Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
One of a parent’s worst nightmares is something happening to their child. This case delves into the heart-wrenching incident of a young child being struck by a neighbor’s car, leading to a complex legal battle to determine responsibility for the resulting injuries. While the child eventually recovered, the accident’s aftermath unleashed a lawsuit that delved into conflicting accounts and legal statutes governing pedestrian conduct. By examining the trial and appellate court’s proceedings, we gain insights that help answer the question: How does a court determine liability in a child pedestrian accident?
First – a bit of background on the context of the vehicle accident. When Sonya Meyer was driving home from taking her daughter to school, Cole Troxclair played in his front yard. As Meyer drove down the street from Troxclair’s home, her car struck Cole Troxclair. He was injured and spent about a day at the hospital. He returned to normal activities about a month or two later. Troxclair’s parents filed a lawsuit against Meyer and her insurer, Liberty Personal Insurance Company. Following a trial, the court found Meyer liable for the accident and awarded Troxclair $29,619.99 in damages.
Meyer and her insurance company challenged the trial court’s finding that Meyer was solely responsible for the accident. They argued Troxclair was accountable for his injuries because he ran in front of Meyer’s vehicle, and Meyer did not have time to take action to avoid hitting him. They argued that Troxclair violated La.R.S.32:212(b), which says pedestrians shall not suddenly leave a curb or other safe place and enter a vehicle’s path.
In personal injury cases, plaintiffs are often left vulnerable due to the accidents leading to their injuries. Hence, they require excellent attorneys who don’t exploit these vulnerabilities but instead zealously advocate on their behalf. For Claude Allen Newsome (“Newsome”), a November 2010 car accident in Bossier Parish, Louisiana, left him without sight, which was a direct result of macular degeneration caused by the accident. After that, Newsome was deemed legally blind and rendered a person with quadriplegia. Newsome appointed Robert Lansdale (“Lansdale”) as his power of attorney. What unfolded while seeking damages on behalf of Newsome demonstrates the necessity to lodge objections on the record and timely appeal matters.
For purposes of seeking an appeal, there is great importance in preserving the record, which may be done through admitting evidence at trial to support relevant claims. When the record has not been established at trial, it is difficult for the best attorneys to succeed on appeal. William Taylor (Mr. Taylor), the plaintiff in his case brought against Hanson North America (Hanson), ran into this evidentiary legal hurdle when he appealed the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC) decision denying his motion to Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeal.
Following an automobile accident, you will likely deal with insurance companies unwilling to pay what you believe you are owed. Insurance companies may rely on a multitude of evidence to support their decisions, including witness testimony. The following East Baton Rouge lawsuit demonstrates the weight courts may place on witness testimony following a car accident. 
What happens when a cow crosses a road? Although that might sound like the start of a joke, that is the situation Zaine Kasem found herself in after being run over by a cow that escaped from a herd owned by Joyce B. Williams and H.R. Williams Cattle Company (“HRW”). 
When you are preparing for a lawsuit, it is crucial to understand what evidence you will be allowed to present in support of your claim. On the flip side, if there is evidence you do not think the other party should be able to present, you can file a motion to try to exclude that evidence. Rulings on evidence can have a major effect on a case because they limit what a jury gets to see or hear. 
In the realm of lawsuits, there are always two sides to the story, presenting challenges in determining who will emerge victorious. However, even when faced with factual disputes, there is still hope for success in your worker’s compensation claim. The case of David Thibodaux, a truck driver for Grand Isle Shipyard, serves as a prime example of overcoming obstacles in the pursuit of justice. Despite skepticism about the origin of his injuries and facing resistance from his employer, Thibodaux’s perseverance and the support of a skilled attorney led to a favorable outcome. This story emphasizes the crucial role of legal counsel in guiding individuals through the complexities of workers’ compensation claims and ensuring the presentation of compelling evidence to support their case.
A pre-existing illness requiring time off is difficult, especially if one believes the work environment is worsening the condition. However, proving the environment is the cause of the worsening condition is difficult to do. So, how can a pre-existing illness affect a worker’s compensation claim? What happens if you cannot prove a causal link between a work environment and a worsening condition? The following Louisiana Court of Appeals case helps answer these questions. 
Dreaming of your day in court? Understanding the crucial elements necessary to succeed in your claim is essential. When pursuing a negligence lawsuit, one of the most challenging elements to establish is proving that the other party caused your injuries. Failure to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating a factual dispute regarding the cause of your injuries may lead to the dismissal of your lawsuit at the summary judgment stage, even before stepping foot in a courtroom. This case highlights the significance of meeting the burden of proof on causation and the potential consequences of failing to do so.
When pursuing a medical malpractice claim in Louisiana, adhering to the necessary procedural requirements is crucial for a successful case. Failure to comply with statutory obligations can lead to legal battles centered around procedural technicalities rather than the merits of the claim.