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

by

adult-automotive-blur-13861-1024x683Many workers hope that, should they be injured on the job, financial protections are in place to ensure that they have plenty of time to recover before going back to work. The protections are often in the form of workers’ compensation payments. However, these protections will not protect an injured worker indefinitely. Should a doctor find that a worker is fit enough to return to the job, the employer has the right to fire an employee that refuses to return to work. It is important to understand when an injured worker is required to return to the job and what needs to be proven to extend the payment period.

Kerry West was involved in a car wreck while he was working for the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans (“S&WB”). Mr. West had worked for S&WB for approximately 25 years. After the accident, Mr. West did not return to work. This was under the advisement of his primary care physician, Dr. Waterman. Because it disagreed with Dr. Waterman’s opinion, S&WB sent Mr. West to another doctor for a second opinion, Dr. Steiner. In contrast to Dr. Waterman’s evaluation, Dr. Steiner found that Mr. West could return to work. However, this return was limited to light duty work. S&WB offered Mr. West an accommodating position of light duty work. Despite the new evaluation and the offer of light duty work, Mr. West refused to return to work in the new position. He relied on the opinion of his primary care physician, Dr. Waterman. In response to Mr. West’s refusal to go to work, S&WB held a pre-termination hearing. Mr. West was allowed to testify on his own behalf. He claimed that he was unable to return to work in any fashion. Mr. West was then fired by S&WB pursuant to Civil Service Rule IX § 1.1, as he was unwilling to return to work.

Mr. West then appealed his termination to the Civil Service Commission for the City of New Orleans. The Commission performed a hearing, where both Mr. West and S&WB testified and presented evidence on Mr. West’s ability to work, and his refusal to do so. Independently, the Commission found that S&WB had found sufficient cause to terminate Mr. West. It was this decision by the Commission that Mr. West appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit.

Continue reading

by

26-Picture-05-22-2019-1024x687The doctrine of peremption can prevent someone from bringing legal action against someone should that action be brought after a certain amount of time. Peremption is a period of time fixed by law for the existence of a right. La.Civ.Code art. 3458. This period is defined by an applicable statute. Arthur Gibson’s case contains two instances of peremption extinguishing a party’s right to bring a claim.   

Arthur Gibson was performing manual labor in the hold of a ship in 2004. While at work, he suffered injuries to his neck and blamed the company who made the materials he was moving. This company was Louisiana Rice Mill (“LRM”). For the next ten years, he attempted to bring two civil actions against LRM for negligence and product liability. Mr. Gibson received workers compensation during this time, pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act. He was represented by Raleigh Newman, for his civil claims, and J. Lee Hoffoss, Jr., who handled his worker’s compensation claim. 

However, after a visit to a neurosurgeon in 2010, Mr. Gibson’s workers’ compensation benefits were discontinued. Mr. Gibson was never informed of the suspension of his payments. He continued to receive regular payments from Mr. Newman, his attorney, during this time to help cover his living expenses. Therefore, Mr. Gibson was unaware that his workers’ compensation benefits had been suspended. He did not discover this until 2014, when his civil actions against LRM ran dry. Mr. Gibson filed a petition for damages against his attorneys. He claimed that they had performed legal malpractice by failing to appeal the suspension of his benefits. The trial court granted the defendant attorney’s exception of peremption, as the claim was brought more than three years after the alleged injury occurred. Mr. Gibson appealed the trial court’s decision.

Continue reading

by

19-Picture-05-22-2019-1024x658The strip of grass between the street and the sidewalk seems harmless enough. Yet, when negligently maintained, it can pose a danger to the public. The case that follows helps determine who should be liable for such a defect when an injury occurs on that piece of property.

Edward Cusimano was delivering pizzas in the Parish of Jefferson. He stopped in front of the defendant’s house to deliver the pie to the neighbors across the street. He got out of his car, walked around to the passenger side to get the pizza, and stepped in a hole and was injured. The hole was on the grassy stretch of land between the road and the sidewalk. Mr. Cusimano filed suit against the Parish of Jefferson and against the owners of the property that had the “grassy hole” in front of it. The defendant property owners claimed that the area where the hole was located was public property and therefore, they were not liable for injuries that occurred due to a defect on that land. The plaintiff, however, claimed that they had a duty to maintain the property, as they owned the property in question. Mr. Cusimano claimed they should have been aware of the hole’s existence, as they had maintained that part of their property for many years. Because they owned the property and should have known of the defect, Mr. Cusimano claimed the defendant landowners should be liable for his injury. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as Mr. Cusimano failed to show that the defendants actually knew of or created the hole that caused his injuries. Mur. Cusimano appealed the trial court’s decision.

As the appeal was for the grant of summary judgment, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit would review the judgment from the beginning, or de novo. The Court of Appeal noted that “the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of proof.” La. C.C.P. art. 966(C)(2). Therefore, Mr. Cusimano had the burden of showing that the defendants were liable for his injuries. 

Continue reading

by

asphalt-clouds-daylight-730662-1024x683Guardrails serve a life-saving function on our roads. Their placement on dangerous curves or in front of bodies of water can turn a deadly accident into a routine fender bender. Unfortunately, guardrails cannot be on every section of road. Local and state government agencies are only obligated to place them where they can prevent foreseeable accidents from happening. But, some situations are nearly impossible to predict, especially in cases where the vehicle was not following the road for a long period of time before the accident. With the help of an excellent attorney, St. Charles Parish was able to avoid liability to an injured driver after one of these unpredictable situations.

Dustin Schexnayder, Sr. was driving himself to work on Bonnet Carre Spillway Road (“Spillway Road”) in St. Charles Parish. While driving westbound, Mr. Schexnayder drove off Spillway Road and traveled about 126 feet in the grass next to the road. His car then went airborne and ran into a rock embankment. He could not remember any details of the accident and no witnesses were present.

The accident caused Mr. Schexnayder to become mentally incompetent. Therefore, he was represented by a curator in eventual lawsuit brought against St. Charles Parish, the St. Charles Parish President, the St. Charles Parish Council, the State of Louisiana, The United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USCOE”), and the United States of America. In the lawsuit, Mr. Schexnayder claimed that roads were missing proper shoulders and guardrails and because of the lack of these safety measures his accident turned out worse than it should have. Specifically, Mr. Schexnayder pointed to USCOE request for guardrails in the area of the accident which was denied by Parish employees.

Continue reading

by

addiction-betting-casino-5258-1024x684Providing preferential seating to disabled customers is a great service most businesses provide. This also means that the wheelchairs, walkers, and other items the disabled customers must be stored in areas that provide a safe walking environment for other customers. The controversy surrounding where it is proper or improper to put these items was illustrated in a case where a Baton Rouge Casino was sued by a woman who tripped over the walker of a disabled customer. With the help of an excellent attorney, the Casino was able to prove it seated a disabled gentleman properly when the woman sued the casino after her fall.

73-year-old Elvera Willig was eating dinner a Baton Rouge Casino, the L’Auberge Casino & Hotel (“the Casino”) on New Year’s Day 2014. While making her 4th trip back from the buffet, she tripped and fell over an unidentified man’s walker that was slightly sticking into the pathway. As a result of the fall, Ms. Willig fractured her hip.

It was later determined that the unidentified man was directed to the seat by an employee of the Casino. Ms. Willig brought a lawsuit against the Casino. In the lawsuit, she claimed that the Casino was negligent and failed to protect guests; the Casino was negligent and sat the patron inappropriately close to the walkway; and the Casino negligently sat the unidentified man and his walker in a place where other customers could trip on the walker.

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