Articles Posted in Negligence

by

pharmacy-1507606-1-1024x768Recently, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals increased a trial court’s award of damages to a plaintiff in a negligence action against Walgreens. Negligence involves showing the court that one person (or company) failed to do their duty—and as a result, someone was hurt. In this case, Peggy Williams asked her son Derrick to pick up a medication for her from the Walgreens pharmacy in Gretna. Walgreens’ pharmacist handed Derrick another person’s medication, and Ms. Williams took the pills without noticing the mistake. As a result, she suffered several strokes and long-term loss of physical capacity. The jury found that Ms. Williams and her son were 40% at fault, and that Walgreens was 60% at fault for the harms Ms. Williams suffered.

Ms. Williams appealed the judgment on two grounds.

First, she argued that the trial judge made a mistake by entering a judgment different from the jury’s responses on the verdict form. The verdict form apportioned the fault to the parties in the following manner:

Continue reading

by

lawyers-1491730-1024x768The last thing that you want to do after dealing with litigious matters is have to hire more lawyers.  However, if you believe your lawyer committed legal malpractice thats exactly what you will be forced to do.  Lawsuits containing claims of legal malpractice are taken very seriously by the courts presiding over them.  Very strict timelines dictate when you must file a lawsuit alleging legal malpractice and if your not careful your case could be dismissed before it gets started.  A recent case out of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal discusses a lower courts ruling in a legal malpractice lawsuit in favor of Defendants, Romauldo Gonzalez, Sr., and the Law Offices of Romauldo Gonzalez, L.L.C. d/b/a Braden Gonzalez and Associates (collectively, “Mr. Gonzalez”) based on prescription arguments.

In July of 2013, Marco Tulio Miralda filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against Mr. Gonzalez. In his petition, Mr. Miralda alleged that he retained Mr. Gonzalez in early 2008 in regards to renegotiating a mortgage note held by Wells Fargo on his New Orleans home. Mr. Miralda was in default on his mortgage note and Wells Fargo had initiated foreclosure proceedings on the property. Mr. Miralda alleged that Wells Fargo was inclined to negotiate reinstatement of the loan.

Mr. Miralda was allegedly advised by Jose Chacon, a non-attorney employee of Mr. Gonzalez’s law firm, to deposit $30,000 into a trust account to serve as a down payment, for purposes of the renegotiation. Per the instructions, Mr. Miralda deposited $33,864.75 into the trust account.

Continue reading

by

mailbox-1-1481771-1024x683In  order to file an insurance claim you first must have insurance coverage.  It’s important that you stay aware of the renewal dates for the continuation of coverage so that you do not end up losing out on critical insurance payments in times of crisis.  In certain situations it’s your insurance company or agent’s duty to notify you that your coverage has lapsed.  A recent case involving a homeowners insurance policy for a property located on Lafourche Street in New Orleans discusses the burden of proof necessary to justify a homeowner’s claims of improper notification of nonrenewal by his insurance agent.

In early 2000, after the roof of his property in New Orleans was damaged, Edward Collins filed a claim under his homeowner’s policy with State Farm Insurance Company. State Farm paid Mr. Collins for the damage per his homeowner’s policy for that claim. In 2004, Mr. Collins submitted a subsequent claim under his homeowner’s policy. State Farm performed an investigation and uncovered that Mr. Collins failed to repair his roof after his funds were disbursed for his 2000 claim. Upon this discovery, State Farm did not renew the homeowner’s policy when it expired in May of 2005.

Mr. Collins was sent a letter of nonrenewal on April 27, 2005. However, Mr. Collins asserts that he never received a notice of nonrenewal. In August of 2005, Mr. Collins filed a claim under the homeowner’s policy for damage to his property as a result of Hurricane Katrina. State Farm denied the claim, setting forth that there no longer was an existing policy for Mr. Collin’s property.

Continue reading

by

new-orleans-streetcar-1230694-1024x768Car accidents can be an alarming ordeal. Especially, where there has been a fatality involved. Generally, when a vehicle has been physically involved in an accident, the driver can expect to have some liability. However, liability can also be involved where a driver requires a passenger to exit a vehicle, and the passenger is subsequently struck and killed by an unknown driver, hours later.

This horrific circumstance was an all too real reality for John Cefalu, when the trial court found Mr, Cefalu and his insurer USAA Casualty Insurance Company, (USAA), partially liable for the death of Piero Larrea.   Mr. Cefalu was driving Mr. Larrera and some other friends back from a night of celebrating Mr. Cefalu’s birthday in New Orleans. Mr. Larrera allegedly became belligerent and Mr. Cefalu eventually pulled the car over on the side of the interstate and asked Mr. Larrera to exit the vehicle. Mr. Larrera was eventually hit and killed by an unknown phantom driver.

A lawsuit and subsequent trial followed that series of events.  After three days of testimony a jury verdict was returned.  The trial court accepted the jury’s verdict awarding damages to the plaintiff, the father of decedent, and the jury’s assignment of fault. The assignment of fault was as follows: Mr. Larrea, 54% at fault for his own death, Mr. Cefalu 28% at fault, and the hit and run driver 18% at fault.  Mr. Cefalu and USAA appealed the trial court’s judgment to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, arguing that improper jury instructions resulted in the adverse verdict. Mr. Larrea’s father answered the appeal seeking a modification or reversal of the judgment with respect to the allocation of fault to the unknown driver.

Continue reading

by

electric-tower-on-corn-field-1373345-1024x768In 1997, Brandon Hirstius purchased a tract of land in St Tammany Parish. Nearly 14 years later, in 2011, Mr. Hirstius complained of an unauthorized utility pole on his property belonging to BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. and filed a trespass lawsuit against the telecommunications company. In the midst of the June 2012 trial, Mr. Hirstius discovered the Renaissance Media, LLC, owned aerial wires attached to the utility pole in question.

In May 2013, Mr. Hirstius filed a trespass lawsuit against Renaissance seeking damages and a mandatory injunction requiring Renaissance to remove all its equipment from his property. In response, Renaissance filed a single pleading arguing that there was a peremptory exception of no right of action, meaning that Renaissance believed that Mr. Hirstius did not have a legal right of action, and, alternatively, Renaissance also  argued that Mr. Hirstius’ claims were prescribed, meaning that he did not file the trespass claim within a year of discovering Renaissance’s equipment on his property and therefore could not do so now.  See La. C.C.P. arts. 3492 & 3493.

The trial court concluded that Mr. Hirstius’ claims were prescribed and granted Renaissance’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the lawsuit against Renaissance. The court determined that Mr. Hirstius knew or should have known about the existence of the equipment on his property when he filed the lawsuit against BellSouth in 2011, and therefore, his filing of the lawsuit against Renaissance in 2013 was more than a year after such knowledge and he was therefore barred from seeking damages. Mr. Hirstius argued that his claims were not prescribed because the trespass by Renaissance was continuous, and therefore the one year clock had not started. The court rejected this argument. The court also denied Renaissance’s exception of no right of action on the basis of mootness.

Continue reading

by

fireman-s-playground-1496789-1024x768Playgrounds bring great joy to young children.  Countless hours are spent sliding down slides, swinging on swings and traversing monkey bars throughout the state of Louisiana.  While it might come as news to some, playground equipment has certain set standards for what age range is appropriate to play on the equipment.  In a recent case involving a Baptist Church Aftercare program in Jefferson Parish these standards were discussed when unfortunately a young girl broke her arm while playing on their playground.

In September 2010, a 19-month old girl fell and broke her arm playing on a playset while in an aftercare program at Riverside Baptist Church. The playset was only meant for children 5 years old or older.  The parents of that child felt that Riverside failed in providing age appropriate equipment and therefore sued Riverside for damages in a negligence claim.

Personal injury can arise in many different scenarios, ranging from automobile accidents to medical malpractice cases. A common occurrence in these claims include the theory of negligence. The legal foundation for a negligence (failure to use reasonable care) theory in Louisiana involves five elements: (1) the defendant (the party being sued) had a duty to exercise reasonable standard of care; (2) the defendant failed to exercise this duty; (3) because the defendant’s lack of exercising this duty properly caused the injury; (4) the defendant’s ‘substandard’ care was within the scope of liability (i.e. even if the cause, were they legally liable for the cause); (5) did actual damages (injury or economic loss) occur. La. C.C. art. 2315. 

Continue reading

by

medical-1240480-718x1024Medical malpractice lawsuits are known to be some of the most complicated, technical cases for injured parties. The average person does not have enough technical knowledge to infer negligence from a medical act or result. Because of this, many plaintiffs have to rely on expert testimony to explain nuanced details of the case and, ultimately, prove their case.

In Louisiana, for a plaintiff to recover damages in a medical malpractice lawsuit, they must prove that (1) there was a standard of care required for the practitioner, (2) the practitioner breached the standard of care, and (3) there was a causal connection between the breach and in the injury. Problems arise for injured parties when their expert testimony is unable to establish these elements and they are consequently subject to summary judgment; this is what happened to the Gonzaleses in their case against the Ochsner Clinic Foundation.

On November 7, 2006, Steven Gonzales saw his doctor for his diabetes at the Ochsner Clinic in Jefferson Parish Louisiana. In addition to the regular diabetes consultation, Mr. Gonzales brought a small bump on his elbow to the doctor’s attention and she diagnosed it as a cyst. The same events occurred again at his December 8, 2006 appointment with the doctor. After growing to the size of a quarter and interfering with his ability to use his arm, Mr. Gonzales requested that his doctor remove it; this occurred on 28 December 2006. After the growth was sent to a lab, Mr. Gonzales was informed that it was a stage II NO tumor of Merkel cell carcinoma, meaning that cancer was localized and had not spread to other areas of his body yet. Mr. Gonzales later had surgery to remove the tissue surrounding the tumor and radiation.

Continue reading

by

electric-shock-hazard-1310056-1024x683On the afternoon of April 13, 2011, Officer J.M. Bassett of the Shreveport Police Department heard loud music coming from a motorcycle parked at 251 E. 72nd in Shreveport Louisiana. When Officer Bassett attempted to make contact with the man, Jessie Scott, Scott became hostile. As the situation escalated, Officer Bassett employed his Taser stun gun and handcuffed Mr. Scott, placing him into custody and transporting Mr. Scott to the police station. At the station, Mr. Scott complained of chest pain and Mr. Scott was taken to the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, where it was determined that Mr. Scott was having a heart attack.

Mr. Scott and his wife later filed a lawsuit against the City of Shreveport for the tasing and subsequent heart attack which they alleged was directly caused by the tasing event.  After receiving the lawsuit the City of Shreveport filed a motion for summary judgment in which they argued the Scotts failed to produce any medical evidence showing a causal link between Mr. Scott being tased and his heart attack later that day.  The district court agreed with the City of Shreveport and dismissed the Scott’s case.  They then appealed that ruling to the Second Circuit Appellate Court of Louisiana.

The Appellate Court agreed with the District Court of Caddo that summary judgment in favor of  the City dismissing the allegations brought by the Scotts was correct. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact for all or part of the relief sought by a litigant. See Samaha v. Rau, 2007-1726 (La. 02/26/08), 977 So. 2d 880. Here, the Scotts are required to provide proof that there is a causal link between the tasing and Mr. Scott’s heart attack, but the Scotts failed to produce such evidence.

Continue reading

by

Prilosec and Nexium Lawsuit Claims
As medications known as PPIs become more and more common and readily available on the open market, the number of medication related injuries, complications and side effects also increase. Nexium and Prilosec have been known to cause serious medical conditions such as heart attack, kidney failure, and bone fractures, and prolonged use can increase the risk for these injuries dramatically. Currently, the number of law suits against the manufacturer of Prilosec and Nexium, AstraZeneca, continues to rise each day as more and more individuals are negatively affected by the drugs the company produces. Here are five things you need to know about these lawsuits against AstraZeneca and Prilosec/Nexium claims.

First, it is important to know that there are many different claims that an individual could have as a result of the use of Nexium or Prilosec. The claims against AstraZeneca have ranged from production of dangerous or defective medications, to insufficient labels warning of the dangers of the drugs, to even illegal marketing strategies which include hiding side effects and dangers from the public. If a loved one or family friend has died after complications arising from the use of Prilosec or Nexium, then a wrongful death claim could also be brought against the company.

Second, as Nexium is available over the counter and without a prescription now, the number of users, and therefore lawsuits, will continue to rise. This also means that a greater number of side effects and a greater variety of complications will also start to emerge. Thus, it is important to seek legal and medical advice if you are experiencing any sort of side effects from either Prilosec or Nexium, and not just the hallmark issues of kidney failure, heart attack and bone fractures. As more studies are being done, more and more side effects are being discovered and attributed to the medications. Be sure to consult a physician as well as a lawyer when preparing to file a lawsuit.

Continue reading

by

Arguably the most important thing for human health besides air is available and clean water.  When people behave carelessly, others can be harmed.  A mistake with something as valuable as the water supply can cause any number of injuries to those who rely upon it.  Negligence occurs in law where a person or company causes some sort of harm to another by failing to carry out some duty that person or company owes to the public.  Louisiana is a comparative fault state, meaning that when multiple parties are found by a court to be responsible for some injury, the court will divide the total amount to be paid by the parties in proportion to how much each party’s actions make that party at fault for the incident.  None of those held responsible  can escape paying its share just because someone else is more to blame.  The court will compare the actions of each person or company to determine who is more to blame when some harm occurs.

The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a recent and complex case concerning multiple parties involved in such an accident.  In 2006, the Walnut Bayou Water Association was repairing a water supply system that provided water to rural customers. These repairs involved temporarily emptying pipes. Nearby and unknown to Walnut Bayou, employees of the state Fifth Levee District were drawing water from one of these lines to dilute acid used to control weeds.  The combination of this pressure on the water system caused the herbicides to be released directly into the water supply. Neither organization had installed devices that would have prevented such a flow into the water lines.  Five days later, the poisoned water supply became evident to the several hundred customers of Walnut Bayou.  In response to the contaminated water, the water supply was shut off in the area for eight days.  Many of those in homes affected by the contamination and lack of water supply combined to sue both organizations as well as their insurers for the contamination and the failure to supply the usable water they were paying for.

Several years later, it was found that not all of the people on the water supply received the contaminated water. Those who had been proven to have gotten contaminated water were involved in a settlement, leaving only those who had been “upstream” of the released contaminants in the lawsuit.  These affected customers brought claims for property damage caused by the lack of water, additional costs they suffered in obtaining water from other sources during the shortage and afterward, and for emotional trauma caused by the fear of knowing their water might have been poisoned.  Many of these people refused to use the tap water to drink or cook for fear it might still carry traces of the toxic substances.  The trial court found that these people would only be able to receive money for the economic losses they suffered.  In order to determine how much each person would receive if the court found the organizations responsible, the court chose five of those plaintiffs at random to try their cases.  At the end, the court determined that $600 should be awarded to each of the affected people remaining in the lawsuit, and that the Levee district was 75 percent to blame for what had happened, and so would pay most of the costs.

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 – 2025, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design