This case examines the requirements for proving merchant liability in slip and fall cases, emphasizing the importance of evidence and the burden of proof.
Case Background
Lamarr Pierite sued Dollar General, alleging he slipped and fell in a liquid substance at their store, causing injuries. After a trial, the court found Dollar General liable and awarded Mr. Pierite $30,000 in general damages plus other costs. Dollar General appealed the judgment.
A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case sheds light on the complexities of personal injury claims following car accidents, particularly when pre-existing conditions are involved. In the case of Lewis v. Fowler, the plaintiffs were involved in a minor accident and subsequently claimed significant damages for aggravated chronic pain. However, the court ultimately ruled that their pre-existing conditions were not substantially worsened by the accident and that they had been adequately compensated by the initial settlement from the at-fault driver’s insurance. This decision highlights the importance of establishing a clear causal link between the accident and any claimed aggravation of pre-existing conditions and the challenges plaintiffs face in proving damages when their medical history is complex.
Walter and Beverly Lewis were rear-ended at a stoplight. While the accident was minor, with no damage to the other vehicle and only slight damage to their own, the Lewises claimed the accident aggravated their pre-existing back and neck pain. They initially settled with the at-fault driver’s insurance company but then filed a claim against their uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) carrier, State Farm, alleging their damages exceeded the initial settlement.
The trial court ruled in favor of State Farm, finding that the Lewises failed to prove their chronic pain was aggravated by the accident beyond a brief period. It determined that the initial settlement adequately compensated for any injuries or aggravations caused by the accident.
In a recent personal injury case, Latulippe v. West Jefferson Medical Center, the Louisiana Court of Appeal tackled the complexities of assessing damages in a car accident case where the plaintiffs had pre-existing medical conditions. The case arose from a rear-end collision on the Crescent City Connection bridge involving an ambulance. While the defendant admitted fault, the extent of the plaintiffs’ injuries and the appropriate compensation became the central point of contention. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s decision, highlighting the importance of proving causation and the impact of injuries on the plaintiffs’ lives, even with pre-existing conditions.
Two brothers, Daniel and Casey Latulippe, were rear-ended by a West Jefferson Medical Center (WJMC) ambulance while stopped in traffic. The ambulance driver admitted fault, stating he didn’t brake to avoid the collision out of concern for the patient and EMT in the back.
Both brothers, along with their wives, sued WJMC for damages. The case went to trial, focusing solely on causation and the extent of the brothers’ injuries.
Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog