safe_road_safety_traffic-1024x683Car accidents can be distressing, and the aftermath becomes even more complex when multiple vehicles are involved. Such was the case with Lisa Watson, Shelley Tannehill, and Melissa Smith after a three-car collision on Interstate-10 in New Orleans. Determining liability in these situations is no easy task, as demonstrated in this legal battle revolving around whether summary judgment was warranted for the dismissal of claims against the driver of the middle car. Let’s delve into the intricacies of this case and highlight the significance of seeking professional legal advice when facing similar situations.

While driving on Interstate-10 in New Orleans, Lisa Watson was followed by Shelley Tannehill and a car driven by Melissa Smith. After Watson came to a complete stop, Smith’s vehicle hit the back of Tannehill’s vehicle, which then hit Watson’s car. Watson filed a lawsuit against Smith and her insurer and Tannehill and her insurer. Watson claimed Tannehill had been following her too closely and claimed she was hit from behind after the Smith car rear-ended Tannehill when Tannehill suddenly stopped. 

Tannehill filed a summary judgment motion claiming she was completely stopped when the Smith vehicle hit her. Therefore, the only time she hit Watson’s vehicle was because the Smith vehicle hit her. Tannehill provided excerpts from depositions and the police report to support her claim. Watson argued there was a factual dispute about whether Tannehill hit her car before Smith hit Tannehill’s car. The trial court granted Tannehill’s summary judgment motion and dismissed Watson’s claims against Tannehill. Watson appealed.

pearl_harbor_hawaii_small-1024x821Losing a loved one is an unimaginable tragedy, and while financial compensation cannot fill the void left by their absence, it can provide support during challenging times. The following case involves the tragic situation of parents whose seaman son died. Although the deceased seaman’s father tried to recover damages from his son’s death, he ultimately proved unsuccessful. 

James Swafford was killed while aboard the M/V Pintail on the Mississippi River. The ship’s owner, Magnolia Fleet, and its operator, River Construction, Inc., filed a lawsuit. All claimants against Magnolia Fleet and River Construction were settled and dismissed except those of Swafford’s father. 

Swafford’s father claimed Magnolia Fleet and River Construction were liable for negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness under general maritime law. Swafford’s father wanted to recover damages based on his son’s alleged pain and suffering before his death, loss of future earnings, loss of consortium, and other punitive and monetary damages. 

cheerleaders_college_girls_sports-1024x682Everyone learns a lot of life lessons during high school. Sometimes these lessons are learned the hard way and result from the consequences of inappropriate behavior. This is even more the case today, where images can be quickly posted online for the public to see. In this case, a high school cheerleader found herself in an unfortunate situation after posting an inappropriate picture of herself online. 

Rebekka Arceneaux was a member of the varsity cheer team at Assumption High School. A public Snapchat account showed a picture of her with the skirt of her cheer uniform raised. Arceneaux was suspended and dismissed from the cheer team for exhibiting unacceptable behavior, violating the high school’s Cheer Discipline Policy. This discipline also resulted in her being unable to try out for the cheer team the following year.  

Arceneaux’s parents appealed her suspension, arguing that under the high school athletic handbook, she could not be prevented from trying out for the cheer team the next year because she only had a single suspension. After her parents were informed their appeal would not be considered, they filed a grievance with the Assumption Parish School Board. The school board responded Arceneaux had violated the Cheer Discipline Policy, and the resulting disciplinary actions were warranted. 

hole_dark_light_black-1024x685Homeowners often have to deal with contractors, such as plumbers, completing work in their homes or yard. What happens when a homeowner is injured from a condition on the property the contractor created? The following case helps answer that question. 

Donald and Marilyn Lincoln hired Acadian Plumbing & Drain to go under their Metairie, Louisiana home and replace its drain lines. A few weeks after Acadian started the work, Marilyn Lincoln walked outside and fell into a hole Acadian had dug to access the pipes under their home. She injured her hip or leg and had to have surgery. 

The Lincolns filed a lawsuit against Acadian and its insurer. They claimed Acadian was negligent for not sufficiently securing or barricading the hole in the yard and for not warning them of the danger. While the lawsuit was still ongoing, Marilyn Lincoln passed away. Her son claimed her death resulted from a stroke caused by a blot clot that formed because of her injuries from falling into the hole and her resulting surgery. 

defense_gov_news_photo_526-1024x680When renting an apartment, tenants expect a safe and secure living environment. However, what happens when an accident occurs due to negligence by the apartment owner and management company? If a leaky roof in your apartment injures you, can you make a claim for your injuries? The following lawsuit answers that question. 

Kim Faciane lived in the Golden Key Apartments. After moving out, she filed a lawsuit against Golden Key, who owned the apartment complex, and Ohio Management, who managed the complex, and its insurer (collectively, the defendants). She claimed one night, while asleep in her apartment, sheetrock fell from the ceiling because of the leak. She claimed it hit her leg and caused her to slip and injure her back and neck. She claimed the defendants were liable because they kept the apartment in disrepair, did not repair the ceiling after being informed it leaked, and otherwise not properly maintaining or inspecting the apartments. 

The defendants filed a summary judgment motion, arguing that the lease had a provision that required Faciane to hold them harmless for any property or personal injury claims. They argued under La. R.S. 9:3221, Faciane was responsible for the premises’ conditions unless they were neglectful or failed to take action after she notified them in writing of a defect. They argued they did not know of any issues with the roof until after the accident occurred. Faciane countered the defendants had been notified about issues with the apartment’s ceiling at least two times before. The trial court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissed Faciane’s lawsuit, who appealed.

ambulance_ambulance_service_1666012-678x1024Medical emergencies call for swift and professional response from emergency medical personnel. However, what happens when a patient sustains additional injuries during transit due to unforeseen circumstances? The following case highlights the complexities of dealing with immunity laws for government employees and emphasizes the importance of seeking legal counsel to navigate statutory requirements and potential exceptions when considering legal action in such situations.

One morning, Clovina Stein felt like she was having a heart attack at her home in Gretna, Louisiana, so she requested emergency medical services. They took Stein to the hospital in an ambulance. While in transit to the hospital, the driver had to make a sudden stop. That caused one of the emergency medical technicians to fall on top of Stein. 

Once at the hospital, Stein was treated for a heart attack. Stein filed a lawsuit against the city of Gretna, the responding emergency personnel, and other defendants, claiming she suffered severe injuries when the emergency medical technician fell on her while in transit to the hospital. 

paragraph_attorney_judge_process-682x1024Working in a courthouse may seem like an environment where the rule of law reigns supreme, but even within its hallowed halls, employees can encounter workplace issues and retaliation. In the following case, a Louisiana State Judge became embroiled in a dispute involving a law clerk’s alleged illegal and unethical behavior. As a result of this disagreement and the actions taken by her colleagues, the Judge claimed she suffered unfair treatment, false accusations, and the violation of her constitutional rights. A lawsuit was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging retaliation for exercising her First Amendment right to freedom of speech. However, the courts were tasked with determining whether her claims truly amounted to violating her constitutional rights or merely involving unfriendly conduct.

Sharon Ingram Marchman was a Louisiana State Judge in Louisiana’s Fourth Judicial Court. She claimed a law clerk had been involved in illegal and unethical behavior. Marchman claimed that due to a disagreement among judges and staff at the Fourth Judicial Court on how to deal with the law clerk, she was treated unfairly by the other employees and falsely accused of disclosing confidential information. Marchman claimed this culminated with her resigning as chair of the personnel committee. 

Marchman filed a lawsuit against the law clerk, some of the other judges, and various other individuals. Marchman claimed they violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment right to free speech. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The trial court agreed Marchman had not stated a claim as she did not adequately allege any violation of her constitutional rights and dismissed her case. The trial court explained at most, Marchman’s allegations involved unfriendly or unprofessional conduct but not a violation of her constitutional rights. Marchman appealed. 

disabled_disabled_human_being-1024x734Many of us provide support to elderly folks in our lives through our time and money. We expect the utmost attention and respect when we send a loved one to a care facility. Sometimes accidents happen, whether by negligence or by accident, that result in injury to patients. Regardless of the cause of injury, a lawsuit can help hold medical professionals responsible for the type of care they provide. The difference between a tort and a medical malpractice claim for nursing home injuries is examined in the following case. 

John Lee was a resident at Woldenberg Village nursing home located in New Orleans. Lee was labeled a fall risk and therefore had a fall-detecting device attached to his wheelchair that would sound if he attempted to stand up. When installed correctly, the device is not accessible to the wheelchair user. A nurse found Lee lying on the ground with the alarm device in his hand. Lee’s hip was injured and required surgery due to the fall.

Lee’s estate filed a tort lawsuit against Woldenberg for damages relating to the fall. Woldenberg filed an exception of prematurity because the claims related to medical malpractice and were therefore required to undergo investigation by a medical review panel before litigation. Lee’s estate appealed the lower court’s findings of prematurity.

crosswalk_pedestrian_crossing_407023-1024x656People often assume that pedestrians always have the right of way. While this adage is partially true, pedestrians who avoid proper safety protocols can be found more at fault for an injury than the car that struck them. If avoiding physical trauma is not motivation enough to look both ways before crossing the street, the following lawsuit may encourage you to take proactive steps to avoid being hit.

Wilson Jolivette was walking on a service road near Louisiana Highway 90 when he was struck by a passing truck driven by Ray Hebert. Hebert was employed by Hanagriff’s Machine Shop and was driving a large flatbed truck owned by the Shop. Jolivette broke both his wrist and ankle due to the collision. Hebert’s driver’s license documents partial vision loss in one eye, and he testified that he did not see Jolivette walking on the road. 

Witnesses to the events described Jolivette walking into the road, being struck by the truck’s side mirror, and spinning into the air. Jolivette admitted that he did not look both ways before crossing the service road and consequently did not see the truck coming. Jolivette sued the Shop for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of earnings. The jury found him 70% at fault for the accident and the Shop at fault for the other 30%. The jury also awarded Jolivette $10,000 for pain and suffering and other awards. Both parties appealed their assignments of fault. Jolivette appealed the $10,000 ruling.  

oil_oil_production_oil-1024x768Can a trial court’s approval of a settlement agreement in a property contamination lawsuit be upheld without determining remediation requirements and the deposit of funds into the court registry? This question lies at the heart of the following case, which features an appeal of the trial court’s judgment approving a settlement agreement regarding property contamination caused by historic oil and gas operations. The appeal raises issues of statutory interpretation and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law. The resolution of this question has significant implications for the approval process of settlement agreements in similar cases governed by Act 312.

In this case, Certain Insurers appealed the trial court’s approval of a settlement agreement in a property contamination lawsuit. The insurers raised two issues for the court to decide: (1) whether the trial court erred by not determining whether remediation was required before approving the settlement, and (2) if remediation was necessary, whether the court erred by not ordering the deposit of funds into the court registry.

The litigation involved historic oil and gas operations in Jefferson Davis Parish, and the plaintiffs sued Riceland and BP for damages and remediation. Riceland, in turn, filed a third-party demand against Certain Insurers seeking coverage under applicable insurance policies. After years of litigation, the plaintiffs, BP, and Riceland reached a compromise to resolve all claims. The settlement agreement included provisions for remediation by state regulatory standards, and Riceland assigned its rights against Certain Insurers to the plaintiffs.

Contact Information