private-property-1314276-1024x680Property disputes can be complicated and confusing, so it is important to hire an excellent lawyer capable of untangling all of the issues involved in the case. Plaintiff Don Whitlock owns property in East Carroll Parish, Louisiana and brought a petition against Defendant Fifth Louisiana District Levee Board and its lessee, Jamie Isaac, seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from trespassing on his property when they travelled across to access a hunting lease owned by the defendant Levee Board that is located west of Plaintiff’s property. Mr. Whitlock farms on the three lots of land at issue and alleged Issac caused damage as he crossed all three lots, creating ruts in the soil, damaging crops, and changing the flow of water. The defendants, however, argued that the land was conveyed to plaintiff’s ancestor with a public right of passage in the deed, and thus there could be no suit for trespass. The Trial Court agreed and with the defendants and held that there was no cause of action. It also held that since Mr. Whitlock was not the sole owner of the land (there were other owners on two of the three lots), he failed to join all the parties and further lacked the capacity to sue in a representative capacity for the other owners. Finally, it took a “strange” step in ruling on the merits of the preliminary injunctions despite the fact that it had sustained the exceptions raised by the defendants. It held that preliminary injunction could not be granted because Mr. Whitlock failed to show irreparable harm. Thus, the Trial Court dismissed the case. On appeal, Mr. Whitlock argued that the Trial Court’s rulings were improper.

The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the Trial Court’s dismissal of the case. The Court of Appeal found that the exceptions were improperly sustained and the Trial Court applied the wrong burden of proof in ruling on the preliminary injunction. Mr. Whitlock is the sole owner of Lot 3 and is an owner “indivision” of Lots 1 and 2. Whitlock’s ancestor had purchased all three lots in 1973 and the lots were burdened by a “right of way twenty feet wide across the lands . . . to serve as a road for the use of the public and which right of way shall hereafter be located by said vendee.” This public right of way eventually became a gravel road named Parish Gravel Road No. 1205 or 1285. It ran across the east side of the property, entirely located within lot 1. However, when defendant Issac became the lessee of the Swan Lake property owned by the defendant Levee Board, he began crossing Whitlock’s property in various places because the Swan Lake property was located directly behind lot 3. Whitlock alleged that he told Issac to stop and attempted to address the issues with the Levee Board because of the ruts being created as Isaac and his friends drove vehicles across the property, damaging his crops and changing the natural flow of water. Whitlock argued that Issac was not taking the shortest route across the property nor was he taking a route that would cause the least disruption. The Levee Board refused to take any action and Issac continued crossing against Whitlock’s wishes. Eventually, Whitlock filed a lawsuit seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction and damages for the loss of 2.2 acres of land that he could not use.

The Defendants asserted that the case should be dismissed because of the right of way included in the deed. Further, they alleged that Whitlock was not the sole owner of all of the property and thus, was required to join his co-owners in the lawsuit. The Trial Court agreed with these exceptions. It also looked at the merits of the preliminary injunctions and ruled that Whitlock could not meet the burden of proof of irreparable injury. The exceptions were sustained and the case was dismissed.

where-there-s-smoke-there-s-fire-1313884-743x1024Sometimes a police report isn’t everything in a lawsuit as demonstrated by a recent incident in Bossier City, Louisiana involving a peculiar car accident. Physical evidence and eyewitness testimony in a lawsuit can trump a contradictory police report. Therefore, it is important that a person involved in such an incident immediately contacts an excellent attorney who is capable of sifting through mountains of information and presenting it in a way that exposes a potentially faulty police report.

This was the situation with regard to the car accident between Amanda Moreland and Dr. Abdullah Gungor.  Ms. Moreland and Dr. Gungor were driving on Benton Road in Bossier City when they crashed. Fortunately, no one was injured, but both cars were damaged.  The accounts of how the accident occurred differed significantly. The police report supported Ms. Moreland’s story, but the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony supported Dr. Gungor’s.  Based on the police report and an expert that she hired, Ms. Moreland brought a lawsuit against Dr. Gungor for the damages to her car.  However, the District Court was persuaded by the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony and ruled that Dr. Gungor was not at fault. The case was dismissed. Ms. Moreland appealed and argued that there was manifest error in the District Court’s ruling because it disregarded the police report and the interpretation of the accident by her expert.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeal found no manifest error and affirmed the District Court’s judgment as reasonable in light of the evidence.

The incident at issue in this case began when both Dr. Gungor and Ms. Moreland were driving on Benton Road. Dr. Gungor was ahead of Ms. Moreland as they both drove toward Benton Spur.  At Benton Spur, the cars collided just before a traffic light.  Both parties agreed to these facts, but who caused the crash was the matter of dispute and at the heart of the lawsuit.  Dr. Gungor’s BMW was damaged on the driver’s side rear while Ms. Moreland’s Cobalt was damaged on the passenger’s side front. This infers that Ms. Moreland crashed into Dr. Gungor from behind.  Despite the location of the damage, the police officer took statements from both parties and wrote in his accident report that Dr. Gungor crashed into Ms. Moreland.  He based his report on Ms. Moreland’s statement that Dr. Gungor “suddenly came into her lane and they crashed” and a statement allegedly attributed to Dr. Gungor that he “swerved into the left lane” because he had to avoid another car.  This police accident report was the basis of Ms. Moreland’s lawsuit against Dr. Gungor.  She also hired an accident reconstruction expert who, relying largely on the accident report, supported her argument that Dr. Gungor was at fault.

hospital-walkway-1223350-777x1024If you have been affected by medical malpractice in any way, you must always be sure to know your rights and the time limits associated with filing any actions against the doctors or medical facilities involved. Generally, there are statutes that limit how long you have to file a claim in court for medical malpractice and if you miss those deadlines, you will not be able to file your lawsuit. It is of utmost importance to find a good lawyer right away who can help you understand your rights and navigate deadlines before it is too late. In Louisiana, the law requires that if you are filing for medical malpractice, you must do so within one year from the date of discovery of the alleged act, omission, or neglect associated with your case. See La. R.S. 9:5628.

In this case, Ms. Watson, a coach at a high school in Louisiana, had a family history of breast cancer. In March 2009, she visited Glenwood Medical Mall (“Glenwood”) to get a mammogram and the doctor (Dr. Atchison) found a small lesion. Ms. Watson testified that Dr. Atchison told her the lesion was benign and she was cancer-free. Just a few weeks later, she discovered a small knot in her breast and returned to the clinic in May 2009 convinced of a diagnosis of breast cancer. A nurse examined Ms. Watson and told her it was a superficial cyst caused by her soda intake. In May 2010, a different doctor told her she did indeed have breast cancer and Ms. Watson testified that by then she felt certain Dr. Atchison and Glenwood had misdiagnosed her cancer and that she had lived for an entire year with cancer and obtained no treatment because of that misdiagnosis.

Eventually, Ms. Watson had a double mastectomy upon the recommendation of the doctor who had found cancer. Ms. Watson filed her medical malpractice suit on June 14, 2011, claiming that she had reduced chances of survival and had undergone treatment that would not have otherwise been necessary. The doctor and hospital filed exceptions of prescription and argued that since Ms. Watson had received her diagnosis of breast cancer in May 2010 and filed in June 2011, she was outside the one-year period for filing a medical malpractice action. The Trial Court found that the evidence was enough to show Ms. Watson should have known about her misdiagnosis in May 2010 and held that the exception of prescription applied to time-bar her action.

to-sign-a-contract-2-1236630-1024x683How do you know whether an arbitration provision in a contract applies? The easy answer: read the contract. If you are a member of a company that provides services to you, such as financing your small business needs, you must be sure to closely read any and all documentation relating to the services provided and what you can do if you are dissatisfied with the company’s work. Companies will often include an arbitration and mediation clause in their contracts with individual members. This means that instead of suing the company in a court of law, the dispute would first have to be arbitrated by an independent third party and an attempt at mediation would have to be made. In Louisiana, companies frequently create operating agreements that function as contracts between owners and members. These operating agreements use a lot of boiler plate language that is ultimately enforced. In fact, Louisiana law favors arbitration. See La. R.S. 9:4201; see also  v. Auction Mgmt. Corp., 908 So.2d 1, 18 (La. 2005).

In May 2014, eleven members of a small business financing company, North Louisiana Bidco, LLC (NLB), filed a lawsuit to enforce their rights to examine NLB’s financial and other records. The eleven members became concerned when NLB was sued by various clients and incurred a bad debt expense of $6 million, which showed on the company’s 2013 financial statements. In response, NLB raised the exception of prematurity. NLB argued that the company’s operating agreement required the members of the company to mediate their disputes amongst themselves and if mediation failed, to submit disputes for arbitration. The members that were suing the company in this instance opposed the prematurity argument and asserted that this dispute was not one “among members” but instead was between the body of the membership itself and the management of the company. The Trial Court upheld the prematurity exception. It held that this was indeed a dispute between members and the mediation and arbitration clause applied.

When the members of NLB appealed the Trial Court’s decision they argued that this dispute was a demand by the members of the company against the company itself. The members were attempting to enforce their own rights to view the company’s records rather than trying to enforce any rights against the other members. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal agreed with the eleven members stating that this was not a dispute between members. Therefore, in the absence of such a dispute between members, the arbitration clause could not be enforced. In addition, the Court of Appeal pointed out that for the arbitration clause to be triggered, the action must have been a dispute arising among members relating to the operating agreement. The operating agreement at issue here made it clear that members had the right to inspect the company’s books and records and no party disputed this fact. Because there was no dispute relating to the agreement and because the dispute was ultimately not between members, the Court of Appeal held that the arbitration clause did not apply and the members would be allowed to bring a lawsuit against the company.

yellow-pay-here-signboard-1631764-1024x774When reviewing a lower court’s decision that an exception of no cause of action should be sustained, an appeals court will determine whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there exists a valid cause of action for relief. When there is no valid cause of action for relief stated, the case will be properly dismissed.

In this case, the facts arose out of a prior lawsuit. In that prior lawsuit, Jeffrey Stegall obtained wage judgment in his favor against a former employer, Orr Motors. His award included penalties and attorney fees. Orr filed for a suspensive appeal, hoping to reduce the amount of money they were required to pay. The Trial Court dismissed Orr’s suspensive appeal and converted it to a devolutive appeal. A devolutive appeal does not suspend the effect or execution of the judgment being appealed.

Orr had secured his attempted suspensive appeal by posting a bond for the full judgment sum with the Clerk of the Monroe City Court. In the meantime, Stegall had obtained an order from the Court directing the Clerk to pay Stegall the funds that were on deposit with the Registry. The Clerk paid the sum.

focus-me-1158253-1024x1024Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is an insurance add-on that protects you against another person’s failure to maintain adequate insurance. This coverage can pay for injuries and property damage caused by another motorist who is not carrying adequate insurance. However, the policy will only cover those things set out in the agreement with the insurer. All insurance agreements are considered contracts under Louisiana law. Therefore, the rules governing contracts generally apply to insurance agreements.

One case illustrates how a court might interpret an uninsured motorist coverage policy. In June 2013, an accident occurred in Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana that involved an uninsured motorist. The plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Horton, were struck by another vehicle, the driver of which did not have insurance. The Horton’s Volvo was physically damaged in the accident and as a result, the car’s market value was significantly reduced. The Hortons filed a lawsuit against their insurer, ANPAC, in order to recover the loss of market value.

The uninsured motorist clause of the contract stated that the insurance company would cover property damages caused by an accident with an uninsured motor vehicle and as such, the Horton’s and ANPAC agreed that the policy should cover the physical damage to the Volvo based on the terms of the agreement. However, the parties disputed whether the contract applied to a loss in market value.

stethoscope-2-1420449-1024x605The issue of whether a doctor’s treatment was the cause of a plaintiff’s injury can ultimately be left to a court to decide. If you have been injured after receiving treatment by a physician, it is important to contact a good lawyer to make sure you maximize your odds of winning the compensation you’re entitled to.

A good illustration of such an issue occurred on April 11, 2007. The plaintiff, in this case, Jerome Smith, was admitted to a hospital for various mental issues. Mr. Smith had a significant medical history of past mental lapses. He reported suffering from auditory and visual hallucinations and tested positive for cocaine upon admission.

Jay Piland, M.D., the defendant in the case and Medical Director of the hospital performed a medical history and physical consultation on Mr. Smith when he arrived at the hospital.  During the consultation, Dr. Piland discovered a foreign object in Mr. Smith’s ear and removed it. Mr. Smith asserted that Dr. Piland punctured his tympanic membrane during the removal of the object.

policewoman-1191043-673x1024Police officers play an integral role in the health, safety, and welfare of the communities they serve and protect. There are many situations where these officers put their lives on the line. There are also some situations where these officers must aid in the day to day needs of civilians. Such needs may include a police escort in order to retrieve belongings from a residence. Are police officers liable for the harm to a civilian that results after the police leave during a police escort? The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court finding that police officers were not liable in such a situation.

After being shot in the back by his estranged wife, Reginald Phillips sued the City of Crowley Police Department (“Crowley Police”) and other defendants. Mr. Phillip’s main claim against the Crowley Police was that they were negligent in leaving him alone with his wife. Mr. and Mrs. Phillips had a history of domestic violence with one another. After one of their fights, the district court issued a temporary restraining order against Mr. Phillips which required him to leave the couple’s home. At a hearing regarding the protective order, the hearing officer denied the protective order finding that Ms. Phillips had actually been the aggressor. Instead, the hearing officer recommended mutual restraining orders and issued a consent order which mandated the couple avoid contact with one another unless accompanied by police.

After the hearing, Mr. Phillips then went to the Crowley Police to request an escort to his shared home in order to collect his belongings. Three Crowley Police officers accompanied him to his home. After a short while, the officers left the residence. Soon after, Ms. Phillips shot Mr. Phillips in the back, and he was subsequently paralyzed from the waist done.

car-crash-1316724-1024x768If you ever suffer from a slip and fall, car accident, or other personal injuries you may be awarded compensation for your injuries by the court. The legal system relies on juries, as triers of fact, to determine damages suffered by parties, and the amount of compensation the injured person is entitled to. The jury’s obligation is to evaluate the facts in a reasonable manner and assign compensation. When the jury in a personal injury case renders a verdict and announces an award, that amount should not be amended unless there is an obvious error in the award.  See La.Civ.Code art. 2324.1

A recent Louisiana case shows this legal principle. Gene Bordelon, was involved in a rear end car accident with Leona Hayes in April of 2012. Bordelon suffered back injuries as the result of the accident. Leona Hayes was an employee working Cutting Edge, CMHC, Inc. at the time of the accident. Bordelon hired a great attorney, and at trial a jury awarded him $2,325,000 is his lawsuit for damages against Cutting Edge.

Cutting Edge appealed this decision made by the trial court. The company argued that the award amounts where abusively high. The appeals court noted upon review “we must find that no reasonable factual basis exists for the jury’s finding and that the finding is clearly wrong in order to reverse the jury’s award.”  Stobart v. State, through Dep’t of Transp. and Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993). In basic terms, The Appeals court should only overturn or change a jury’s verdict if it is clearly wrong, not merely if the court might have come to a different result.

gotcha-1473505-938x1024Many Americans do not know that it is actually possible to legally acquire another person’s land without possessing fair title or good faith. Of course, specific guidelines must be followed, but with some will, knowledge, and close attention to detail, this process known as “adverse possession” can be surprisingly simple to accomplish.

In Louisiana, adverse possession occurs when an individual exercises actual, adverse, physical possession over the property of another.  See Crowell Land & Mineral Corp. v. Funderburk, 692 So.2d 535, 537 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1997). Furthermore the possession must be continuous, uninterrupted, peaceable, public, indisputable, and within discernible bounds. See La. Civ. Code art. 3476. While this may sound like a rather simple task, the kicker is that Louisiana law demands that all those requirements be met for a period of 30 years, making the whole process a bit more of a gamble, considering the time commitment and outside forces beyond one’s control. Additionally, once the requirements are met and the case is presented in court, the adverse possessor bears the burden of proving that all requirements were met. Accordingly, while acquiring land in such a way can be quite lucrative, it can also end up being a big waste of time if you are not able to meet all the requirements continuously for the entire 30-year period.

In 1969, Erne Plessala, Sr., used levees to construct a crawfish pond on Wayne Trahan’s and Larry Verret’s shared land in Iberia Parish. Sometime later, Mr. Plessala moved soil from a spoil bank of the canal bordering the pond so that he could build a campsite and then built a bridge over the canal to the campsite.

Contact Information