by

class-classroom-conference-716276-1024x683Opinions vary on the principles of trickle-down economics, but on December 15, 2015 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion which affirmed a lower court summary judgement decision for Northwestern State University to take down economics, along with one of its tenured professors.

In 1994, Robert C. Jones III (“Mr. Jones”) was hired as an economics instructor at Northwestern State University (“NSU”) and later gained tenure as an associate professor. Neither his education nor his instruction could have prepared him for the state enacted public university budget cuts that cost Mr. Jones his job as a result of the Great Recession of 2008. On July 22, 2010, the administrative representatives for NSU sent Mr. Jones a letter to notify him of the end of the economics concentration and his tenure. Following the notice, Mr. Jones presented a seven-page document to a committee of NSU faculty members outlining his arguments against the notice to end his tenure. The committee subsequently rejected Mr. Jones arguments unanimously. A year later, Mr. Jones filed a lawsuit seeking reinstatement and damages against NSU and argued that the university denied his procedural and substantive due process rights. The university raised a defense of sovereign immunity, while the administrative official claimed qualified immunity. The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted these immunities along with NSU’s motion for summary judgment. Mr. Jones appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit, which ultimately affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Procedurally, due process includes adequate notice as well as the opportunity to be heard. Due process becomes less clear to define, so courts often rely on case law, which is comparable to the present situation. 

Continue reading

by

backlit-crime-dark-143580-1024x683When injuries happen at work, it is often challenging to determine who is liable for damages. The question of liability is especially tricky when prison inmates are injured in work release programs. Courts must grapple not only with the employer’s potential liability, but also with the potential liability of the supervising correctional authority. The Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit faced this issue in a lawsuit brought by an inmate injured on work release in Chopin.

Edward Perkins suffered serious injuries while participating in a work release program at the MARTCO plywood facility in Chopin, Louisiana. At MARTCO, Perkins’ supervisor asked him to clean around the drop chute, which required him to get on his knees. When he got back up, Perkins slipped and attempted to brace himself by grabbing a nearby cage, which then fell on him, trapping his head under a lift.

At the time of his injury, Perkins was an inmate under the supervision of the Louisiana Department of Corrections (DOC) and living at the Rapides Parish Work Release Center. Perkins was transported to his job at MARTCO by the DOC, but while at work he was supervised only by his boss at MARTCO, not by the DOC. After he was injured, Perkins sued the DOC, the Sheriff overseeing the work release program, and MARTCO for negligence in Rapides Parish District Court. He also filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, seeking pauper status so he could avoid paying the costs of the suit. The Court determined that Perkins’ injuries did not arise out of a condition of confinement and transferred the case to Natchitoches Parish, where the MARTCO facility was located. Neither court acted on the pauper motion.

Continue reading

by

asphalt-auto-automobile-164634-1024x768Can a used car dealer be held liable in a car accident if they failed to check the car purchaser’s license and insurance? According to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal of Louisiana, the answer is no. Ms. Mire purchased a used vehicle from Blake’s Auto Sales in Broussard, Louisiana. Ms. Mire was able to purchase the vehicle by presenting a valid state ID, but was not required to provide proof of insurance or a valid driver’s license. On July 2014, Ms. Mire allegedly caused a car accident that resulted in the death of Mr. Anthony who worked for the Iberia Public Works Department and was installing a sign on the shoulder of the roadway.

Mr. Anthony’s widow filed suit and named Ms. Mire, as well as Blake’s Auto Sales. She claimed that the used car dealership was liable for failing to certify that Ms. Mire had a valid driver’s license and/or valid insurance coverage when she purchased the car. The car dealer filed a peremptory exception of no cause of action with was granted. The trial court dismissed her claims against the car dealer, with prejudice, and assessed the costs to Mrs. Anthony and she appealed.

Mrs. Anthony claims that the trial court erred when it determined that there was no cause of action against the used car dealer, and the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal disagreed. Louisiana law excludes used car dealers from the provisions of the statute unless the car deal is involved in obtaining the license for the vehicle to the customer. See La. R.S. 32:862(B)(2). Since there is no evidence that Blake’s provided this service for Ms. Mire, they fell under the exclusion in the statute. Furthermore, the Hodges decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court that was cited doesn’t provide for remedy against the used car dealer so the trial court was correct in dismissing for no cause of action in regards to proof of insurance. See Hodges v. Taylor, 101 So.3d 445, 447 (La. 2012). Regarding the car dealer’s failure to verify Ms. Mire had a valid driver’s license, there is no statute or jurisprudence that requires a valid driver’s license in order to purchase a vehicle, so the trial court was correct to dismiss the case for no cause of action.

Continue reading

by

architectural-design-architecture-country-home-2287310-1024x700When customers slip and fall at a store, they expect to be able to recover for their injuries. However, recovery can become complicated when multiple parties were involved in maintaining the premises, such as when the store outsources with another company to provide maintenance services at the store. 

Mr. Terry Collins and his wife Lainie Collins (the Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against Home Depot in Gretna, Louisiana and ISS Facility Services, Inc. (the Defendants) after Mr. Collins slipped and fell on a liquid on the floor in a lumber aisle at the store. On the day of the accident, maintenance workers from ISS Facility Services were operating a floor cleaning machine near the site of the accident. 

Home Depot filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the Collins could not satisfy the required burden of proof for claims against merchants in showing that Home Depot had either created, or had notice of the liquid substance that allegedly caused the accident. See La. R.S. 9:2800.6. The trial court granted Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment, stating that ISS was an independent contractor, so that Home Depot had not created the alleged dangerous condition. Furthermore, the Collins had not provided sufficient proof that Home Depot had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. 

Continue reading

by

art-close-up-costume-1144283-1024x683A Mardi Gras Ball can be an exciting and fun event; however, when someone is injured, the mood turns from festive to fearful. If you were the one injured, from whom do you recover your damages? Can you even recover? If you are the organization, are you insured? Who will bear the cost associated with the injury? For an organization, having a strong insurance contract from the beginning can work to alleviate these concerns and many others.  

 Ms. Clesi had attended a Mardi Gras Ball at the Pontchartrain Center when she sustained injuries resulting from a fall. She then filed suit against The City of Kenner (“the City”) and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (“Lloyd’s”). The underlying case is pending. The City proceeded to file for damages against The Krewe of Argus (“Argus”). The City alleged that there was a Use License Agreement between it and Argus, which required Argus to obtain an insurance policy from Lloyd’s for the use of the Pontchartrain Center for its Mardi Gras Ball. The City claimed that it was entitled to protection under the insurance policy in the same way Argus was. If the City’s claim was correct, Lloyd’s would be forced to defend the City against Ms. Clesi’s damages claims. Further, the City seeks reimbursement from the attorney fees and other costs associated with defending Ms. Clesi’s suit.

The trial court found in favor of the City. An appeal followed. Defendant appellants argued that the court must further interpret the indemnification provision of the Use License Agreement so that there could be a determination of the scope of Lloyd’s duty to defend the City.   

Continue reading

by

accident-action-auto-220996-1024x683Car accidents are always stressful, even if they are minor accidents and no one gets hurt. However, when you have multiple accidents within moments of each other and someone is seriously injured, or killed, things turn serious. And when things turn serious, you will want an experienced attorney at your side.

Mr. Davis was operating a tractor-trailer on the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge when he noticed a collision that had recently occurred between a Ford pickup truck and a U.S. Xpress, Inc. tractor-trailer. There were no emergency personnel, signs, or warnings of the accident. As Davis came to a stop he was struck from behind by the defendant, Mr. Scott, who was driving a vehicle owned by Service Transport. After being struck by Scott, Davis’ vehicle thrust forward and hit the Ford pickup. Scott then exited his vehicle and found the driver of the pickup, Jonas Richmond, deceased near Davis’ trailer axle. 

Davis filed suit, naming Scott, Service Transport, and the insurer of Service Transport, National Interstate Insurance Company, as defendants. Davis claimed he was entitled to damages from mental anguish and emotional distress due to the death of Mr. Richmond. The defendants argued that Davis is not entitled to damages because he was not directly involved in the incident that caused the injury and resulting death of Mr. Richmond.

Continue reading

by

logistics-lorry-mountains-93398-1024x683A car accident is difficult to manage even when it is just a simple fender-bender. Imagine a situation where the accident is  so complex that multiple companies are involved, and those companies begin filing crossclaims amongst each other. The suit can quickly get bogged down and complicated. This is exactly what happened to a family driving in St. Tammany Parish.

Mrs. Tarrah Willis was driving in St. Tammany Parish while her husband, Bruce, was in the passenger seat and their three children were in the backseat. Behind the Willis family was a semi-truck owned by Frozen Water and driven by Mr. Johnson. As traffic slowed, Mr. Johnson failed to apply his brakes and violently struck the rear of the Willis vehicle. As a result, the Willis vehicle collided with the vehicle immediately in front of it. Mrs. Willis, her husband, and their three children were all severely injured due to the accident. Mr. and Mrs. Willis bring this suit to recover damages for themselves and for their children.

After filing suit against Frozen Water and the Insurer of Frozen Water, the Willis family filed an amendment to add Reddy Ice and its insurer as additional defendants. The Willis family claimed that Reddy Ice was vicariously liable due to the level of control Reddy Ice had over Frozen Water’s operations. In response, Reddy Ice filed a crossclaim against Frozen Water. Frozen Water filed an objection, but the trial court dismissed the objection. This appeal followed, with Frozen Water contending that Reddy Ice’s claim for defense and indemnity is premature.

Continue reading

by

back-black-and-white-bus-stop-652-1024x683No one likes running errands – especially when you experience bad customer service. However, when bad customer service possibly leads to an assault, how liable is the company? This is a question the Court of Appeal Fourth Circuit of the State of Louisiana recently answered.

On April 12, 2012 David Robertson was standing in the checkout line at the North Broad Supermarket in New Orleans to purchase a cold drink when he realized he was a few cents short of the total. Mr. Robinson then turned to another customer he claimed to have known personally to ask for the difference. This is when cashier Ky Quang Nguyen became involved. Mr. Nguyen accused Mr. Robinson of panhandling and asked that he leave the store – this is when Mr. Robinson allegedly said “make me” and a physical altercation between the two broke out. While this altercation initially started in the marketplace, it eventually escalated into the street. When the altercation ended, Mr. Robinson claims he went to the bus stop across the street from the supermarket where an unidentified employee of the supermarket stabbed Mr. Robinson in the back of the head. After the attack, Mr. Robinson was transported the LSU Medical Center where he received eight staples and had to stay the night. Because of this incident. Mr. Robinson claims he suffers from sharp, shooting pains in his head and continues to have reoccurring nightmares.

Following the incident, Mr. Robinson brought charges to the supermarket and a bench trial was held on November 10, 2015. At this trial, Mr. Robinson argues that Mr. Nguyen was the initial aggressor of the altercation and that any action Mr. Robinson took was in self-defense. Moreover, Mr. Robinson insists he was not panhandling and that the person who stabbed him was either an owner or an employee of the supermarket. However, Mr. Robinson conceded that Mr. Nguyen was not the person who stabbed him, he could not identify who could a have stabbed him, and Mr. Robinson did not introduce any evidence or witnesses to corroborate his claim that he was stabbed by an employee of the supermarket.

Continue reading

by

12-Picture-05-22-2019-816x1024Medical malpractice cases often involve complicated medical issues that can require expert testimony in order to prevail in a lawsuit. Although it is easy to become confused or distracted by the complexity of the issues, it is essential to understand and provide the required expert testimony. 

Mr. Jason Kinch (the Plaintiff), a Lafayette Parish Deputy Sheriff, brought a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Kenneth Godeaux and Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center, Lafayette Louisiana (the Defendants) for breach of standard of care and injuries caused to the Plaintiff due to the failure of the Defendants to accurately diagnose the Plaintiff’s medical condition. When Kinch first visited the hospital on October 7, 2010, he complained of fever, chills, nausea, vomiting and weakness. Dr. Godeaux told Kinch he had pulled a muscle and prescribed medications. Kinch returned to the emergency room on October 10, 2010, in a worse state. He was diagnosed with various conditions, including cellulitis, which required an eleven-day hospital stay and multiple surgeries. Kinch claimed that Dr. Godeaux failed to properly diagnose and appropriately treat this “obvious” infection during the October 7 visit.

The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgement urging the trial court to dismiss Kinch’s claims based on lack of expert medical testimony to establish the requisite standard of care. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing Kinch’s claims with prejudice, finding that the Kinch had not provided adequate evidence to prove his claims. 

Continue reading

by

14-Picture-05-22-2019-1024x683When an unexpected accident occurs, it can be difficult to pinpoint exactly who is responsible for the injury. In the absence of direct evidence of a violation of a duty, the existence of multiple possible parties who might be responsible can preclude recovery. 

Mr. Baraki Tsegaye (the Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against the City of New Orleans and Royal Engineers & Consultants, LLC (the Defendants) for negligence because of an injury suffered by the Plaintiff. When Plaintiff was outside the W Hotel on Poydras Street, New Orleans, a light pole owned by the City of New Orleans fell on him, thereby resulting in grievous injuries to his arm and other limbs. In response, the defendant Royal Engineers & Consultants, LLC filed a motion for summary judgement to dismiss the case against him on the basis that the alleged negligence was not directly caused by the Defendant. The Plaintiff urged the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish (the trial court) to dismiss the motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendants to the original petition applying the principle of res ipsa loquitor. 

What then is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor? It simply is a Latin phrase referring to circumstantial evidence that the negligence of the Defendant is the probable cause of the injury suffered by the Plaintiff in the absence of other evidences to the contrary in the case. See Montgomery v. Opelousas Gen Hospital, 540 So. 2d 312, 319 (La. 1989). The trial court refused to consider the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor and granted a partial summary judgement in favor of Royal Engineers & Consultants, LLC.

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