Articles Posted in Wrongful Death

by

On May 7, 2003, Centerpoint Energy disconnected the natural gas service at the house of Carl Jones, Sr. and his family because they were past due on an outstanding balance. A short time later, Jones and his son removed the gas stove from the kitchen and replaced it with an electric model. Unfortunately, Jones forgot to cap the gas line before installing the new stove. Late in the evening of June 15, 2004, after having been without a functioning water heater since the disconnection, Jones reconnected the gas line. He did so because he was expecting guests the following day and wished to have a supply of hot water that did not require stove-top heating. To make the reconnection, Jones used a wrench to snap off the red plastic locking device that the Centerpoint technician had installed on the line when he closed the valve. Unable to re-light his water heater, Jones assumed no gas was flowing and went to bed. By morning, the house was filled with gas, and as the family arose several large fireballs erupted. Jones, his wife, and their four children were severely injured in the explosion. Jones sued Centerpoint seeking to recover for his and his family’s injuries. A trial was held in July, 2010. After the judge denied Centerpoint’s motion for a directed verdict, a jury apportioned half of the fault to Centerpoint and half to Jones and awarded substantial sums to Jones’s family members for their injuries. Centerpoint appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in permitting the case to go to the jury at all. In Centerpoint’s view, its duty to reasonably disconnect gas service for non-payment did not extend to protecting Jones against the explosion caused “by [his] subsequent negligent, intentional, criminal and then grossly negligent conduct.”

An appeal of a trial court’s denial of a motion for a directed verdict requires the appellate court’s de novo review because such a motion can be granted “only if the facts and inferences are so overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that the court finds that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict.” The Third Circuit began its analysis by noting that “[t]o prevail in their personal injury suit, the plaintiffs bore the burden of establishing that Centerpoint Energy was at fault in causing the accident, using a duty-risk analysis.” Centerpoint argued that Jones failed to meet this burden, in part, because he could not establish that the utility did not conform to the appropriate standard of care when shutting off the gas supply. The court found two sources for the scope of duty imputed to Centerpoint. First, Louisiana case law takes the position that it is

“common knowledge … that natural gas, being highly flammable and explosive in nature, is an inherently dangerous instrumentality. Those who handle and distribute it are charged with that degree of care commensurate with its dangerous character for the protection of the public from any foreseeable injury.” Giordano v. Rheem Manufacturing Co..

Continue reading

by

Plaintiffs have the right judicially, to assert a legal action against a defendant that consists of operative facts giving rise to the plaintiff’s complaint. The issue for the court may become whether the plaintiff does in fact, have a cause of action. If the law does not support the facts alleged, the defendant may have the opportunity to file a peremptory exception of no cause of action. This exception questions the basis of the plaintiff’s complaint, does the plaintiff allege an injury, harm, or sustained damage that is able to be remedied under the law? Or, does the plaintiff’s complaint lack the vital element of legal support in order to become “whole again” under the law? These questions were explored recently by the Second Circuit Court of Appeal in Louisiana. The Court reviewed the trial court’s judgment finding that the plaintiff’s had no cause of action against the defendants as a result of an apparent absence of legal support. However, the appellate court found differently, explaining in detail the reasons for which they reversed the trial court’s decision and allowed the plaintiff’s case to move forward against the defendants.

The plaintiffs in this case experienced every parent’s worst nightmare, the death of their daughter. The question for the court was who should be ultimately responsible for the death considering the tragic circumstances. The facts include the victim and two class mates who allegedly bullied her severely, to the point the young girl transferred to a different high school in order to avoid the emotional distress. One day, while exiting the bus after school, the young girl was approached by the two former class mates she had tried so hard to avoid. A heated altercation ensued, in which the young girl was pushed in front of an oncoming school bus where she was quickly run over and died as a result of her injuries. The young girl’s mother brought the suit against the school board, State Farm Mutual Insurance, the superintendent of the school board, the principal of her daughter’s former high school, the bus driver that struck her daughter, the mothers of both of the involved former classmates, and three “on duty” teachers. The plaintiff argued that the defendants were negligent in numerous ways, including the failure to supervise, failure to timely respond to the fight and failure to adequately staff the bus are with teachers or school personnel. Further, the complaint alleged that the bus driver saw or should have seen the fight and failed to stop his vehicle, disregarding the safety of the children aboard the bus and the children in the school bus zone. However, the defendants asserted the plaintiff had no cause of action against the school board employees in their individual capacities under Louisiana Revised Statute 17:439 which reads,

“Except as otherwise provided in this Section, no person shall have a cause of action against any school employee based on any statement made or action taken by the school employee provided that the action or statement was within the course and scope of the school employees’ duties as defined by the school board in which the school employee is employed and was within the specific guidelines for school employee behavior as established by that school board.”

Continue reading

by

Louisiana law requires that the driver of a motor vehicle maintain a safe distance from other cars and that the driver “not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.” A driver who rear-ends another car is “presumed to have breached this duty” and, therefore, is assumed to be negligent. To challenge this presumption, the driver must prove he was not at fault for the collision by establishing two facts: 1) that he had his vehicle under control, and 2) closely observed the lead vehicle and followed at a safe distance under the circumstances. See Broussard v. Zurich American Ins. Co. The driver can also avoid fault by showing that the driver of the leading car “negligently created a hazard which could not reasonably be avoided. In the case of a multi-car accident, “the fact that the second driver is able to see and avoid an emergency situation ahead sets the standard of care applicable to the other following drivers.” Anderson v. May.

A three-car accident was at the center of Ebarb v. Matlock, a case recently decided by Louisiana’s Second Circuit Court of Appeal. On December 3, 2008, Yolanda Ebarb was driving her Kia Sorento in the left east-bound lane of I-20 in Bossier City. As she approached the overpass at Old Minden Road, she observed that the traffic ahead in both lanes had stoped. She applied her brakes and came to a complete stop safely behind the vehicle in front of her. A moment later, David Terry, driving his Jeep Cherokee also in the left east-bound lane of I-20, approached the same location. Terry noticed the stopped traffic and safely stopped his vehicle directly behind Ebarb’s.Then, Terry’s Jeep was hit from behind at high speed by a Ford F-250 pickup truck driven by Phillip Matlock. The Jeep pushed forward, rolled over, and collided with Ebarb’s Kia. Ebarb suffered a serious spinal injury as a result. Matlock was cited for following to closely at the scene. Ebarb sued both Terry and Matlock. The trial court granted summary judgment against Ebarb in Terry’s favor and against Matlock in Ebarb’s favor. Matlock appealed. The Second Circuit reviewed the law on rear-end collisions in Louisiana and the presumption of negligence against the driver. The court applied a duty-risk analysis to the circumstances and to Matlock’s conduct, which was bolstered only by his “self-serving statements” that he had his vehicle under control, closely observed the lead vehicle, and followed at a safe distance under the circumstances.” The court concluded that Matlock failed to meet the standard of care “established” by Terry and Ebarb when they were both able to safely stop their cars after coming upon the stalled traffic. The court noted that “to rebut the objective evidence that two other drivers were able to safely stop and avoid a collision, Mr. Matlock has failed to offer any competent evidence.” Because Matlock “failed to establish that he will be able to rebut the presumption of his own negligence at trial,” the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment for Ebarb.

The facts of this case left Matlock with little opportunity to rebut the presumption of his negligence in rear-ending Terry’s Jeep. That Ebarb and Terry both managed to stop safely when they realized the traffic was stopped ahead suggests that any reasonable driver in control of his vehicle should have been able to do the same. Without evidence of any mitigating circumstances, Matlock’s defense was overcome by the presumption of his negligence.

Continue reading

by

Car accidents are a common occurrence and when a car accident is caused by another party, you want to receive the appropriate relief for doctor’s bils, aches, pains and other accruing expenses. Just because an individual has received damages owed to him from one car accident should by no means preclude him from getting the deserved amount from a subsequent accident.

John Clyde Deville was involved in a car accident as a result of being hit by a mail truck that ran a red light. From the scene of the accident, Deville was taken to the emergency room complaining of neck, shoulder and back pain. At the hospital he was diagnosed with both cervical and lumbar disc herniations. Upon seeing a family physician, Deville was prescribed pain medication and sent to physical therapy. With little success, he was then referred to an orthopedic surgeon who suggested that epidural steroid injections may be the only viable option to alleviate the pain. While the first round of injections produced a small round of relief, Deville began to feel a noticeable reduction in pain with the second round.

Just as things were getting better and Deville began to feel relief, he was involved in another accident where he was sideswiped by another vehicle. While the impact from this vehicle was not extreme, his car was still thrown from his lane of travel and onto the sidewalk. As a result of this accident, Mr. Deville began to feel an increased tightness and pain in his back, pain that had originally subsided from the previous accident. He chose not to seek medical treatment immediately because he had food in his vehicle which had to be delivered. When he finally saw his physician, the severe pain had returned and this time, the injections did not help. Finally, based on advice from his doctor lumbar surgery was performed. However, the results were mixed and Deville still complained of a gnawing pain in his lumbar spine.

Continue reading

by

If a company manufactures a defective product, and an individual is injured by that product, the manufacturer may be liable for the damages suffered by the product-user. The product, be it a cleaning supply or an automobile part, or any number of different items found in everyday life, bears an element of responsibility of reliability and worthiness when it is delivered by a manufacturer. When that responsibility is breeched, legal remedy is available.

As the Fifth Circuit described in the seminal case of Matthews v. Remington Arms Co., in order for an injured party to win an action against a product manufacturer, that party must prove: (1) that the party, or another “person or entity” was using the product in a manner reasonably anticipated by the manufacturer; (2) that an aspect of the product directly caused the damage(s) claimed; “(3) the product was ‘unreasonably dangerous’ either in construction, design, or warning; and (4) the characteristic rendering the product unreasonably dangerous either ‘exist[ed] at the time the product left the control of its manufacturer or result[ed] from a reasonably anticipated alteration or modification of the product.’”

If a party can show that a product, used in a way reasonably anticipated, could harm a product-user, the manufacturer may have a legal duty to design its product in a manner which would avoid such harm. As explained by the Fifth Circuit, a reasonably anticipated use is a “use or handling of a product that the product’s manufacturer should reasonably expect of an ordinary person in the same or similar circumstances.” If it can be shown that a product was misused and that misuse resulted in the damages claimed by the product-user, then that user cannot collect against the manufacturer for his or her damages.

Continue reading

by

Hospitals, their staff, and doctors must treat patients in accordance with an established “standard of care.” A standard of care is generally the amount of care a reasonable person would exercise in a particular situation. For doctors and nurses this means that they must act in a manner similar to a reasonable person with similar training and skills in that profession. They must conform their conduct to the customs of their profession.

In the seminal case, Belinda and Jonathon Johnson (“the plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit against Morehouse General Hospital and Ms. Johnson’s treating doctor. The plaintiffs alleged that the negligent care provided by the treating doctor and the hospital staff to Ms. Johnson resulted in injuries to plaintiffs’ son.

Belinda Johnson is an insulin-dependent diabetic and, because of this condition, her pregnancy was considered high-risk. In such high-risk pregnancies, delivery is usually accomplished through a C-section once the baby’s lungs have sufficiently developed. When Ms. Johnson was approximately 36 1/2 weeks pregnant, she made an appointment with her treating doctor because she had become concerned about the baby’s health. Over the course of the next four days, Ms. Johnson received care from Morehouse Hospital staff and her treating doctor because of continuing concerns regarding the Ms. Johnson’s baby. According to the trial court jury findings, both the Morehouse Hospital staff and the treating doctor were negligent in their care of Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson’s son was born with brain damage and cerebral palsy which were caused by lack of oxygen to the brain during the delivery process.

Continue reading

by

In a previous post, we discussed Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (“UM”) coverage provisions in auto insurance policies. In short, UM coverage is intended to protect the policyholder in cases of injury or loss inflicted by another driver who has inadequate insurance or no insurance at all. UM coverage is not without limitation; however, as most policies apply the coverage only to the named policyholder himself and in cases when the loss or injury occurs through use of the vehicle covered by the policy. In Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co., the court stated that an insurance policy is “a contract between the parties and should be construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth in the Civil Code.” Thus, the policy language will control the details of UM coverage, so long as any limitations in the provision do not violate public policy.

The general rules of contract interpretation were applied by Louisiana’s Second Circuit Court of Appeal in the case of Kottenbrook v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. On June 29, 2009, Jack Kottenbrook, an Ouachita Parish sheriff’s deputy, was involved in a car accident while riding as a passenger in a police cruiser. He suffered serious injuries in the crash and sought damages before eventually settling with the at-fault driver and the driver’s insurer. Kottenbrook then filed a lawsuit against Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, alleging he was covered under the underinsured motorist provision in a policy for which he was identified as an “additional listed insured.” This policy was issued to Jack Armstrong, Inc., a corporation, and specifically covered a Ford Mustang owned by the corporation. Kottenbrook was, however, not driving this Ford Mustang when the accident occured, so the court must look to the direct policy language to determine if he was occupying a “covered vehicle” in which the policy would provide him coverage.

Shelter disputed that the policy’s UM coverage extended to Kottenbrook, given that he was not “occupying” the “covered vehicle” at the time of his injuries. The Second Circuit declared that “the coverage extended to Kottenbrook is defined and limited under the policy.” A reading of the definitions contained within the policy led the court to find that UM coverage “was limited to Kottenbrook’s use of the [Mustang,]” not any other vehicle such as the police cruiser. The court found nothing impermissible about this limitation from a public policy perspective, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment for Shelter. It is important to read and understand the coverage of a UM insurance policy because they are often equipped with a variety of limitations. As in Caldwater v. Allstate Insurance Co., insurance policies are contracts that must be looked at with a careful set of eyes to truly understand how every provision hidden in the contract applies to unfortunate circumstances like Mr. Kottenbrook.

Continue reading

by

Cities and towns are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of streets and sidewalks. The issue arises though, when such streets and sidewalks fall into disrepair and injure residents. Yet, no person shall have a cause of action against a public entity (such as a city) for damages caused by the condition of things within its care and custody unless such entity had actual or constructive notice of the particular vice or defect which caused the damage prior to the occurrence, and the public entity has had reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect and has failed to do so. Louisiana revised Statute 9:2800. To recover against a public entity such as a city for damages certain requirements have to be met. Thus, unless the legal requirements are all fulfilled a plaintiff may or may not be able to recover depending on the circumstances.

In a recent Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal decision, the court explores the requirements that a plaintiff must meet in order to recover for injuries sustained as a result of a defective thing in the city’s custody and care. The facts of the case involve a plaintiff who was walking her dog along a city sidewalk in Shreveport, Louisiana. While walking her dog she tripped over an elevated portion of the sidewalk and fell to the ground. The fall caused her substantial pain in her shoulder which led her to seek medical treatment the day after the incident at the emergency room of Willis Knighton Health Center. She eventually filed a petition for damages against the defendant city of Shreveport and was awarded $964.99 for medical expenses and $20,000 in general damages. The City appealed the decision on the basis that the requirements for a lawsuit against a city were not fulfilled.

To recover against a city for damages due to a defective thing, such as a sidewalk, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of evidence four things.

Continue reading

by

The use of asbestos in products such as concrete, bricks, pipes, and other building materials has made way for a large amount of litigation on asbestos-related diseases and deaths. This litigation can help victims of the chemical and their families find some sort of meaning and relief from the toxic material. Litigation on asbestos, however, is very difficult both because the asbestos-related damages did not result from a single, identifiable act, and because it is not only the companies that produced the asbestos which are guilty- it is also those that used and marketed it.

A recent case contains both of these difficulties. Phillip Graf was exposed to asbestos for a period of 30 years while working in several jobs including metal works and drywall. Such extended exposure to such toxic material places one at risk of contracting mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer. Graf suffered from mesothelioma and later died from the disease. His family, Beatrice, Doryk, and Paulette Graf are suing in response to his death. They have named 29 defendants in the case, including Benjamin Moore & Co. and Metropolitan Life. The Graf family claims that the defendants are not only guilty of designing, manufacturing, packaging, transporting, and selling asbestos products, but also aiding and abetting the marketing of asbestos products.

In a traditional personal injury case, the damage results from a single act, but in asbestos cases such as Phillip Graf’s, the damages occurred over periods as long as 30 years or longer. What is worse, typically problems that result from asbestos exposure take years to show. Mesothelioma itself is impossible to detect early on and its symptoms are similar to other diseases, so patients are frequently misdiagnosed. All of this makes it very difficult for plaintiffs to prove that their health problems resulted from asbestos exposure and then link that asbestos exposure to the actions of the defendants. In the Graf case, the Graf family will have to show that the suffering and death Phillip Graf endured from his mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure, and that the named defendants caused that exposure.

Continue reading

by

The Town of Vidalia and the Parish of Concordia have the honor and distinction of being the beneficiary and location, respectively, of the largest prefabricated power plant in the world and the first hydroelectric power plant in the State of Louisiana. In 1990 the Sidney A. Murray Jr. hydroelectric station was prefabricated at the Avondale Shipyard in New Orleans, and floated 208 miles upriver to its current location: 40 miles south of Vidalia. The facility sits one mile north of the Army Corp of Engineers Old River Control Complex between the Mississippi River and the Red Atchafalaya River, producing 192 megawatts by utilizing the flow of 170,000 cubic feet per second of water past eight hydroelectric turbines. The project is remarkable not just because it is the first hydroelectric plant in Louisiana, and the largest prefabricated hydroelectric plant on the planet; but it is also the product of a multinational collaboration, it produces clean and renewable energy for Vidalia, and the town of Vidalia is a co-licensee of the project. In addition to the obvious benefits of clean and renewable energy and the employment that the Sidney A Murray Jr. project bestows on Vidalia and the Parish of Concordia; the citizens of Vidalia also benefit from “stabilized energy rates” that they receive with the operation of the plant.

Catalyst Old River Hydroelectric Limited Partnership v. Ingram Barge Co.; American River Transportation Co. is a particularly interesting case for those living in Concordia Parish because it is a maritime tort case involving the Sidney A. Murray Hydroelectric Plant. The case is important because it includes a review of the standards for damage requirements established in Robins Drydock and Repair Co. v. Flint 275 U.S. 303 (1927) and reaffirmed in Louisiana ex. rel. Guste v. M/V TESTBANK 752 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1985). After reviewing Robins and TESTBANK, the 5th Circuit then applies the Robins test to the particular facts of the case. This will be a two part discussion: the first part will identify and discuss the test developed in Robins and evaluated in TESTBANK. The second part will discuss how the 5th Circuit applied the Robins test to the facts of the Catalyst case.

In 1927 the United States Supreme Court decided Robins Dry Dock and Repair Co. v. Flint. This case established “the general proposition that claims for pure economic loss are not recoverable in tort.” This decision has profoundly impacted not just maritime tort law, but general negligence law as well; with extremely broad implications and applications that resound to this day, over 80 years later. ” No single decision in American tort law has more dominated the analysis of liability for pure economic loss than Robins Dry Dock Repair Co. v. Flint.” Justice Holmes “denied the plaintiff, a time charterer recovery for financial loss which resulted from the defendant’s interference with the plaintiff’s use of the chartered vessel.” The following hints at the scope of the effects of the decision.

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 – 2024, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design