Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Louisiana law awards damages awarded for injuries caused by the intentional, negligent or reckless act of another. These damages are determined by the finder of fact – a jury or judge – after hearing the evidence presented at trial. Even if the factfinder finds that the defendant is at fault, sometimes it is not clear cut what type of damages should be awarded and what amount is proper. A recent case out of Livingston Parish demonstrates how courts in Louisiana allocate damages in personal injury cases.
Vandi McMurry was involved in a motor vehicle accident with James Commander, who was insured by Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company. The Trial Court awarded McMurry a $25,000 lump sum award in general and special damages. General and special damages are the most common types of damages awarded in personal injury cases. General damages are the natural result of the defendant’s wrongful actions. Special damages compensate an injured party for actual financial losses. McMurry appealed the judgment to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal, arguing the Trial Court erred in granting a lump sum and the award should have been higher.
In Louisiana, the factfinder has discretion when it awards damages because it can best evaluate witness credibility and examine the evidence. See La. C.C. art. 2324.1. A court of appeal will normally not a modify a trial court’s damage awards. See O’Connor v. Litchfield, 864 So.2d 234, 237 (La. Ct. App. 2003). A lump sum judgment generally awards all claimed damages. In Louisiana, a trial court is not required to itemize the damages and does not err by granting a lump sum award.
The Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act aims to protect employees who suffer on-the-job injuries. But in order to benefit from the act, plaintiffs have the burden of proving their claims. This means providing clear and convincing documentation of your injuries and work limitations. In a recent case, the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff failed in meeting this burden of proof.
Appellate courts are reluctant to reverse a trial court’s judgment based on the argument the trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence. Deference to a lower court is the norm. A recent decision by the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal in DeBlanc v. Albertson’s highlights the principle of judicial deference.
Concursus proceedings can be complicated. In a concursus proceeding, multiple parties assert competing claims to money or property. 
“An eye for an eye will only make the world blind,” said Mahatma Gandhi. In a recent case, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC claimed that one of its employees filed a lawsuit against it as retaliation for her dismissal from the company. The Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal was faced with the question of whether that employee actually suffered a compensable work-related injury or whether her claims were suspect.
When a person is injured, timeliness and diligence are required to hold the responsible party liable under the law. If either element is missing, the injured person will lose the ability to seek relief. An early procedural hurdle plaintiffs face in litigation is the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Here, the plaintiff must exercise diligence in gathering the necessary evidence to articulate genuine issues of material fact or face dismissal. Another procedural hurdle is the exception of prescription. Similar to what other states would refer to as a “statute of limitation”, prescription is a legal mechanism which prevents a person from pursuing a lawsuit after a certain period of time. In a recent case of the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal, several procedural hurdles prevented the plaintiff from obtaining recovery. 
The devil is in the details is a well-known idiom that holds true in this case. It was only upon a close examination of the factual details set out in the trial record that the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled in the plaintiff’s favor. In the case, the Fourth Circuit discusses the two-step process used to determine if the lower court correctly calculated its award of special damages. 
A jury’s verdicts can an often depend upon which party it believes the most. In a jury trial, the jury is indeed the trier of fact. It hears the evidence and makes findings of fact based on the credibility of witnesses and other evidence presented at trial. In a case out of Gonzales, Louisiana the verdict hinged on whether the Plaintiff, Mindy Weiley, appeared credible to the jury or whether she seemed to be a liar. 
Excessive police force has become a nightly topic in the American news cycle. Ranging from discrimination to life-and-death situations, no one wants to be on the receiving end of mistreatment. In a recent case, a Louisiana woman experienced what she felt was excessive force by law enforcement officers in her own home. The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed. In its decision, the Court of Appeal discussed the burden of proof necessary to succeed on civil rights claims against government officers.
In Louisiana, the law benefits those who take timely action in pursuit of their claims or defense. It can also punish the untimely. In a very unfortunate case, the Plaintiff, a grieving widow, missed an opportunity to overturn an adverse trial court decision. In the case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal discusses the procedural avenues of supervisory review available to litigants, highlighting the need to be diligent in meeting procedural requirements.