by

car_crash_1-1024x768If you ever find yourself injured in a car accident, it’s crucial to seek legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. Consulting with an attorney can help you understand your rights and determine if you are entitled to compensation, depending on the allocation of fault. Car accidents can be complex, and navigating the legal process requires expert guidance. 

A motor vehicle accident occurred at the intersection of Louisiana Highway 315 and Concord Bypass Road in Terrebonne Parish. The accident involved a pickup truck driven by Michael Gaither and a utility van driven by Deputy Warren Webre. Gaither used the turning lane to pass slower traffic when Deputy Webre’s van collided with his vehicle. The investigating officer cited both drivers, citing failure to stop and yield for Deputy Webre and improper lane usage for Gaither.

Following the accident, Gaither filed a lawsuit seeking damages for his injuries. He alleged that Deputy Webre’s failure to pay proper attention and yield caused the accident. Gaither claimed that even if he had turned left onto Concord Bypass Road, the collision would have occurred due to Deputy Webre’s actions. Gaither argued that Deputy Webre should bear a greater share of the fault.

Continue reading

by

auto_wall_breakthrough_art-1024x683From a serious crash to a minor fender bender, car accidents take a devastating emotional and financial toll on the people involved. Common principles of fairness suggest that if a distracting passenger helped cause the crash, they should also be liable to help pay. Unfortunately, deciding which acts are sufficiently distracting enough to warrant liability in comparative negligence law can be complicated.  The thought-provoking lawsuit of Christy Robinette versus Old Republic Insurance Company sheds light on this issue, raising the question: Should courts restrict liability for passengers who contribute to distractions?

The case of Christy Robinette versus Old Republic Insurance Company involves a passenger (Robinette) and a driver (Zeno). During a heated argument, Zeno’s car collided with another and injured Robinette. Robinette brought a lawsuit for costs associated with her injuries.

Zeno argued that because Robinette was screaming and cursing at him, she should take some liability for the crash. The court ultimately denied relief based on a few justifications.

Continue reading

by

police_police_man_uniform-1024x681Workplaces have rules employees must follow. Termination for violation of these rules must be in good faith. What happens when an employee argues he was fired arbitrarily? The following case helps answer this question. 

Nolvey Stelly was terminated from the Lafayette Police Department  (LPD) for failing to follow orders. An investigation was ordered, and Stelly was suspended for fifteen days. He appealed the suspension, which was affirmed. Stelly then appealed to the trial court, which also upheld his suspension. Before his fifteen-day suspension, Stelly was called to a pre-determination hearing, which he secretly recorded and invited news outlets to attend. The recording and the invitation violated the LPD’s rules on professionalism. A second investigation was then conducted. During the investigation, Stelly was placed on paid administrative leave with strict orders not to engage in off-duty employment. Stelly worked a second job during this time, which prompted a third investigation of his misconduct. Stelly was then terminated. 

Stelly appealed his termination to the Lafayette Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board (Board), which upheld the previous decisions. The trial court also affirmed the decision, which Stelly appealed. Stelly argued the ruling was not in good faith, the penalty was unreasonable, his actions did not violate the LPD’s operating procedures, his actions did not affect his working duties, and his discipline was not on par with his alleged offenses. 

Continue reading

by

bellingham_fire_ambulance_4-1024x683Determining liability can be complex when a car crash occurs and even more so when one of the vehicles involved is an ambulance. In Louisiana, the law applies a unique standard of care to emergency vehicle drivers. So what are the liability standards for ambulances and other emergency vehicle drivers involved in car accidents? The following lawsuit out of Lafayette, Louisiana, helps answer that question.

Gerald Janise was involved in a collision with William Gerard at an intersection in Lafayette, Louisiana. At the time of the accident, Gerard was driving an Acadian Ambulance Service vehicle. Janise filed a lawsuit against Gerard, Acadian Ambulance Service, and their insurer. 

Janise claimed at a red light, Gerard did not obey the traffic signals or exercise proper caution and collided with Janise’s car. Gerard filed a summary judgment motion, arguing under La. R.S. 32:24, the driver of an emergency vehicle responding to an emergency can only be held liable if his conduct amounts to reckless disregard for others’ safety. The court denied Gerard’s summary judgment motion. 

Continue reading

by

medical_drug_medicinal_products-1024x683We have all heard advice not to procrastinate. This is especially true if you are considering bringing a lawsuit. If you are considering filing a medical malpractice lawsuit against your doctor, you cannot wait indefinitely because Louisiana law has strict time limits for filing medical malpractice lawsuits. The following case out of Lafayette Parish shows the harsh consequences if you delay filing your case.

While working, Daniel McCauley injured his knee. He underwent treatment, but it was unsuccessful. McCauley returned to the same doctor, Dr. Malcolm Stubbs, approximately six years later, complaining of pain. He underwent additional procedures on his knee for the next five years. Nonetheless, McCauley continued to suffer from knee pain, which he claims to still suffer from to this day. 

Over a year after stopping treatment from Dr. Stubbs, McCauley filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Stubbs related to procedures Dr. Stubbs had performed on McCauley three and six years before him filing the lawsuit. The trial court granted an exception of prescription and dismissed the claim because McCauley did not file the lawsuit within three years or one year after his doctor-patient relationship with Dr. Stubbs ended. McCauley appealed, arguing the trial court erred in holding his claim was time barred.

Continue reading

by

mud_background_parched_dry-1024x768We all like to think we can rely on other people’s assertions that something is safe. But what happens when it turns out someone is making misrepresentations about safety? Can they be held liable for resulting injuries? The following lawsuit out of St. Landry parish helps answer that question.

Ryan Stroder worked as a trucker driver for MyVac, LLC. He was called to one of Hilcorp Energy’s land-based oil rigs to transport drilling mud for disposal. Hilcorp Energy ordered him to bring an open-ended dump truck to transport the mud. 

Stroder thought the mud was too fluid to be hauled in the open-ended dump truck when he arrived. He offered to return and get another truck that would be more appropriate for hauling the mud. When he raised these concerns, he was assured by Monty Lanthier, who worked for Thomas Stevens as an independently contracted “company man,” and Freddie Grimaldo, a solids control operator employed by Gulf Coast, that it would be safe to proceed with transporting the mud with his open-ended dump truck. Those assurances proved incorrect because shortly thereafter, while driving a few miles away from the rig, the load shifted and caused the truck to overturn, injuring Stroder. 

Continue reading

by

bauer_elementary_asbestos_1-1024x768Unraveling the complexities of jurisdiction is essential when determining which court has the authority to hear a lawsuit. Whether a case is heard in state or federal court can have strategic implications, but the path to federal court is paved with complex legal requirements. In this article, we delve into the intricacies of jurisdiction and explore the factors determining whether your lawsuit can be heard in federal court.

The four Legendre brothers filed a lawsuit against Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (formerly known as Avondale) in Louisiana state court. The Legendres claimed Avondale exposed their sister to asbestos, resulting in her death from mesothelioma. 

The Legendres’ father had worked at Avondale’s shipyard building tugs for the United States government. He used asbestos for insulation in the tugs’ engine rooms. The Legendres claimed asbestos had stuck to their father’s body and clothing, which exposed their sister to asbestos when he returned home from work. 

Continue reading

by

spam_mail_email_mailbox-1024x532We can all relate to the embarrassment of hitting “reply all” on an email only intended for a smaller audience. Although usually “replying all” just results in embarrassment that eventually subsides, sometimes it can lead to more severe actions, such as losing your job. 

Frith Malin worked as a deputy director at the Orleans Parrish Communications District (“OPCD”), which was responsible for providing 911 services. After she had worked there for eight years, the executive director of the OPCD emailed all employees to inform them one of OPCD’s board members had been named CEO of another organization so that he would be stepping down from OPCD’s board. Malin accidentally hit “reply all,” instead of emailing just OPCD’s executive director criticisms about the departing board member.  

Three days later, Malin was suspended. OPCD conducted an internal investigation, which led to Malin’s eventual termination. A few months before sending the email, Malin had reported the Human Resources manager who investigated commentary related to sexually explicit images on six different occasions. There was no evidence Hobson was aware Malin had reported her, and Hobson was never disciplined. Following her termination, Malin filed a lawsuit against OPCD under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation of her First Amendment rights. She also brought claims under Title VII and La. R.S. 23:967, Louisiana’s whistleblower statute. She alleged OPCD had retaliated against her for reporting the Human Resources manager. OPCD filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted. Malin appealed, arguing the trial court erred in dismissing her claims against OPCD. 

Continue reading

by

yard_bike_lawn_mower-1024x768One of a parent’s worst nightmares is something happening to their child. This case delves into the heart-wrenching incident of a young child being struck by a neighbor’s car, leading to a complex legal battle to determine responsibility for the resulting injuries. While the child eventually recovered, the accident’s aftermath unleashed a lawsuit that delved into conflicting accounts and legal statutes governing pedestrian conduct. By examining the trial and appellate court’s proceedings, we gain insights that help answer the question: How does a court determine liability in a child pedestrian accident?

First – a bit of background on the context of the vehicle accident. When Sonya Meyer was driving home from taking her daughter to school, Cole Troxclair played in his front yard. As Meyer drove down the street from Troxclair’s home, her car struck Cole Troxclair. He was injured and spent about a day at the hospital. He returned to normal activities about a month or two later. Troxclair’s parents filed a lawsuit against Meyer and her insurer, Liberty Personal Insurance Company. Following a trial, the court found Meyer liable for the accident and awarded Troxclair $29,619.99 in damages. 

Meyer and her insurance company challenged the trial court’s finding that Meyer was solely responsible for the accident. They argued Troxclair was accountable for his injuries because he ran in front of Meyer’s vehicle, and Meyer did not have time to take action to avoid hitting him. They argued that Troxclair violated La.R.S.32:212(b), which says pedestrians shall not suddenly leave a curb or other safe place and enter a vehicle’s path. 

Continue reading

by

courthouse_311_jarvis_st-1024x768In personal injury cases, plaintiffs are often left vulnerable due to the accidents leading to their injuries. Hence, they require excellent attorneys who don’t exploit these vulnerabilities but instead zealously advocate on their behalf. For Claude Allen Newsome (“Newsome”), a November 2010 car accident in Bossier Parish, Louisiana, left him without sight, which was a direct result of macular degeneration caused by the accident. After that, Newsome was deemed legally blind and rendered a person with quadriplegia. Newsome appointed Robert Lansdale (“Lansdale”) as his power of attorney. What unfolded while seeking damages on behalf of Newsome demonstrates the necessity to lodge objections on the record and timely appeal matters.

After Newsome named Lansdale as his agent, Lansdale hired an attorney, Norman Gordon (“Gordon”), to represent Newsome in his personal injury lawsuit. The lawsuit eventually settled for approximately $7.4 million, and Gordon recommended to Newsome and Lansdale that setting up a special-needs trust would benefit Newsome. Lansdale told Gordon that Newsome would not consider establishing a trust. 

Concerned, Gordon withdrew his representation of Newsome, expressing that a conflict of interest had developed and relaying to the court that he believed Lansdale would not use the settlement proceeds for Newsome’s benefit. The court held a status conference where Gordon appeared allegedly without Newsome’s knowledge and asked the court to protect Newsome from the possibility of undue influence by Lansdale. Resulting of this conference, the court ordered that a special needs trust be created to receive the funds from Newsome’s settlement. Later, at a second status conference, the court-appointed Regions Bank as the corporate trustee of Newsome’s newly established special needs trust and appointed Newsome’s aunt, Stella Jean Godley as the trustee over Newsome’s person. The court also ordered that $3,879,835.67 of the $7.4 million settlement proceeds, minus the payment of fees, expenses, and liens, be transferred into the trust. At no point during these conferences and court orders did Newsome object or appeal. 

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