Articles Posted in Wrongful Death

by

July 4th, though best known as an occasion for grilling out, visiting the beach or lake, and watching the fireworks, is unfortunately also notorious for its high incidence of accidents and injuries. Many incidents, especially vehicle and boat accidents, are related to alcohol use. The Louisiana Highway Safety Commission recently announced that more than 87 state and local law enforcement agencies work overtime throughout the holiday weekend. Many of the agencies will be participating in the state’s “Over the Limit, Under Arrest” campaign that aims to keep impaired drivers off the road. The Commission reports that the number of highway deaths has dropped significantly over the past few years: 16 people were killed on Louisiana highways over the Fourth of July holiday in 2007, and only two fatalities occurred last year.

Despite this positive trend and the stepped-up efforts by law enforcement, patriotic celebrants throughout Louisiana may still find themselves in dangerous situations over these holiday weekends. When calamity should strike, the parties involved may turn to the courts to resolve their dispute; the resolution will likely involve the court’s application of negligence. The theory contains four basic elements that a plaintiff must show in order to recover from a defendant. First, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed him or her a duty. This is generally a straightforward matter, as all members of society have a responsibility to exercise reasonable care toward others; this duty takes such common sense forms as requiring users of fireworks to point bottle rockets away from bystanders or drivers to operate their vehicles in a safe manner. Driving a car or piloting a boat or jet ski while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a clear violation of this duty. A person who fails to observe the obligation of safety and engages in conduct that poses an unreasonable risk of harm to others is said to breach this duty. This second element of negligence must be tied to the plaintiff’s injury by way of the third element, causation. That is, the defendant’s breach of duty must have resulted in the plaintiff’s injury. A defendant is responsible only for the consequences that are directly linked to his or her misconduct.

The final element, harm, requires the plaintiff to prove that he or she suffered a loss. The court can award two kinds of damages to compensate the plaintiff for his losses: special and general. Special damages are those which are easily quantifiable, such as medical expenses, lost wages, or property repair costs. General damages cover intangible losses, such as pain and suffering. Trial courts are afforded great latitude in assessing general damage awards, which can potentially expose defendants to staggering liability.

Continue reading

by

Time is of the essence when it comes to filing a suit to address a grievance. If too much time passes, one may be barred from filing a lawsuit. The time period for filing a lawsuit is known as the “prescriptive time period.” For example, a lawsuit for personal injury is subject to a one-year period of liberative prescription, following the date of the accident. The issue may become whether or not the time period has passed or not, thus, keeping a close eye on the calendar is the best way to stay safe when filing a lawsuit.

In a recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision, the court explored the time period in which the plaintiff initially filed to determine whether or not he filed in the appropriate time period. The cases arose from a fire at an oil well site in which the plaintiff was severely burned. The oil well accident occurred on September 27, 2007, thus, according to the prescriptive time period, he had one year from this date to file suit against the defendant(s). The plaintiff was employed by a Well Service Company that had contracted with an additional Mineral Company that produced oil and gas. In turn, the Mineral Company contracted with the plaintiff’s direct employer to drill a well. The plaintiff filed a tort suit for his personal injuries against the Mineral Company and its insurer on September 4, 2008, falling within the one-year time period allowed for personal injury lawsuits. The plaintiff sustained injuries during the drilling operations, the well penetrated into formations that were pressurized with hydrocarbons. At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was in charge of circulating water through the well while awaiting heavier drilling mud to be pumped into the well to control the hydrocarbon pressure. His direct supervisor, a Well Service Employee, told the plaintiff to stand away from the well because the level the pressure was dangerous. However, the Mineral Supervisor contradicted the former supervisor’s orders and told the plaintiff to get on his station at the pump and to abandon it only after shutting the pump off should the gas escape the well.

To the plaintiff’s misfortune, he followed the Mineral Company’s supervisor, where shortly after a hydrocarbon gas from down-hole escaped from the water tank sufficientily so that it ignited as the plaintiff was attempting to shut off the pump. This caused the hydrocarbon cloud in which the plaintiff was surrounded by, to become ignited, severely burning his entire body. It was only after the plaintiff filed suit against the Mineral Company that he discovered that the alleged Mineral Company supervisor was actually an independent contractor employed by a separate Pipeline Company. Thus, after the one year period, the plaintiff named the Pipe Company as a defendant in an amended petition. The question became whether or not the amended petition was proper, since the prescriptive period of one year had since passed. Thus, the Supreme Court’s responsibility was to explore the lower court’s decision which sustained the Pipeline Company’s argument that too much time had passed and thus, the plaintiff should not be allowed to add them into the initial lawsuit.

Continue reading

by

Under Louisiana jurisprudence, daycare workers and other temporary custodians of children are required to exercise the “highest degree of care” toward their charges. However, they are not “insurers of the children’s safety” with unlimited responsibility. Rather, the law requires custodians to follow a standard of care that is appropriate for the age of the children and the particular circumstances. This duty does not require “individual supervision of each child at all times and places,” when such level of attention is not warranted. If a child happens to sustain an injury while under the care of a daycare provider, courts apply the traditional “duty/risk” analysis to determine whether the provider met the applicable standard of care.

The recent case of Wade v. Miniworld Daycare turned on the court’s analysis of whether the defendant daycare facility “failed to conform to the appropriate standard” of care. The action arose after Ta’Marrion Wade, who was two years, nine months at the time, fell and broke a tooth while running around the Monroe Miniworld Daycare Center’s designated outdoor play area. The boy’s mother, Kassandra Wade, filed suit against the daycare alleging negligent supervision. The trial court entered a verdict for Wade and awarded her damages; Miniworld

appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal noted that the daycare unquestionably met the state’s required standards for the ratio of caretakers to children at the facility. It also examined the record for evidence of the circumstances surrounding the incident: Ta’Marrion was engaged in a running game with his peers in the play area. The children were not “running crazy,” and they did not “fight,” “hit,” “push,” or engage in any other prohibited behavior that would have caused a worker to intervene. In fact, a teacher observed Ta’Marrion fall “face down” at one point, but he immediately “got up and started running … some more.” It wasn’t until Ta’Marrion and the other children lined up to go indoors that the teacher noticed the child’s missing tooth. Ta’Marrion appeared to be in no pain, so the teacher cleaned out his mouth, called Ms. Wade, and filled out an incident report. The court reasoned that “under [these] circumstances, defendant daycare was furnishing and maintaining adequate supervision.” Further, while “daycare professionals have a duty to attempt to prevent … injuries, sometimes it is impossible, as in the situation” described by Ta’Marrion’s teacher. “Just because a child is injured while in the custody of a daycare does not mean that the daycare was acting negligently.” Accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court “committed manifest error by finding the daycare liable,” and reversed the judgment.

Continue reading

by

After filing a lawsuit, plaintiffs are required to notify defendants of the impending suit so that they may defend and respond to the claim. Without notice that a lawsuit has been filed against them, defendants’ due process rights may be violated if an unfavorable judgment is entered or rendered without their knowledge. The time frame for this requirement – commonly known as “service of process” – varies among state and federal jurisdictions. In Louisiana, plaintiffs have ninety days from filing a lawsuit to request service of process, which is known in Louisiana as “citation and service.” The lawsuit officially begins once a defendant receives citation and service because only then will a court have jurisdiction over all of the parties. If service is not completed within the statutory period, defendants may justifiably make a motion to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs, however, may be able to defeat a motion to dismiss if they can show good cause for being untimely with the requirement. This issue was recently before the Supreme Court of Louisiana in George Igbinoghene and Sebastian Busari v. St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co.

In the seminal case, Igbinoghene and Busari (hereinafter “plaintiffs”) filed their petition in the parish of Orleans on May 18, 2007, but failed to request service within ninety days of the filing date. St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company (hereinafter “St. Paul”) filed a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. The district court denied the motion and St. Paul appealed.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that denying the motion to dismiss was proper because good cause was shown for being untimely since they agreed to St. Paul’s request to extend the time to file responsive pleadings. The Supreme Court found this argument unpersuasive given that such events occurred in 2008 and 2009, which were outside of the relevant period. Moreover, the Supreme Court stated that requesting an extension to file pleadings did not act as an express, written waiver of citation and service. In addition, the Supreme Court declared that St. Paul’s knowledge of the suit did not make citation and service unnecessary. To support this assertion, the Supreme Court relied on Naquin v. Titan Indemnity Co., a Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case, which held that “defendant’s actual knowledge of a legal action cannot supply the want of citation because proper citation is the foundation of all actions.”

Continue reading

by

Over the past two decades, America’s working class has suffered the impact of exposure to asbestos. Before it was known that asbestos could lead to serious illness and death, people worked around the material without hesitation. Problems with exposure arise due to the fact that the fibers of asbestos, once inhaled, can have a very negative impact on your lungs and body. Those who have been exposed to asbestos can contract mesothelioma, a rare kind of cancer that can develop from the protective lining that covers many of the body’s internal organs. It is an aggressive and deadly kind of cancer that has very little remedy; usually the best type of treatment is the keep the person as comfortable as possible.

Even worse, mesothelioma can have the same symptoms of other diseases, so it can be misdiagnosed very easily and lead to significant delays in treatment. Furthermore, the symptoms of the disease often do not appear right away. Because the impact of exposure may not become obvious for many years after exposure, people have the possibility of being diagnosed with something other than the disease and miss out on sorely needed medical attention. Because the disease manifests itself so late, it can easily go under the radar and get worse before anything can be done to resolve it.

In Louisiana, in the New Orleans Parish Civil District Courthouse, the family members of yet another victim of exposure to asbestos will have their day in court. The deceased, Phillip Graf, was exposed to asbestos for over 30 years and died a long, emotional and painful death. His family members are suing up to 29 different defendants in their lawsuits arising from his untimely and unfortunate death. Among the defendants are organizations that may have directly or indirectly played a critical role in the exposure of asbestos leading to Mr. Graf’s unfortunate passing.

Continue reading

by

The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit upheld a District Court ruling in early 2011 allowing a contractor out of a negligence suit following a tragic incident in which a young man was electrocuted while trimming trees. The Court held Defendant Contractor Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) did not have a duty to protect a subcontractor from injury and therefore could not be held negligent. Because there was no contract between the contractor and the tree service subcontractor, the Court held there was no principal-independent contractor relationship that would have formed a duty.

Chad Groover, an employee of Groover Tree Service (GTS), was operating an aerial lift and cutting trees on the morning of December 7, 2006, north of Slidell when the basket he was riding in made contact with an energized line. Groover’s brother, Larry Groover, witnessed the electrocution. Chad Groover was severely injured at the scene and sadly died seven months later from complications. The family of the deceased brought a negligence action against several defendants, including the contractor CDM, a CDM worksite monitor, and CDM’s insurers, Zurich American Insurance Company and ACE American Insurance Company. The suit alleged CDM’s negligence caused Larry Groover to suffer mental anguish when he witnessed his brother’s death.

Proving negligence requires proof that the negligent party owed a duty to the injured party. Duty implies a special relationship or can be established by law. The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment arguing they did not have a legal duty to protect Chad Groover from injury. Plaintiffs averred in a cross motion for partial summary judgment Defendants had a statutorily provided duty to have the power company de-energize the lines.

Continue reading

by

The plaintiff in this case, Eileen Laday, was a passenger on a bus owned by the Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government. The bus had been donated to the City-Parish in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. When the bus was donated, it was missing a plexiglass shield that was designed to keep the bus door from coming into contact with passengers. As Ms. Laday sat in the front seat, the door opened and trapped her arm. She was not consistent about how long her arm was trapped.

Ms. Laday went to a doctor the next day, complaining of neck and shoulder pain radiating into her right arm. The doctor ordered an MRI, which showed degenerative cervical disc conditions as well as a disc herniation. She later saw an orthopedic surgeon, who recommended that she undergo surgery. As of the date of trial, she had not yet had the surgery, which was estimated to cost between $60,492.60 and $61,492.60.

The judge conducted a bench trial (where there is no jury) and ruled in favor of Ms. Laday because of the high standard of care imposed on common carries like operators of public buses. He awarded her $60,000 in general damages, $24,084.56 in past medical expenses, and $60,492.60 for future surgery costs to be placed into a reversionary trust under La.R.S. 13:5106, with interest to go to Ms. Laday.

Continue reading

by

In previous posts on this blog, we have discussed the elements that the victim of a car accident must prove in order to recover from an at-fault driver. Whether the defendant’s negligent conduct caused the accident and the victim’s injuries is a question to be resolved by the fact-finder. This role is usually assumed by the jury, but can also be left to the judge in the case of a bench trial. Much deference is given to a fact-finder’s decision on such issues: the appropriate standard for appellate review of factual determinations is the “manifest error/clearly wrong standard.” This high standard means that an appellate court can set aside the trial court’s factual determination only if it is “clearly wrong in light of the record reviewed in its entirety.” In order to overturn a factual finding, the appellate court must make a two-part inquiry: (1) the court must find from a review of the trial record that no reasonable factual basis exists for the finding; and (2) the record must establish that the trial court’s finding was clearly wrong. It is important to note that the appellate court is not merely asked to determine whether the trier of fact was objectively right or wrong; instead the court must decide if the factfinder’s conclusion was reasonable in light of the evidence. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal’s opinion in the recent case of Hopkins v. Nola provides an example of an appellate court’s application of this analysis to overturn a critical factual finding of the trial court.

On January 17, 2008, Sharnetta Hopkins was involved in a car accident with Brian Nola near the intersection of Desoto Street and Cole Avenue in Monroe, Louisiana. In her complaint, Hopkins alleged that the accident occurred when Nola struck her car after executing an illegal pass. Nola countered that he did nothing wrong, but was actually struck by Hopkins’s car when she ran a stop sign. At the bench trial in March, 2010, the parties offered conflicting testimony on the incident. Also, Shawn Maynard, an officer with the Monroe Police Department who responded to the accident and issued Hopkins a citation for running the stop sign, offered testimony as to Hopkins’s fault. Nevertheless, the trial court entered a judgment against Nola, awarding Hopkins damages after apportioning 80 percent of the fault to Nola. In its decision, the trial court noted that it effectively ignored Officer Maynard’s testimony because he “did not take any photographs, diagram the location of any debris from the accident, and did not talk to all of the witnesses.”

On appeal taken by Nola, the Second Circuit reviewed the trial record according to the manifest error standard. The court found that “the trial court committed reversible error in its wholesale dismissal of Officer Maynard’s testimony due to deficiencies in his investigation of the accident.” The court reached this conclusion because “the trial court’s articulation in its written ruling of perceived deficiencies is unfounded.”

Continue reading

by

Gleason v. Louisiana Dept. of Health and Hospitals is a Medical Malpractice case arising out of the unfortunate death of a 47-year-old severely mentally challenged man, Donnie Gleason. Donnie had been a resident of Northwest since December of 1974 and was nonverbal and incapable of self-medicating, arranging or monitoring his own medical assistance. On December 23, 2002, after two earlier unsuccessful attempts, Donnie was transported to Willis Knighton Medical Center (“Willis Knighton”) in Bossier City, to undergo a routine CT scan and EEG after he suffered a seizure. When Donnie returned, he was lethargic and placed in the infirmary.

The documentation of his treatment there showed that Donnie had ingested a foreign object which caused a bowel impaction that precipitated Donnie’s fecal vomiting. Presumably due to his condition, Donnie was unable to expel the vomit and breathed some of the gastric content into his respiratory tract. At Willis Knighton, Donnie was placed on a ventilator in the intensive care unit and diagnosed with bowel obstruction, respiratory failure and aspiration pneumonia relating to the vomit aspiration. After a brief recovery, Donnie once again went into respiratory distressed, was placed on a ventilator, and passed. The staff were unable to revive him.

In Louisiana, medical malpractice complaints must first be filed with the Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund before a lawsuit may be commenced. That organization’s medical review panel ruled for the defendants in this action – Northwest (intermediate care facility) and Willis Knighton (hospital) and their doctors and physician’s assistants individually. The panel concluded that the evidence did not support the conclusion that Northwest failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care because they found no evidence that Donnie ingested a foreign object while there. After the panel ruling, Donnie’s family filed suit against Northwest and Willis Knighton. They alleged, among other things, that Northwest’s failure to properly supervise Donnie and his treatment and its failure to recognize the seriousness of his condition and the inadequacy of the monitoring of Donnie’s respiratory status.

Continue reading

by

As we have explored in numerous prior posts, a doctor or other healthcare provider owes his or her patient a duty to meet the standard of care applicable to the patient’s situation. The failure to follow the standard of care points to the doctor’s negligence which, in the case of the death of the patient, can give rise to a claim of “lost chance of survival” for the spouse or children of the deceased. In a lost chance of survival action, the plaintiff “does not have to shoulder the unreasonable burden of proving that the patient would have lived had proper treatment been

given.” Rather, the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the doctor’s negligent conduct “denied the patient a chance of survival.” In other words, a lost chance of survival claim will not be successful if the patient would have died anyway due to causes unrelated to the doctor’s actions; the plaintiff must tie the doctor’s negligence to the death of the decedent. Whether a plaintiff carries this burden is a question of fact reserved for the jury.

Third Circuit Court of Appeal recently reviewed a jury verdict on this question in the case of Skinner v. Christus St. Francis Cabrini Hospital. Robert Skinner was admitted to Christus Hospital in Alexandria on August 17, 2000 for an elective hemorrhoidectomy and partial sphincterotomy. He died the following morning after spending the night in the hospital. His wife, Pamela Skinner, filed suit against the hospital and Stephen Ford, the nurse who had charge of Mr. Skinner from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM during the night of his stay. At the trial, various witnesses from the hospital explained that the surgery had gone well. The only reason Mr. Skinner stayed overnight was because of his high level of anxiety over the procedure. Mr. Skinner had a history of mental and physical problems, and was taking numerous prescription medications to address his depression, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and heart burn. Several members of the hospital staff reviewed Mr. Skinner’s medication list on separate occasions, and each time he neglected to mention that he had taken a particular antidepressant prior to coming to the hospital. In fact, the toxicology screening that was conducted as part of an autopsy revealed dangerously high levels of the drug in his system–a concentration which the medical experts in the case agreed was “known to kill.” Nevertheless, the jury found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the hospital and Nurse Ford failed to properly monitor Mr. Skinner after the surgery, Therefore, the defendants “deviated from the appropriate standard of care in the medical treatment of Mr. Skinner,” causing a lost chance of survival. The jury awarded Mrs. Skinner $250,000 in general damages. The defendants appealed, arguing that the jury erred in finding the plaintiff had carried her burden.

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