Articles Posted in Negligence

Sometimes a police report isn’t everything in a lawsuit as demonstrated by a recent incident in Bossier City, Louisiana involving a peculiar car accident. Physical evidence and eyewitness testimony in a lawsuit can trump a contradictory police report. Therefore, it is important that a person involved in such an incident immediately contacts an excellent attorney who is capable of sifting through mountains of information and presenting it in a way that exposes a potentially faulty police report.

This was the situation with regard to the car accident between Amanda Moreland and Dr. Abdullah Gungor.  Ms. Moreland and Dr. Gungor were driving on Benton Road in Bossier City when they crashed. Fortunately, no one was injured, but both cars were damaged.  The accounts of how the accident occurred differed significantly. The police report supported Ms. Moreland’s story, but the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony supported Dr. Gungor’s.  Based on the police report and an expert that she hired, Ms. Moreland brought a lawsuit against Dr. Gungor for the damages to her car.  However, the District Court was persuaded by the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony and ruled that Dr. Gungor was not at fault. The case was dismissed. Ms. Moreland appealed and argued that there was manifest error in the District Court’s ruling because it disregarded the police report and the interpretation of the accident by her expert.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeal found no manifest error and affirmed the District Court’s judgment as reasonable in light of the evidence.

The incident at issue in this case began when both Dr. Gungor and Ms. Moreland were driving on Benton Road. Dr. Gungor was ahead of Ms. Moreland as they both drove toward Benton Spur.  At Benton Spur, the cars collided just before a traffic light.  Both parties agreed to these facts, but who caused the crash was the matter of dispute and at the heart of the lawsuit.  Dr. Gungor’s BMW was damaged on the driver’s side rear while Ms. Moreland’s Cobalt was damaged on the passenger’s side front. This infers that Ms. Moreland crashed into Dr. Gungor from behind.  Despite the location of the damage, the police officer took statements from both parties and wrote in his accident report that Dr. Gungor crashed into Ms. Moreland.  He based his report on Ms. Moreland’s statement that Dr. Gungor “suddenly came into her lane and they crashed” and a statement allegedly attributed to Dr. Gungor that he “swerved into the left lane” because he had to avoid another car.  This police accident report was the basis of Ms. Moreland’s lawsuit against Dr. Gungor.  She also hired an accident reconstruction expert who, relying largely on the accident report, supported her argument that Dr. Gungor was at fault.

If you ever suffer from a slip and fall, car accident, or other personal injuries you may be awarded compensation for your injuries by the court. The legal system relies on juries, as triers of fact, to determine damages suffered by parties, and the amount of compensation the injured person is entitled to. The jury’s obligation is to evaluate the facts in a reasonable manner and assign compensation. When the jury in a personal injury case renders a verdict and announces an award, that amount should not be amended unless there is an obvious error in the award.  See La.Civ.Code art. 2324.1

A recent Louisiana case shows this legal principle. Gene Bordelon, was involved in a rear end car accident with Leona Hayes in April of 2012. Bordelon suffered back injuries as the result of the accident. Leona Hayes was an employee working Cutting Edge, CMHC, Inc. at the time of the accident. Bordelon hired a great attorney, and at trial a jury awarded him $2,325,000 is his lawsuit for damages against Cutting Edge.

Cutting Edge appealed this decision made by the trial court. The company argued that the award amounts where abusively high. The appeals court noted upon review “we must find that no reasonable factual basis exists for the jury’s finding and that the finding is clearly wrong in order to reverse the jury’s award.”  Stobart v. State, through Dep’t of Transp. and Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993). In basic terms, The Appeals court should only overturn or change a jury’s verdict if it is clearly wrong, not merely if the court might have come to a different result.

If you are injured in an accident, it is important to be prepared before you testify at your deposition. Otherwise, you may find yourself making statements that opposing counsel can use against you. This is the painful lesson Dwan Jones learned in 2015, when a Louisiana Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of her case before it even went to trial. Dwan was injured in an automobile accident while riding in the passenger seat of an ambulance that was transporting a patient to the hospital. Based on Jones’ own testimony during a deposition, the Court of Appeals affirmed that Jones had made statements that negated the presence of any genuine dispute of material fact. Had Jones’ answered the questions differently her case may have at least gone to trial, which would have allowed a jury to determine whether her injuries were caused by the ambulance driver’s actions.

The ambulance Jones was riding in was struck at an intersection by a taxi cab. Louisiana Emergency Vehicle Statute La. R.S. 32:24 provides certain privileges for drivers of authorized emergency vehicles, such as ambulances when responding to emergency calls. These privileges include allowing the driver to “[p]roceed past a red [light]” after “slowing down or stopping as may be necessary for safe operation.” But the privileges only apply when the “vehicle is making use of audible or visual signals sufficient to warn motorists of their approach.”  See La. R.S. 32:24.  In this case, the light was red against the ambulance, but not the taxi, so the ambulance driver’s liability, and that of his employer, turned on whether or not the ambulance driver safely proceeded through the intersection.

As long as the ambulance driver complies with the statute, the driver can only be found culpable for an accident if he additionally exhibited some type of “reckless disregard” for safety. Jones argued that the trial court should not have applied this standard because the driver was not in compliance with the statute to begin with. Alternatively, Jones argued that even if the driver had been in compliance with the statute, the statute still should not apply because the emergency situation had ended, meaning that the driver should not have gone through the intersection against the red light.  Lastly, Jones argued that because the reckless disregard standard did not apply, the default “ordinary negligence” applied and, under that standard, the driver was culpable because he was inattentive at the time he entered the intersection.

Once a court rules on a motion or a jury verdict is delivered, the losing party faces an uphill battle in getting a reversal.  If you are party to a lawsuit, be sure to consult with an attorney who will help you assess the risks of a lawsuit and the best way to move forward. A good attorney will make sure that your interests are accounted for and that if you go to trial, you get it right the first time. An attorney should work hard for you, be diligent and thorough, and get you the award you deserve. In the case of Barry and Lori Pennison, they got just that: a thorough and diligent attorney who helped them get a just award.

Recently, the First Circuit Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the Trial Court and jury verdict that awarded the Pennisons a total of $4,200,000. This judgment was against the defendants, James Carrol, Jr. of Frisco Construction Company, The Gray Insurance Company and GEICO General Insurance Company.

Barry Pennison was injured when the defendant, James Carroll, Jr., who was working on the job, turned left into his company’s industrial yard on La. Highway 57 in Terrebonne Parish. Due to the accident, Barry was severely injured and unable to work or enjoy the life he had become accustomed to. The facts of the case showed that Mr. Carroll did not signal when he turned and that he did not yield to Barry, who was on a motor cycle at the time and had the right of way. Barry was driving the speed limit and honked at Mr. Carroll in his pick-up truck to no avail. Mr. Carroll did not stop. Emile Hotard, Jr., a witness, noted that everything happened fast, but that neither he nor Carroll saw Pennison coming.