by

asbestos_garage-1024x597Insurance policies are often lengthy and very complicated. Therefore, understanding who may be liable when an injury occurs is critical, as failure to do so may lead to complex and expensive court proceedings. The following Iberville Parish case demonstrates the problems that arise when multiple insurance companies and policies are involved in one lawsuit and when evidence is not properly admitted.  

After working as an electrician in several shipyards and plants in south Louisiana for most of his life, Sidney J. Mabile, Sr. filed a lawsuit against The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) and Westgate and its predecessor, Industrial Electrical Constructors, Inc. (IEC) for asbestos-related injuries. Following a jury trial, Sidney’s claims against Westgate and IEC were dismissed, although Dow was found to be one of three defendants liable for his damages. Dow and Sidney ultimately settled. 

While the case with Sidney was pending, Dow filed a cross-claim against Westgate and IEC (collectively Westgate). Dow argued that Westgate was under an Agreement for Services that mandated Westgate to indemnify Dow for claims brought by a Westgate employee against Dow for any injuries on Dow’s premises. In other words, Dow argued that Westgate owed Dow an indemnity for Sidney’s original claim. 

Continue reading

by

grinding_maintenance_labor_work_1-680x1024A disabling workplace injury can be a nightmare for an employee who suffers physical pain, mental side effects, loss of income, and the uncertainty of litigation. And when large sums of money are involved, an employer will want to fight tooth and nail to avoid liability. This can be particularly distressing when an employee wins at trial only to find the decision has been appealed. 

However, there is hope. Unless there has been a blatant error or abuse of discretion, a court of appeal will not want to overturn a factual conclusion or damage award from the trial court. Generally, that means an appeal will center around a question of law. See, e.g., Lasha v. Olin.

Sometimes the legal question is whether an injured worker qualifies for relief under a law. For example, an employee seeking coverage under the Jones Act must be classified as a seaman. To be one, your duties must “contribute to the function of the vessel or the accomplishments of its mission.” Determining who is a seaman under the Jones Act is a hotly contested issue, as seen in the case below. 

Continue reading

by

21_washer_dryer-1024x768Police officers can often put themselves in dangerous positions when responding to calls related to domestic violence because tensions and emotions are usually running high. In close-knit communities, it is also not uncommon for victims and perpetrators of domestic violence to have prior relationships with the police. Such was the case for Maringouin’s Chief of Police, John Simien (“Chief Simien”), who was both a friend and family member to Mr. and Mrs. Wright, when he got a call to come to the Wright’s house during a dispute.  

Mr. Wright was the former Mayor of the Town of Maringouin, and the night before the dispute, he told his wife, Mrs. Wright, that he wanted a divorce. As a result, Mrs. Wright left the couple’s house and secured a restraining order against Mr. Wright. The next day, Chief Simien received a distressed call from Mrs. Wright, asking that he come to the house. When Chief Simien arrived at the house, he took Mr. Wright to his car for a ride away from the home so that Mrs. Wright could collect clothes and medications for her and her son, Charles Wright, Jr. (“C.J.”).

When Chief Simien and Mr. Wright arrived back at the house, Mrs. Wright, C.J., and Mrs. Wright’s brother, Maxie Gray (“Mr. Gray”), were loading a washer and dryer into a pickup truck. Mr. Wright attempted to get out of the car, but Chief Simien grabbed his wrists and forced him back into the car. C.J. also confronted Mr. Wright, placing his hands around his father’s neck, while Mr. Gray hit his brother-in-law in the leg, all of which constrained Mr. Wright inside the car.

Continue reading

by

grape_season-1024x678
Imagine shopping at the grocery store, selecting fruit, when suddenly you are flat on your back.  Not just embarrassing but also painful and potentially injury-causing.  Who should be liable in this type of case? In a similar case involving a Lake Charles Kroger store, the answer lay in who had notice of the hazard.   

Glenda Parks was shopping at Kroger, perusing the produce section.  After she passed the grape display, she slipped and fell.  A store employee was working close by and helped Parks up.  Parks proceeded to shop in the same area, then walked back to the grapes where she had fallen.  She noticed several grapes on the floor, including some smashed ones.  The Kroger employee was cleaning up the grapes and the surrounding floor.  Parks was in the store for approximately twelve minutes in total.  

Parks filed a lawsuit against Kroger, and Kroger filed a motion for summary judgment. The Fourteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Calcasieu agreed with Kroger that Parks would not be able to show that Kroger had the requisite notice of the hazard.  Parks appealed to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal.  

Continue reading

by

ford_e_series_wagon_10-1024x814Customers have an expectation of safety while shopping in retail stores. When a customer is injured while on the premise, they are entitled to damages. However, a customer may only recover damages if adequate proof is shown. Proof of an unreasonable risk of harm is a critical element of Louisiana slip and fall cases. The following case out of Slidell, Louisiana, shows why facts are crucial when pursuing a slip and fall lawsuit.

Hope Held was injured while shopping at Home Depot with her child. She alleged her injuries were due to the misplacement of a wire hand truck(truck) in the electronic section of the store. After her fall, she was found by an employee, Jeffrey Crossland, and was escorted out of the aisle to receive help and complete an accident report.

Held filed a lawsuit for her injuries against Home Depot. The store responded by successfully filing a motion for summary judgment in the trial court. Held disagreed and appealed the judgment to the appellate court.

Continue reading

by

texas_flag_texas_flag-1024x683Have you ever been involved in a car accident that potentially involved two states and wondered which state’s laws would govern your personal injury lawsuit? Say, you have an insurance policy issued in Texas, and you get into a car wreck in Louisiana. Which state’s laws will apply if you file a lawsuit related to the accident? The following case shows how Louisiana Courts use a choice of law analysis to determine what state laws should apply in these situations. 

Rafael Garces-Rodriguez and Julio Alonso (Rafels) were involved in a car accident when another motorist struck their car from behind. At the time of the accident, they were insured by Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company. Two years after the accident, Rafels filed a lawsuit against Progressive seeking compensation for their injuries and other damages sustained during the car accident. Progressive filed a motion with the court seeking dismissal of the case, asserting that Rafels rejected uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage (UM coverage). 

Progressive argued that Texas law should apply in the case because the policies were issued in Texas. Under Texas law, rejection for UM coverage is required to be in writing. However, there are no other special procedures or particular language that needs to be used for the writing. See: Ortiz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 955 S.W.2d 353 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, pet. denied). A satisfactory rejection in Texas requires minimal effort by the insured. 

Continue reading

by

u_s_customhouse_in-1024x768Filing for bankruptcy can be an overwhelming experience. Many disclosures must be made, and failing to do so can have severe consequences for other legal matters. For example, what happens if you are involved in a personal injury lawsuit after filing bankruptcy? Must you disclose that claim to a bankruptcy court? The following lawsuit out of Louisiana answers that question and shows the consequences that can flow from the failure to disclose. 

Helen and Robert Allen (HA) filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2009. In the five years, the court administered the HAs’ bankruptcy case, the HAs amended their case three times—one year after filing their initial bankruptcy case but before the three amendments. In 2010, Helen filed a personal injury lawsuit that alleged she was seriously and permanently injured when the stool she sat on broke apart. 

The defendants in her personal injury case filed a motion for a summary judgment seeking to dismiss Helen’s lawsuit because they contended that HAs didn’t disclose the existence of the filing in their bankruptcy. Moreover, they argued the court should prevent HAs’ personal injury claim from proceeding based on judicial estoppel because HAs did not disclose the lawsuit to the bankruptcy court. 

Continue reading

by

feet_toe_human_body-1024x683No one wants to experience pain and suffering after spending money and time getting surgery. Nonetheless, some people fall victim to these complications. A person can be prone to injury when a defective product is inserted into their body. This was the case with Kale Flagg.

Kale Flagg underwent foot surgery to install toe implants made by Stryker Corporation (“Stryker”) and Memometal Incorporated (“Memometal”) (collectively, the “Manufacturers”). Unfortunately, several months after the surgery, Flagg’s implants broke and caused him extreme pain. This resulted in him undergoing multiple surgeries to try to fix the problem. 

Flagg filed a lawsuit against the Manufacturers alleging implants were defective, which caused his ongoing suffering and deformity. The Manufacturers responded by seeking a motion to dismiss under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the district court granted the motion. Flagg appealed.

Continue reading

by

money_change_penny_quarter-1024x962Calculating appropriate damages for a plaintiff who experiences ongoing injuries from a vehicle accident is complex. Jury awards generally are left undisturbed by appellate courts. The following lawsuit shows how the appeals process can alter a jury’s award for mental and physical pain and suffering. 

On October 1, 2009, Patricia Aguillard was driving on the interstate when she slowed her vehicle due to traffic ahead. Jeremie Gregory was driving behind Aguillard and rear-ended her vehicle. As a result of the accident, Aguillard experienced extensive physical injuries and mental health issues. As a result, Aguillard filed a lawsuit for damages for her medical issues and vehicle damage against Mr. Gregory and the owner of his vehicle, the City of Baton Rouge. 

The trial court found in favor of Aguillard after a jury trial, determining that Mr. Gregory was 100% at fault for the accident. The jury awarded her $122,751 for past medical expenses and $450,150 for future medical expenses, totaling $572,901. However, Aguillard filed a motion for a Judgment Not Withstanding the Verdict (JNOV) in response to this award, claiming that the jury erred when it failed to award her more money for future medical expenses and general damages. The court denied her claim for more in future medical expenses but granted the JNOV as to general damages. The court granted the following amounts: $350,000 for physical pain and suffering, $75,000 for mental pain and suffering, and $15,000 for loss of enjoyment of life. This brought Aguillard’s total award to $1,012,901. 

Continue reading

by

accident_auto_damage_vehicle_2-1024x768Automotive accidents can cause severe injuries to those involved. However, the testimony of accident reconstruction experts can help juries determine what happened and come to the correct conclusions about liability. The following lawsuit out of Baton Rouge shows how an accident reconstruction expert can help you win your automobile accident lawsuit.

In December 2012, Lisa Lirrochi was involved in a collision with a Peterbilt garbage truck driven by David Washington. At the time of the accident, Washington was in his capacity as an employee of Ace Waste Systems, Inc. Ms. Lirrochi was driving behind Washington’s truck around 4:30 A.M. when he moved the truck left into another lane in preparation to make a right-hand turn into a driveway. The two vehicles then collided. 

Lirrochi filed a lawsuit against Washington, Ace Waste, and the company’s insurer, alleging injuries and ongoing pain due to the accident. In return, Ace Waste filed a reconventional demand for the loss of its garbage truck. Lirrochi testified that she did not see Washington use his right turn signal and move into a clear open lane ahead. However, Washington testified that he did use his right-turn signal. 

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 – 2025, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design