Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer BlogThe Berniard Law Firm is proud to be a New Orleans-based organization and nothing says NOLA better than Mardi Gras!
We wish all of our readers a happy, and safe, Mardi Gras holiday!
Articles Posted in Real Estate
What Rights Do Citizens of Louisiana Have Against Local Governments?
There are some circumstances under which states and local governments are immune from liability. For example, in most states a state or local government is immune in relation to the normal acts of governance. However, what things a government can be liable for is defined by the state constitution and state legislation. The government can limit its liability in any responsible and constitutional manner possible. In Louisiana, as it pertains to civil liability, state and local government liability is dealt with in La. R.S. 9:2800. In pertinent part this provision states:
“…no person shall have a cause of action based solely upon liability imposed under Civil Code Article 2317 against a public entity for damages caused by the condition of things within its care and custody unless the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the particular vice or defect which caused the damage prior to the occurrence, and the public entity had a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect and has failed to do so.”
This provision clearly describes the liability imposed on a Louisiana government in the case that the governmental entity owns and operates property. The types of property can range from sidewalks, roads, public educational institutions, and many other types of property. The essential aspect of when the governmental entity can be liable is based on actual or constructive knowledge and an opportunity to remedy the defect after acquiring the knowledge. Courts have taken great care in defining actual and constructive knowledge. The Louisiana Supreme Court has defined actual knowledge as knowledge of dangerous defects or conditions by a corporate officer or employee of the public entity having a duty either to keep the property in repair or report any defects to the proper authority. The Louisiana Supreme Court has defined constructive knowledge as it is defined in La. R.S. 9:2800, as the existence of facts that infer knowledge. What is crucial is understanding the scope of the definition of constructive knowledge. For example, an absence of a plan to inspect does not confer constructive knowledge on a governmental entity. In the past, plaintiffs have brought claims that attempted to expose local governments to liability based on the governmental entity’s lack of a procedure to inspect publicly owned property on a regular basis.
Kentucky Supreme Court Case Shows Need for Excellent Representation
A recent case within the Kentucky Court of Appeals demonstrates very extremely the need for quality counsel in all court proceedings. Regardless the subject or reasons you may find yourself in court, it is important that the lawyer you hire is not only able to represent you well in the courtroom and past it. While you would like to think the courts have the rule of law well established in the minds of their judges, a qualified attorney will also review the matters at hand to make sure all ‘facts’ are correct in the proceedings.
In the case of Bramer Crane Servs., LLC v. Structure Builders & Riggers Mach. Moving Div., LLC, a lien issue was reviewed by the superior court of the state. While the actual facts of the case are not important for this post, what is important is that the findings of the court were inherently flawed. Cited in the case was a fact that was severely outdated, as much as 20+ years and two revisions.
As the blog Zlien notes, instead of a clean finding, the court had lapsed in its research and failed to note updated law. The issue was that the ruling relied on judicial precedence rather than a review of legislation passed during this time. While one would like to consider the issue a simple lapse in judicial research, the fact remains that this unpublished decision could very easily have gone unnoticed without people stepping up.
Identifying the Wrong Defendant in Civil Suit Can Lead to Lost Opportunity
The civil justice system has a few bare minimum requirements that must be met before a party can be successful in any given litigation. In order for a party to be successful in a civil action, that party’s case must make sense to the court in terms of the party accused, injury presented, etc. Initiating action against the correct defendant seems like it would be a given, however that is not always the case. Ms. Charise Thomas was injured in a particular location, eventually suing the owner of the location, Mr. Antonio Harris, due to the incident. Ms. Thomas also sued that man’s father, Mr. Aaron Harris. Unfortunately for Ms. Thomas, she did not initiate action against the estate of one Mr. Thirkield J. Smith, the owner of the property on the date of her accident.
The trial court granted Aaron Harris a peremptory exception of prescription and Antonio Harrris a summary judgment. These two different types of relief are granted for different reasons, having similar results but different standards of review on appeal. Each requires different elements in order to be granted to the moving party. In this case, they were also both upheld by the appellate court.
An exception of prescription is granted by a trial court when a certain time period has elapsed between the incident giving rise to a particular suit and the filing of that suit. Since Ms. Thomas never ended up filing against the appropriate party, Aaron Harris’ peremptory exception of prescription was granted and upheld on appeal. The trial court’s decision is given a fairly high amount of deference on appeal and is reviewed under the manifest error standard. If the trial court is found not to have abused its discretion, its decision will not be overturned.
Appeals Court Determines Judgment Due to Conflict of Fact
Juries have always been an important part of our legal system. Although many people dread jury duty, they are really performing a service when they are called. That service involves providing a judgment by a panel of your peers. We place a great deal of value in judgment rendered by your fellow community members.
Generally, juries consist of twelve people and nine of those twelve people have to agree to whatever outcome of the case is appropriate. The jury is allowed to speak with one another and look over evidence to make this determination. While the verdict may be as general as guilty or not guilty, there are also cases where the jury will be asked specific questions related to the case. As a rule, the jury is a finder of fact and their fact conclusions are treated as if they are complete fact, even if there may be some question. If the jury concludes that the grass is blue and the sky is green, then that’s how it is.
However, if the jury comes up with a ridiculous verdict given the circumstances, then the judge can reverse them. If the jury says the grass is blue and the sky is green, then the judge will recognize how strange that is and override their determination. If the question is closer, however, the judge will default to whatever the jury decides.
Home Fire Worsened Due to Parish Road Crew Severing Phone, Water Lines
In 2006, a mobile home caught fire in Winnfield, Louisiana. The couple that owned the home was obviously frightened and confused. However, they were especially concerned because their phone line was not working and their water had virtually no pressure. Therefore, the husband drove to a neighbor’s house to seek a phone to call the fire department and the wife stayed at home to try to control the flames. Because of the lack of water pressure, unfortunately, the flames became too much for the woman to handle. These two factors, the lack of phone and water pressure, no doubt contributed to the excessive amount of damage to their home.
Why did these disastrous conditions occur? The Winn Parish road crew accidentally cut their phone and water lines three days before the fire. They were in the process of fixing the water line and the phone company had yet to send someone out to fix the phone line when the fire occurred. The fire was caused by an unrelated incident, but the three occurrences combined proved to be disastrous for the couple.
The couple contacted their insurance company right away to help with the expenses. The insurance company provided $55,047.55 in compensation costs based on their homeowners’ insurance coverage. However, the couple also sued the Winn Parish Police Jury because they thought the damage caused by the fire would be much less had they had the use of decent water pressure and phone line to contact emergency personnel.
Class Action Involving Plant Releases Demonstrates How Certification Occurs
Creating laminated veneer lumber and I-Joists, which are used in residential and commercial construction, require toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. The chemicals also end up in the waste products of plants that produce these goods. In the Parish of Natchitoches, hundreds of individuals discovered the damage that these chemicals could cause. These individuals stated “that sawdust from the plant fell like snowflakes upon them, their children, their homes and their cars.” The plant admitted that accidental release of admissions were fairly common, and they were all observed and recorded.
As a result of this exposure, hundreds of plaintiffs joined to form a class action lawsuit. A class action lawsuit involves numerous individuals who have suffered in a similar manner, usually resulting from the same incident or series of incidents. Class action lawsuits allow individual people to get compensation for damages where they may not have been able to if they just sued by themselves.
The damages in this case not only included the obvious mess that sawdust would create in a home, but also included an array of medical issues. Some examples include conjunctivitis, difficulty breathing, wheezing, coughing, bronchial pneumonia, and asthma. The side effects of exposure to the chemicals in the plant were relatively the same as those claimed by hundreds of nearby residents.
Chlorine Gas Leak Case Offers Lesson on Products Liability Claims
Four workers who were employed by the Prairieville-based Proserve Hydro Co. were working on at a Honeywell International facility when a hose carrying chlorine gas ruptured, causing them injury. The workers sued Triplex, Inc., the company that had sold the hose to Honeywell, under the theory that it was liable for their injuries as the manufacturer of the hose. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, applying the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA), granted summary judgment in favor of Triplex, and the workers appealed.
In its review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit noted that The Louisiana Supreme Court has identified four elements that a plaintiff must establish in a products liability suit under the LPLA. It focused particualrly on the requirement that the defendant must be the “manufacturer” of the product according to the state’s definition. The lower court’s summary judgment was based on Triplex’s position that it was not a manufacturer of the hose within the meaning of the LPLA. The hose in question was a “Resistoflex Chlorine Hose Part # HB30HB30HB-1560.” It consisted of a Teflon inner-core surrounded by a braided material jacket. The core and jacket were assembled by the Crane Resistoflex Company and shipped in bulk to Triplex for distribution. Upon receipt of an order from Honeywell, Triplex cut the hose to the requested length, installed Resistoflex-approved fittings to either end, and pressure-tested the hose. Triplex recorded the specifications of this work on an assembly test certificate which listed “Resistoflex” as the manufacturer of the hose.
The court looked to the LPLA to determine whether, based on its cutting the Resistoflex hose and installing the end fittings, Triplex fit the definition of “manufacturer.” It noted that the workers’ expert conceded that the hose rupture occured a significant distance away from any end fitting and did not appear to result from the modifications Triplex performed. It also affirmed the point that “the simple act of testing a product after modifications,” as Triplex did, “does not transform a seller into a statutory ‘manufacturer.’” The court was not persuaded that Triplex exercised any “control over… a characteristic of the design, construction or quality of the product,” given that Honeywell specified the exact Resistoflex part number and the end fittings it required. Accordingly, the court concluded that Triplex was not a manufacturer under the state law definition, and therefore could not be found liable for the workers’ injuries under the LPLA.
Louisiana’s Third Circuit Upholds Prescription Finding in Kinder Property Contamination Case
In 1960, Hunt Petroleum Corporation (“Hunt”) entered into a surfaces lease with the Reynolds family. In 1997, Kinder Gas Processing Corporation (“Kinder Gas”), one of Hunt’s successors in interest, notified the Reynolds of an environmental study “that showed a few things [Kinder Gas] wanted to clean up,” and that it was “in the process of cleaning them up.” Over several years, Kinder Gas discussed with the Reynolds the possibility of buying part of the property and cancelling the entire lease. On January 14, 2008, the Reynolds (through a real estate appraiser) offered to sell the entire property to Kinder Gas. The offer referred to environmental problems on the property caused by Kinder Gas or its predecessors.
In 2010, Kinder Gas brought suit for a declaratory judgment against the Reynolds to avoid liability for damage to the Reynolds’ property. In turn, the Reynolds sought damages against Kinder Gas and other successors (“the Gas Companies”) in connection with toxic wastes that were spilled or disposed on the property. The Reynolds relied on theories of strict liability, nuisance, continuing trespass, and breach of contract. They asserted that the lease was cancelled as a result of the Gas Companies’ breach of contract. The Gas Companies countered that the tort claims had prescribed, and that the breach of contract claim was premature.
The Kinder Gas v. Reynolds trial court agreed with the Gas Companies, finding that the Reynolds’ had constructive knowledge of possible contamination prior to the real estate agent’s January 14, 2008 offer. Citing Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp. and Hogg v. Chevron USA, the court held that the Reynolds’ failure to file their tort claims within a year from this date resulted in prescription. The court also found that the lease was still in effect. Relying on Dore Energy Company v. Carter-Langham, Inc., the court held that the Reynolds’ contract claim for restoration of land on which operations were ongoing was premature.
Louisiana’s Third Circuit Overturns Decision Limiting Landowners’ Recovery of Damages in Vermillion Parish Pollution Case
In Louisiana v. Louisiana Land and Exploration, the State of Louisiana and the Vermilion Parish School Board brought suit against Union Oil Company of California (“Unocal”) and other oil companies for remediation of polluted state property in Vermilion Parish. Unocal admitted that it was responsible for environmental damage on the property and filed a motion to refer the case to the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) pursuant to Act 312 of 2006, La.R.S. 30:29. Plaintiffs objected, arguing that such a referral could not take place until all Defendants admitted responsibility and the private claims were tried to the jury. The trial court agreed with Plaintiffs.
Unocal filed a motion for partial summary judgment limiting Plaintiffs’ remediation damage claims to the amount determined by LDNR to be “the most feasible plan to evaluate or remediate the environmental damage” under La.R.S. 30:29(c)(3). Unocal argued that this language served as a cap on remediation damages resulting from a tort or the implied restoration obligation of a mineral lease. The trial court agreed.Plaintiffs appealed to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued a decision on the case on February 1, 2012.
In considering whether La.R.S. 30:29 limited Plaintiff’s recoverable remediation damages to the cost of a “feasible plan,” the appeals court first looked to the language of the statute. The court quoted the first sentence of La.R.S. 32:29(H): “This section shall not preclude an owner of land from pursuing a judicial remedy or receiving a judicial award for private claims suffered as a result of environmental damage, except as otherwise provided in this Section.” The court found that this language clearly contemplated the landowner receiving an award in addition to that provided by the feasible plan.