Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

October 26, 2019

Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Defendants for Accident on Gause Boulevard

blur-car-drive-451590-1024x665 Have you ever been in an accident where you were found at fault, but you know in your heart it wasn’t your fault? In this case, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants because the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that the driver of the car, in which they were passengers, was not at fault for the accident. The issue addressed by the Louisiana Court of Appeal in this case was the appropriate time for summary judgment.

A motion for summary judgment may only be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and it is used to avoid the cost of a full-scale trial. Johnson v. Evan Hall Sugar Co-op, Inc, 836 So.2d 484 (La. Ct. App. 2002). Moreover, a motion for summary judgment is properly granted only when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the mover (i.e., the party moving for summary judgment) is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2).

In this case, Lachona Charles, Tranika Charles, and Qu’Von Charles (collectively “the Charles”) were passengers in Latrica Robinson’s (“Ms. Robinson”) car, when she entered the center lane of traffic through a gap between cars, colliding with John Guidry (“Mr. Guidry”). Mr. Guidry was making a delivery for Cintas Corporation (“Cintas”). The police were called, and Ms. Robinson was found to be at fault for failing to yield, although she was not issued a citation. See La. R.S. 32:123. The Charles family filed a lawsuit against Cintas for personal injuries sustained during the accident. Cintas moved for summary judgment providing that Ms. Robinson was at fault, regardless of whose version of events was accepted, because she failed to yield when entering the center lane. In support of its motion for summary judgment, Cintas submitted the deposition of the on-scene officer, excerpts from Mr. Guidry’s and Ms. Robinson’s depositions, and an aerial image of the intersection where the accident occurred. In response to the Cintas motion for summary judgment, the Charles family faxed their opposition memorandum, using essentially the same evidence Cintas used in their motion.

October 25, 2019

Liability for Dog Attack in a “No Pets” Apartment Complex

by Berniard Law Firm

animal-bark-black-wallpaper-2238-1024x683 Imagine you sign a lease at a complex that does not allow pets, but then you walk outside your home and are attacked by a dog. Who is liable? The owner of the animal, the landlord for not preventing the animal from being on the premises, or both? In most states, Louisiana no exception, dog owners are strictly liable for injuries to persons and property caused by their animal. La. C.C. art. 2321. Strict liability means that the owner of the animal is liable for damages caused by the animal regardless of if the owner knew of the dog’s vicious propensity or not. To prove landlord liability, as in the current case, the plaintiff must show that the landlord had actual knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensity to make a successful claim for damages caused by a tenant’s dog against a landlord. Compagno v. Monson, 580 So.2d 962 (La. Ct. App. 1991).

In this case, Ms. Coburn was attacked by a dog owned by Ms. Dixon when they were both living in a complex where Mr. Bernard was the landlord. Ms. Coburn sued Mr. Bernard alleging that he failed to warn of the dangerous propensities of the dog and failed to eliminate the danger of the dog. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Bernard because he provided an affidavit that he did not allow dogs on the premises pursuant to the lease agreements and was unaware of the violent propensity of the animal.

On appeal, Ms. Coburn argued that Mr. Bernard should have reasonably known that Ms. Dixon had a vicious dog on the premises, as he owned and ran a restaurant that many cops in town frequented. Thus, he should have been aware that the police had been called to the premises on numerous occasions because the dog was barking or roaming loose.

October 24, 2019

Invalid Indemnification Clause Negates Statutory Employer Defense

by Berniard Law Firm

builders-building-construction-159306-1024x683 The Louisiana statutory employer defense grants statutory employers the exclusive remedy protections of the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act. La. R.S. 23:1061. To become a statutory employer, a principal must enter into a written contract with a contractor for work to be performed in furtherance of the principal’s “trade, business, or occupation.” La. R.S. 23:1061 Moreover, where the principal pays compensation, it is entitled to indemnification from the contractor. La. R.S. 9:2780.1. Once an employer shows that they are a statutory employer under the law, they are entitled to immunity for tort liability that occurred in the course of the agreement with a contractor. The Louisiana Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether a statute enacted in 2010 negates the statutory employer defense when a construction contract contains an indemnification clause or a hold harmless clause without paying for any of the cost of insurance. La. R.S. 9:2780.1.

In 2013, Christopher Michael Blanks (“Mr. Blanks”), was an employee of Wastewater Specialties, Inc. (“Wastewater”), the contractor, when he and some co-workers were assigned to perform repairs to a broiler at Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC (“Entergy”), the statutory employer. Entergy issued a permit indicating the work area was safe for entry; however, they allegedly failed to inform Mr. Blanks and his co-workers of an unprotected open hole in a confined space where Mr. Blanks was working. Unfortunately, Mr. Blanks unknowingly stepped into the hole, causing him to fall approximately thirty (30) feet to the ground. He sustained serious injuries, and subsequently sued Entergy and its insurance.

Prior to the commencement of work at the Entergy facility, Wastewater and Entergy entered into an agreement that Entergy would be indemnified for personal injury claims brought by Wastewater employees. The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that the contract between Wastewater and Entergy was invalid and unenforceable because it provided an indemnity clause irrespective of fault. Additionally, the court noted Wastewater did not recover the cost of any insurance required under the contract.

October 23, 2019

Bogalusa Police’s Partial Summary Judgment Request Denied For Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction

by Berniard Law Firm

adult-city-democracy-2422395-1024x679 Parties are entitled to immediately appeal during litigation as long as a decision has been properly designated as the final judgment. However, the Louisiana First Circuit of Appeal (“the Court“) also has a policy against multiple appeals and piecemeal litigation. So, how does a system balance the right of parties to immediately appeal while considering the workload of the court? The following case discusses this issue regarding the appellate jurisdiction (the legal authority of a court to decide on a particular case).

The claimant, Timothy Stewart (“Stewart”) was injured in the course and scope of his employment of the Bogalusa Police Department on July 9, 2013. The City of Bogalusa paid Stewart workers’ compensation medical and temporary total disability benefits. On March 17, 2015, Stewart filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for permanent total disability, as well as statutory penalties and attorney’s fees for the late payment of temporary total disability benefits. The City of Bogalusa timely denied Stewart’s claims and filed a motion for partial summary judgment regarding the permanent disability issue. The workers’ compensation judge (“WCJ”) granted this motion and dismissed Stewart’s claim for permanent total disability on August 4, 2015. Stewart then filed a motion for devolutive appeal (in which the appellate courts can determine on some issues while the trial court continues on separate issues) and requested that the August 4, 2015 judgment be made final and appealable pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B). On September 4, 2015, the WCJ granted Stewart’s request and designated the August 4, 2015 judgment as final and appealable.

The court has a duty to decide whether the court has appellate jurisdiction to review the partial summary judgment, because the designation of WCJ is not determinative of the court’s jurisdiction. Stewart argues that the appellate process should not be delayed. The Appellate Court found that the WCJ did not provide a reason as to the determination of a final judgment, so it must re-evaluate the designation before hearing an appeal. The Appellate Court should consider two factors: (1) the goal of the Workers’ Compensation Act as achieving speedy resolution of injured workers’ claims, and (2) allowing piecemeal appeal causes delay and inefficiency. Marquez v. Jack Ussery Construction, 965 So. 2d 400 (La. Ct. App. 2007). The immediate appeal is justified if it can speed up the adjudicative process. Partial judgment should not prolong and complicate the process.

October 22, 2019

Baton Rouge Medical Malpractice Claim Dismissed Due to Lack of Expert Testimony

by Berniard Law Firm

black-and-white-blood-pressure-blood-pressure-monitor-208556-1024x768 When a loved one dies or suffers severe injuries from negligent medical care, the first thing a family wants is justice for that mistreatment. When a mother knows her son’s medical history is not conducive to a certain treatment, she may believe that malpractice is apparent. These lawsuits have a number of procedures meant to protect the profession, however. A lawsuit can be dismissed by summary judgment when there is no genuine issue as to a material fact. La. C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2). When the defendant requests summary judgment, she may win the summary judgment if the adverse party’s claim lacks factual support for the elements essential to the claim.

Breton Trotter, a 21-year-old, was transported to Baton Rouge General Medical Center (“BRGMC”) emergency room on November 5, 2011. On November 7, 2011, Dr. Zuckerman found that Mr. Trotter had no pulse and expired. In October 2012, Breton Trotter’s mother, Terrain Trotter, filed a medical malpractice claim with the Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Board and requested a review by a medical review panel. On April 30, 2014, the panel issued an unanimous opinion that no medical malpractice exists. On August 28, 2014, Ms. Trotter filed a medical malpractice lawsuit in the 19th Judicial District Court against Dr. Zuckerman. After he timely filed an answer, Dr. Zuckerman filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Ms. Trotter had failed to obtain a medical expert to support her claims. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Zuckerman. Ms. Trotter appealed to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal (“the Court“) arguing that her familiarity with her son’s medical requirements made her fully capable of meeting the burden of proof.

All plaintiffs must establish three elements to file a medical malpractice lawsuit: (1) the standard of care applicable to the doctor; (2) a violation by the doctor of that standard of care; and (3) a causal connection between the doctor’s alleged negligence and the plaintiff’s injuries. La. R.S. 9:2794(A). Generally, expert testimony is required to establish the applicable standard of care and whether the standard was breached, unless the negligence is so obvious that an average person can infer a breach without the guidance of an expert. Samara v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008)

October 21, 2019

Monroe Couple Fails to Win Additional Award After Judgment in Their Favor

by Berniard Law Firm

beauty-body-hands-56884-1024x683 An automobile accident is not a lottery ticket. It is not an opportunity to take a negligent party to court and “sue their pants off” in an effort to win a hefty money judgment sufficient to pay for a bed-and-breakfast getaway in Natchitoches. But it should not leave the plaintiff in the lurch, either, without enough money to even cover medical bills. And sometimes, when you strive for one, you end up missing out on the other. One Louisiana couple learned the limits of revenue-generating potential for automobile accidents the hard way.

Eureka Ellis was driving up the onramp to the I-20 in East Monroe when she was sideswiped by Gregory Brown’s vehicle. Ellis also had her three children in the car with her. Brown apparently merged into Ellis’ lane prematurely. Brown did not deny he was at fault, but he asserted that the impact was minimal, reportedly asking after the collision if they even needed to call the police. The resultant “tap” of Brown’s vehicle left a few scratches on the driver’s side quarter panel of Ellis’ Charger; whether or not there was even a dent was a matter of dispute. When police arrived at the scene, none of the parties reported injuries, and no ticket was issued.

Despite the mild nature of the collision, 12 days later, Ellis and her children all went to see a chiropractor. This chiropractor, Dr. Holt, diagnosed them with neck and back pain. Over the course of the next three months, Dr. Holt saw Ms. Ellis and her three children twice a week, over 20 times each, billing them in excess of $15,000. The Ellises then filed a lawsuit against Brown and his insurer for general damages, special damages arising from the chiropractor visits, loss of consortium, and lost wages. Though the Trial Court denied a few of the claims, it determined that some damages were in order, and awarded the Ellis family a grand total of $7,692.50. This figure was far below their total claim requested and barely half of what they owed the chiropractor.

October 20, 2019

Louisiana Court Determines No Design Flaw in Ruston Intersection

by Berniard Law Firm

architecture-asian-bird-s-eye-view-186537-1024x768 When you are injured in an accident, it may be tempting to file a lawsuit against anyone and everyone who might have been even slightly involved in the chain of events. The pain and frustration of an accident leads some injured parties to try and make as many people pay as possible. This instinct, while perhaps useful, needs to be tempered with some common sense and a firm understanding of the law. And, if multiple defendants are going to be sued, sufficient evidence has to be presented to show each party’s involvement and their negligence in the accident.

After an accident on the I-20, Mrs. Passon filed a lawsuit against not only the negligent driver and their insurer, but also the City of Ruston (“City”), the Lincoln Parish Police Jury (“Parish”), and the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (“DOTD”). Clearly, she thought the intersection was inherently dangerous. After settling with the driver and insurance company, those two parties were dropped from the lawsuit. The City, the Parish and DOTD all filed motions for summary judgment to dismiss the case. The Parish asserted they had no custody or control of the area in which the accident occurred, while DOTD and the City stated the intersection posed no unreasonable risk of harm. DOTD and the City supported their motion with expert reviews of the intersection showing all traffic signals were in compliance with local regulations. They also presented the original construction plans for the intersection. Mrs. Passon countered the motion with a statement by an expert witness and newspaper articles about the intersection in question.

Summary judgment is when the court decides for one party without a full trial. When the court examines all the information submitted for trial up to that point, such as the complaint, the defendant’s answer, evidence found during discovery, affidavits, depositions, etc., and finds there is no genuine dispute of fact between the parties, summary judgment is entered. La. C.C.P. art. 966. And though Louisiana state law allows a plaintiff to sue a public entity under La. R.S. 9:2800, the trial court granted the summary judgment motions.

October 19, 2019

Louisiana Court Rules for Motorist Alleging Insurance Companies Falsified or Forged Signatures

by Berniard Law Firm

car-buying-car-dealership-car-key-97079-1024x683 In today’s world, consumers are faced with increasingly complicated contracts and waiver forms for even the simplest transactions. These contracts not only have the potential to confuse consumers, but create an opportunity for corporate exploitation. The following case illustrates an example of the courts reaffirming protections for consumers over companies.

Andrea Weddborn and Rene Martinez (“Plaintiffs”) had two car insurance policies that covered their 2007 Toyota Camry. They purchased these policies from Affirmative Insurance Company (“Affirmative”) and National Insurance Company (“National”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). In December 2012, Plaintiffs were involved in an automobile accident in Orleans Parish of Louisiana. The accident was caused by an unidentified driver of another vehicle who changed lanes, struck Plaintiffs’ vehicle, and then fled the scene.

Both Affirmative and National refused to compensate Plaintiffs for the damages suffered in the accident, arguing that Plaintiffs’ insurance policies did not include Uninsured Motorist (“UM”) coverage. Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit against the insurance companies.

October 18, 2019

Appellate Court Rejects Appeal from Transportation Company Regarding Comparative Fault and Award

by Berniard Law Firm

bus-locomotive-transportation-system-2261702-713x1024 Once a trial court determines a judgment, it is difficult to obtain a reversal, especially if the judgment is one in which a jury awards compensation for a personal injury plaintiff. In the case below, the defendant appealed the amount the Trial Court awarded the plaintiff. The Appellate Court was deferential to the Trial Court’s judgment.

Joc-Kia Wilson suffered from cerebral palsy and thus moved around on a motor scooter. While she attempted to board a bus operated by Veolia Transportation Services in New Orleans, the wheelchair lift ramp had apparently malfunctioned and caused her to fall. When she visited a hospital, an MRI revealed that various parts of her body were sprained. Ms. Wilson filed a claim against Veolia Transportation Services for compensation. The Trial Court awarded a total of $19,879.00 to Ms. Wilson for her pain and suffering and medical expenses. This amount was reduced by forty percent because of Ms. Wilson’s fault in the accident. However, Veolia Transportation Services disagreed that Ms. Wilson was only forty percent at fault. Veolia also argued that the amount awarded to Ms. Wilson was faulty because she had not presented relevant evidence for her medical injuries. Veolia asked the Appellate Court to set aside the trial court’s decision.

An appellate court may cast aside a trial court’s finding of fact only if it is “clearly wrong.” Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989). In order to rule that a finding of fact is “clearly wrong,” the appellate court must first show that it cannot find any factual basis for its decision from the trial record. Second, the appellate court must determine from the record that the trial court’s finding is clearly wrong. Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120, 1127 (La. 1987). To put it simply, the appellate court must determine whether or not the decision made at the trial court level was a reasonable one. Cosse v. Allen-Bradley Co., 601 So.2d 1349, 1351 (La. 1992).

October 17, 2019

Prior Attorney Unable to Receive Portion of Settlement Check

by Berniard Law Firm

balance-commerce-composition-261658-1024x768 Trials are an economic drain on society. Though they serve an important role in our society, they are costly and time-consuming. As a result, courts cannot take every case to trial, and the judicial system must be selective. Thus, sometimes a court makes a judgment without a trial because there would be no purpose for a trial. These judgments are called summary judgments. Below is a case in which the Trial Court granted summary judgment because one of the parties did not even have a valid legal claim.

In 2002, Kimberly Moe incurred injuries from a car accident in the Orleans Parish of Louisiana. She hired Allen Borne, Jr. to be her attorney. After four months, however, Ms. Moe decided to hire a different attorney, Darryl Carimi. Mr. Carimi filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver at fault, Frank Bastian, and his insurer, Allstate. But Mr. Borne, despite no longer being Ms. Moe’s lawyer, asked Allstate to put his name on any settlement checks that were to be issued. While the litigation was ongoing, Ms. Moe died. Upon her death, her surviving spouse filed a wrongful death claim, but eventually settled with Mr. Bastian and Allstate. The settlement check did not have Mr. Borne’s name. In fact, though Mr. Borne had filed a claim against Allstate in order to receive some portion of the settlement, Allstate filed a motion for summary judgment. The Trial Court granted Allstate’s motion.

For an appellate court to consider whether a trial court properly granted a motion for summary judgment, the court must determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Citron v. Gentilly Carnival Club, Inc., 165 So.3d 304, 313 (La. Ct. App. 2015); La. C.C.P. art. 966 A(3). A party wishing to defeat a motion for summary judgment must show that there are sufficient facts the party can show at trial to support its claim. La. C.C.P. art. 966 C(2).