statute, which provides specific instruction for motorists in the left lane attempting to pass other vehicles, entitled “Limitations for passing on the left.” Since Ms. Broussard did not comply with this statute and Mr. Deville used his turn signal and began to turn before Ms. Broussard began her passing maneuver, she was found to be solely responsible for the accident.

February 3, 2011

Lake Charles Bicycle Accident Case Leads Court to Review Role of Lay Witness Testimony

by Berniard Law Firm

In numerous prior posts, we have explored how critical expert testimony often is in determining the outcome of a negligence trial. Although experts can play a pivotal role in helping a plaintiff build his case, they do present some limitations. Typically, expert witnesses are required to render an opinion based on the information that they or someone else (e.g., a police officer) gathered after the fact; this can mean that not all useful evidence is available, and may call for some level of educated speculation. Also, practically speaking, it can be expensive for a plaintiff to retain the services of an expert, especially when the value of the claim is not particularly substantial. It follows then that often a plaintiff must rely on non-expert, or “lay,” witnesses at trial. Commonly, lay witnesses are recruited bystanders who happened to observe the incident which gave rise to the plaintiff’s claim. Although lay witnesses are somewhat limited in the types of opinions they can offer in testimony, their input is often extremely valuable for a plaintiff.

In the recent case Mitchell v. Roy, the Louisiana Court of Appeals examined the handling of important lay witness testimony by the trial court. In March of 2008, Darion Mitchell, age 10, was riding his bicycle on 8th Avenue between 9th and 10th Streets in Lake Charles when he veered into the path of a Chevrolet minivan driven by Albert Roy, Jr. Mitchell, who was not wearing a helmet, was thrown onto the hood of the van and struck the windshield. He was transported by ambulance to Christus St. Patrick’s Hospital where he underwent a series of tests that revealed he suffered some minor soft tissue swelling but no brkoen bones. Mitchell was diagnosed with a head injury and scalp lacerations, and he received stitches before being discharged from the hospital later the same day. Within a few months, Mitchell’s mother filed suit against Roy, alleging that Roy had negligently caused the accident by driving in excess of the posted speed limit, by failing to keep a proper lookout, and by failing to take care to avoid the collision. A bench trial was held. One of Mitchell’s key witnesses was Angela Dodd, a neighborhood resident who happened to be sitting on her front porch at the time the accident occurred. Dodd offered testimony about the speed of Roy’s van: she estimated that Roy was driving between 35 and 40 MPH. This estimate was based on Dodd’s prior experience operating her own vehicle “at various speeds” and the fact that Roy’s vehicle “kicked up dust” on the street as it approached Mitchell. The trial resulted in a finding that Roy’s negligence was the sole cause of the collision, a verdict in Mitchell’s favor, and an award of damages. Roy appealed, citing as error, among other things, the trial court’s allowing Dodd to offer a lay opinion as to the speed of Roy’s vehicle.

The Third Circuit addressed this enumeration of error by first reviewing the standard in Louisiana for assessing the admissibility of a lay witness’s opinion testimony. The state Code of Evidence in Article 701 provides that such testimony is limited to opinions which are (1) rationally based on the perception of the witness; and (2) helpful to a clear understanding of her testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Put another way, a lay witness is permitted to draw reasonable inferences from her personal observations, so long as she also explains what those observations were. As a general rule, when reviewing a trial court’s admission of lay opinion testimony, an appellate court must ask whether the testimony was an improper speculative opinion or simply an inference drawn from the witness’s observations and, if erroneously admitted, whether the testimony was so prejudicial as to constitute error that should be reversed. The court noted that in overruling Roy’s objections to Dodd’s testimony, the trial court stated that it would “take into consideration that [Dodd] is not an expert on speed” and that it would consider her opinion “in the context of just a lay impression.” After reviewing the record of Dodd’s “compelling” testimony about what she observed and how she arrived at her speed estimate, the court determined it was “satisfied that the trial court properly allowed Dodd to testify as to the inferences she drew based upon her personal observations, [and] that the trial court gave the proper weight to Dodd’s opinion testimony.” Furthermore, the court deemed the opinion, even if admitted in error, insufficiently prejudicial to Roy so as to warrant reversal.

November 30, 2010

Pineville Car Wreck Results in Showdown Over Classic Car Repair Costs

by Berniard Law Firm

When property is damaged through the fault of another, the law’s primary objective is to restore the property as nearly as possible to the state it was in before it was damaged. In Louisiana, it is well settled that the measure of the damage to property is the cost of restoring the property to its former condition. Thus, the courts historically have looked to the cost of restoration to determine the proper measure of damages. Rogers v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 796 So.2d 862 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2001). This approach is particularly common with auto accidents, including the one that led to the case of Armstrong v. Safeway Insurance Company, No. 10-183 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2010).

On April 12, 2008, Richard Armstrong, an antique automobile restorer, was driving a 1982 Corvette in Pineville. The car, which to that point had never been in an accident and was in “mint” condition, was struck by a vehicle driven by Darrell Frost. Armstrong suffered minor injuries as a result of the accident, and the Corvette sustained damage to the front end. Armstrong and Frost’s insurance carrier, Safeway, settled Armstrong’s personal injury claims after Frost admitted fault for the incident. The parties were unable to reach a settlement over Armstrong’s property damage claims, however, and so Armstrong filed suit. At trial, Armstrong explained that the repairs to the Corvette totaled $7,007. This was in part due to the fact that Armstrong insisted upon complete replacement of several body parts due to the difficulty in making undetectable repairs to fiberglass. Armstrong asserted that the Corvette was a “well-maintained classic,” the value of which would have been negatively affected by any body imperfections. Safeway, who had offered Armstrong $3,503 for the repairs based on the opinion of its appraiser, argued that it was unreasonable for Armstrong to expect replacement parts when less costly repairs were possible. The trial judge disagreed with Safeway and awarded Armstrong $7,007 in property damages.

Safeway appealed. The Third Circuit noted that the parties’ repair experts at trial both agreed that Armstrong’s vehicle could have been repaired in several different ways and that Armstrong was reasonable in being concerned about the way that his vehicle was going to be repaired. The court concluded that “[b]ecause the trial court was presented with two permissible views of the evidence, its choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” Furthermore, Armstrong “carried his burden” of proving the amount he paid to restore the car to its pre-accident condition. The court commented, “Safeway simply argued that Armstrong’s vehicle could have been repaired in the manner recommended by its appraiser; they did not argue that any of the costs incurred by Armstrong to have his vehicle repaired in the manner that he chose were otherwise unreasonable.” Accordingly, the court found that the trial judge did not err in awarding Armstrong the full amount of his proven property damages, and affirmed the decision.

November 8, 2010

Negligence on the Rise in Louisiana in Spite of Texting Ban

by Berniard Law Firm

In Louisiana, a study shows that crash rates continue to rise for drivers under the age of 25 despite outlawing text messaging while driving. In three other states, crash rates were shown to have actually increased after the enactment of anti-texting laws, and, in all four states researched, there were no reductions in crashes after the enactment of these laws.

The study, conducted by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), was carried out in Louisiana, California, Minnesota, and Washington. Researchers compared statistics of crashes before and after the texting bans were enacted in these states. The four states’ data was then compared to the states that do not have texting bans. The results were obviously not the expectation of lawmakers and has left many troubled by what can be done to counter the dangers technology is creating.

HLDI says that one possible explanation for the increasing negligence and rise in crash levels could be that people are continuing to text in spite of these laws.

November 2, 2010

Louisiana Car Accident Statistics Show Safety Precautions Necessary When Driving

by Berniard Law Firm

In 2009, over 800 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes in Louisiana. An additional 73,000 persons were injured in car crashes. The applicability of these statistics are obvious: you and too many other drivers and passengers are at risk every time you get on the road in Louisiana. However, there are steps you can take to protect yourself each time you get in a vehicle that can increase your safety and limit the effects of a crash on your health and the health of others in the car.

Sadly, almost 50% of fatal car crashes involve alcohol. A conviction for driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol results in a mandatory ignition interlock hardship license and additional penalties including, but not limited to, a permanent criminal record, 6 months in jail, $1,000 fine plus court costs, and losing your driver’s license for 90 days. Furthermore, after three misdemeanor DUI convictions, these charges become felonies. Felonies are even more serious than misdemeanors and involve harsher penalties. These very real criminal penalties pale in comparison to the financial and emotional hardships those who cause a serious accident while impaired will suffer.

While hazards like a drunk driver are, at times, nearly impossible to avoid, there are some things you can do to protect yourself and your passengers while you are driving. Efforts that will minimize your exposure to serious harm include, but are not limited to, driving the speed limit, wearing your seat belt, and, when appropriate, wearing a safety helmet. Safety helmets reduce the risk of death by 29% and the risk of fatal head injury by 40%. It is important that you make sure that you and all of your passengers are wearing your seat belts before you start driving because more than 65% of drivers who are killed in crashes were not wearing their safety belts. Young drivers and passengers are especially resistant to wearing seat belts. A Louisiana study shows that 14% of all high school students report that they rarely or never wear seat belts when riding with someone else. By making sure you and your teen wear your seat belts, you will be saving money not only through perks like those offered by car insurers but overall as a taxpayer. Louisiana residents spend almost $6 billion annually paying for car crashes, which comes out to about $2,000 per licensed driver. If all residents of this state were to make sure to secure their seatbelt before driving, a lot of money could be saved solely through practicing safe driving techniques.

October 31, 2010

Berniard Law Firm Unveils New iPhone Application

by Berniard Law Firm

The Berniard Law Firm is proud to announce the release of an innovative new iPhone application that can be considered a must-have for individuals in the Gulf Coast. With extensive versatility and options including multiple contact points for our attorneys, as well as consistent site updates that will keep you informed of legal developments as they become available. Released October 26, we recommend everyone download the application in order to stay abreast of a variety of issues that relate to them.

In the works for some time, and with an update already planned, the Berniard Law Firm iPhone app puts law matters that are important to Louisiana residents in the palm of their hands. Constantly refreshing, with updates relating to our website, this application is an effort by our firm to allow our friends and clients quick access and up-to-date information for their daily lives. Whether using the application to send our firm a legal question or to call our offices, we strongly encourage anyone that wants an attorney and a wealth of legal information at your fingertips.

Specifically, the Berniard Law Firm Injury Attorney iPhone App provides users

October 23, 2010

Tangipahoa Parish Plaintiff Defeated at Summary Judgment by Failure to Link Defendant to Negligent Act

by Berniard Law Firm

In late 2007, the Tangipahoa Parish government began making repairs to Berry Bowl Road in Independence, Louisiana. One of the contracting firms the parish hired to complete street overlay work was Barriere Construction Company, LLC. On the evening of January 8, 2007, Joseph Alessi, Jr. struck a “bump” in the road with his car, resulting in substantial damage to the vehicle and injuries to him and his two passengers, Linda Alessi and Tommie Sinagra. Following the accident, Alessi filed suit against Barriere, alleging that the company’s employees were negligent and liable for his damages. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Barriere was negligent in creating a defect in the roadway where vehicles were allowed to drive and failing to take reasonable measures to protect the public from the hazardous condition.

Barriere filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it had nothing to do with the condition of the road where Alessi’s accident occurred. Barriere submitted affidavits and detailed invoices it had remitted to Tangipahoa Parish in order to be paid showing that its crews had not worked on Berry Bowl Road for at least six days prior to the accident. Additionally, Barriere asserted that the time it had last worked on Berry Bowl Road, the repairs had ended approximately 700 feet from the location where Alessi hit the bump. Barriere offered that any problemw with the road must have been caused by a Tangipahoa Parish bridge construction crew that was working in the area at the time. The district court held a hearing on the motion for summary judgment on September 28, 2009 and the next day granted Barriere’s motion. Alessi appealed.

The First Circuit reviewed the district court’s granting of summary judgment de novo, meaning that it examined all of the evidence in the case as if for the first time. The court explained that “summary judgment is warranted only if there is no genuine issue as to material fact.” A fact is considered “material” if

September 17, 2010

New Technology Providing Plaintiffs Chance to Recover Due to Accidents with Tricky Circumstances

by Berniard Law Firm

Car accidents oftentimes are not simple, clear-cut events that lend a clear idea of who was right and who was wrong. Instead, many times it is left to a court to decide what the circumstances were that led to the collision and the amount of responsibility each party had for it occurring. As a result, because no court is perfect, individuals who have been harmed due to another party’s acts are left out in the cold because they could not prove their case. However, each year new technology comes out that provides a better opportunity for plaintiffs, and their attorneys, to prove their case and receive the compensation they deserve.

One firm, Advanced Research and Technology (ART) Corporation, works with the very technology required to prove cases. Utilizing Finite Element Analysis (FEA), commonly referred to as computer simulations, the company provides compelling engineering evidence to explain the cause of a crash-related case. FEA’s due this by calculating the kinematics of the investigated accident (speeds, relative motion, different parts of accident) and structural analysis (where the cars collided and relevant stresses, strains, failures, energy displacements, etc.). By analyzing this information, FEA can help plaintiffs win cases related to auto and motorcycle crashes, airbag and seatbelt related problems, structural analysis relating to accidents or blasts, slip and fall cases, fuel tank and pipeline pressure analysis and a variety of others.

FEA simulations are widely recognized by the engineering community as a reliable and advanced tool for solving structural dynamics, crash, blast and impact-related matters. Automotive companies often use FEA for car testing in the same way that highway safety systems are designed using the technology. The reliability of FEA comes down to the simulator being able to develop accurate formulations or equations to explain how the millions of small elements involved in a collision react when variables are at a certain set. Because of its ability to determine how a car will behave in a collision and the effects of a collision, technology experts are able to move backwards and determine what variables were in place to lead to the results suffered.

September 1, 2010

Understanding the Law: Bystander Recovery After Tragedy Strikes

by Berniard Law Firm

In certain situations, a person that witnessed another get physically injured has a legal claim against the person that caused the physical injury—even when the witness suffered only mental anguish, without any direct physical injury. The rule allowing this recovery is known as the bystander recovery rule.

Louisiana’s bystander recovery is governed by Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315.6 and the Louisiana Supreme Court case of Trahan v. McManus. As stated in Trahan, the bystander recovery rule does not “compensate for the anguish and distress that normally accompany an injury to a loved one under all circumstances.” Rather, the bystander recovery rule is more limited and has four requirements in order for a bystander to recover damages for his mental anguish from witnessing another’s injuries.

Those four elements are: