Car Accident

The Cost of Litigation is in the Court’s Discretion in Louisiana

Published on: March 23, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

money_laundering_money_music_0-scaled The lawsuit process can be expensive between investigation, preparation for trial, and the trial itself. This is on top of the emotional rollercoaster of events that have given rise to a lawsuit in the first place. Unfortunately, sometimes a plaintiff may lose at trial and be hit with all the litigation costs for both parties. The following case shows how those costs are within the court’s discretion.

Sarah Reynolds was involved in a head-on collision with a passenger bus while driving her car in Slidell, Louisiana. Both vehicles were operating at the posted speed limit of 70 miles per hour. Reynolds was traveling the wrong way on a westbound overpass on Interstate 10. When authorities reached the scene, Reynolds was found unconscious and unrestrained. Reynolds blood tests revealed a blood alcohol content of .082gm% and a presence of Xanax and marijuana. Reynolds died a few hours after the accident due to the multiple traumatic injuries sustained.

Reynolds’ son, mother, son’s father, and estate filed a lawsuit against the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). They alleged Reynolds had been misdirected onto the wrong side of the roadway due to DOTD’s negligence. DOTD subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs could neither establish negligence nor causation.

Louisiana Jury Awards No Damages Because of Preexisting Injuries, Can an Appeals Court Fix the Ruling?

Published on: March 22, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

courthouse_alabama_building_226689-scaled Everyone wants to emerge victorious after their day in court, but occasionally the jury will refuse to award the judgment you deserve. When a person loses their case at trial, they can appeal it to a higher court. The appeal process allows for a narrow reconsideration of a case to assure that the lower court got to the correct answer; if the appeals court finds that the lower court did not get the correct answer, they can amend the lower court’s judgment, including the calculation of damages.

Preexisting medical conditions aggravated by an accident do not preclude an injured party from recovering damages and medical expenses from the person who hit them. Ms. Kimberly Guidry has such preexisting medical conditions and was involved in an accident that aggravated those preexisting medical conditions. At trial in the 15th Juridical District, the jury found awarded no damages, no medical expenses, and no lost wages to Kimberly.

Kimberly had presented medical expert testimony that showed her injuries were aggravated by the accident, but the jury awarded her nothing. With this denial, Kimberly appealed to the Third Circuit Court of appeals. She claimed the jury committed “manifest error” in their findings and that the trial court had committed a “legal error” in failing to grant her a new trial due to this adverse ruling. Kimberly’s case helps answer the question; “If a Louisiana Jury awards no damages because of preexisting injuries, can an appeals court fix the ruling?”

Trial Court Judgment Amended in Baton Rouge Workplace Incident, Shows Importance of Diligent Lawyering

Published on: March 21, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

hammer_court_judge_justice-scaled Court cases are contentious, polarizing atmospheres between the parties. Stubbornness is ripe, and the opposing parties are staunchly in, unsurprisingly, opposition. However, sometimes even opposing parties can agree. Any party can take issue with a court’s judgment, and sometimes ALL parties can take issue with a court’s decision–even if these issues are different. But when multiple parties raise various errors in a trial court judgment, how can the higher courts resolve such allegations of error?

In 2001, a workplace incident occurred between the plaintiff, Bradley W. Smith, and the defendant, then-coworker Paul Babin. Smith alleged that while the two parties were in the parking lot at their workplace, Babin intentionally hit Smith with his vehicle. In his 2002 lawsuit, Smith claimed that Babin was liable for Smith’s damages and later amended the lawsuit to include Shelter Mutual Insurance Company (Shelter) as Babin’s liability insurer.

In late 2014, a trial court heard Smith’s lawsuit on liability, causation, and damages and then heard Babin’s crossclaims. At the beginning of the trial, the parties entered a pretrial stipulation that determined Smith’s past medical expenses caused by Babin’s act totaled $338,556.27, for which both Shelter and Babin would get worker’s compensation credit.

Court Deadlines Are Important, Especially in Federal Court

Published on: March 19, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

clock_time_dead_broken-scaled Before taking on one of the nation’s largest, leading automotive manufacturing companies, it is essential to consult an excellent attorney with knowledge of the Federal Court system. The importance of following the deadlines set by the Court in that system cannot be understated. Unfortunately, the lesson of how critical it is to follow court deadlines came to bear a harsh reality for the children of two deceased car accident victims in the following case.

Sandra, Carnel, Darnell, Gregory, and Lashawn Joseph (collectively “the Josephs”) sued GM after the car their parents, George and Jeanette Joseph, were passengers in caught fire and crashed into the guardrail, causing their parents’ fatal injuries. In trying to gather evidence to support their claims against GM at the District Court, the Josephs sought expert testimony. Still, they failed to identify expert witnesses or produce expert reports before the District Court’s scheduled deadline passed. Therefore, the District Court denied the Josephs’ motion to reschedule the deadlines based on their failure to show good cause for not meeting the deadline.

The Josephs did not object to this denial, and GM moved for summary judgment. The summary judgment argued that because Josephs had no experts to prove their claims, they had no case to go forward with. The Josephs attempted to admit expert testimony to challenge GM’s motion. However, the District Court neither allowed the testimony because the Josephs missed the previously scheduled deadlines nor allowed the Josephs extra time for discovery. As a result, the District Court ruled in favor of GM on the motion for summary judgment. The Josephs subsequently appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

New Orleans Car Accident with Out of State Insurance Policy, Which State’s Laws Apply to the Lawsuit?

Published on: March 18, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

detour_confusion_sign_direction-scaled
Automobile insurance claims are complex enough, as it is unlikely that all parties involved will immediately agree on a settlement amount. These claims become even more convoluted when there are questions as to what state law should apply or when the insured isn’t fully aware of what his policy entails. Unfortunately, this is precisely what happened when a man was involved in an accident in New Orleans.

Jones was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Orleans Parish, and the other driver, insured by Allstate, was found to be at fault. Jones settled with Allstate and then attempted to recover under his own uninsured/underinsured motorist claim from GEICO. GEICO denied his claim stating that Jones was in direct violation of his Georgia-issued policy and statutory law when he failed to obtain GEICO’s approval before settling with and releasing Allstate.

Jones then brought a claim against GEICO, where he, in part, filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a judicial determination that Louisiana law applied, not Georgia’s. The Civil District Court of Orleans Parish granted Jones’ partial summary judgment claim and found that Louisiana law applied. GEICO then appealed the Trial Court’s ruling to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, where the issue focused on whether the Trial Court correctly granted Jones’ motion for partial summary judgment.

When a Defendant is Dismissed Before the Trial, Can Another Defendant Appeal the Decision?

Published on: March 12, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

motorcycle_motorcycle_689316-scaled When finding yourself as a defendant in a lawsuit, you will want to limit your liability as much as possible. Your liability could be altered when a co-defendant is found to be at fault for the injuries to a certain extent. However, when one defendant is dismissed before the trial begins, can another defendant seeking to split the fault appeal the decision? A case arising out of St. Charles Parish aims to answer this question.

Devyn Allen, the defendant, was driving westbound on U.S. Highway 90 when he moved from the westbound lane into the center turn lane. When riding his motorcycle, the plaintiff, Tobias Dixon, hit the back of Allen’s car. Dixon was thrown from his motorcycle upon impact and landed on the pavement. While still on the pavement, Dixon alleged that Patrick Jackson, the co-defendant, ran Dixon over in his pickup truck. Dixon then sued Allen; Progressive Insurance Company, Allen’s insurer; Jackson; Command Construction Industries, Jackson’s employer; the Gray Insurance Company, Command’s insurer; Louisiana Pizza Group (LPG), Allen’s employer; and Tudor Insurance Company, LPG’s insurer.

Jackson, Command Construction, and the Gray Insurance Company then filed a motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide based on the arguments filed in favor of the filing party. Jackson argued that there was no evidence that he hit Dixon while lying on the pavement. The trial court agreed with Jackson and granted the motion. Following the decision, LPG appealed the decision arguing that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether Jackson hit Dixon and that Jackson should also be held liable for Dixon’s injuries.

Can the Louisiana Department of Transportation Be Found Liable for a Car Accident?

Published on: March 11, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

transportation_vehicle_road_879026-scaled Driving poses undeniable risks. However, travelers may need to consider how unsafe a barrier curb may be in certain situations. When is the state liable for these conditions? A case from the St. John Baptist parish considered how the state department of development and transportation was at fault for construction risks that contributed to an accident.

One afternoon, James Harris drove along the Airline Highway in Louisiana with his wife and their two grandchildren. As Harris traveled southbound, another northbound driver, Marilyn (MB), began driving erratically. MB’s car eventually drifted into the opposite side of traffic after crossing over a barrier curb on the highway. Harris moved onto the right-hand shoulder of the road to avoid MB. Unfortunately, despite his efforts to prevent a collision, MB’s vehicle crashed into Harris’, and he injured his left leg, foot, and hip. Ultimately, Harris’ left leg was amputated eight inches below the knee, and MB died from the accident.

Harris sued the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) for failing to have a jersey curb that would have prevented MB’s car from drifting into the opposite side of traffic. In addition, he sued Progressive Security Insurance Company, MB, MB’s insurance provider. The trial court found the DOTD to be 90% at fault and Ms. MB to be 10% at fault for the accident, and the jury ultimately awarded Harris $5,000,000 in general damages and $1,000,000 for loss of enjoyment of life. On appeal, the DOTD argued that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the DOTD liable and in the number of damages awarded to Harris.

Where There’s Smoke, There’s a Lawsuit: Determining Liability for a Car Accident Resulting from a Marsh Fire

Published on: March 4, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

camillo_fire_2015_06_25-scaled
The phrase, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” is often used to describe situations where one thing almost certainly indicates the presence of another. However, establishing a contributing factor to a car accident and liability for negligence does not always follow so direct a relationship.

Shortly before Tropical Storm Lee reached the marshlands of Oak Island just outside of New Orleans in September 2011, an employee of the LPC (“Little Pine”), the entity that owns Oak Island, saw traces of smoke and reported it to the Fire Department (NOFD). NOFD investigated the scene and found a fire, but the area from which the smoke was coming was not accessible to fire crews. The onset of Tropical Storm Lee made it even more difficult for NOFD, which had called in the Louisiana Army National Guard — to reach the source of the smoke. Helicopter water drops were used to treat the fire, but access by boat or other means remained impossible. The fire continued to burn for months under the daily monitoring of NOFD.

On the morning of December 29, 2011, drivers traveling on Interstate 10 past the Oak Island marshlands suddenly encountered thick, dense fog and smoke clouds, resulting in nearly zero visibility. Scott Lowe, a passenger in one of the vehicles traveling on I-10, was involved in a multi-car accident caused by poor visibility conditions. Lowe filed a lawsuit against Little Pine, arguing that it acted negligently by allowing the marsh fire to burn for months after it began, allowing smoke to obstruct visibility along a major roadway, and failing to exercise due care regarding the safety of others. Little Pine filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there was no genuine issue of material fact about whether Little Pine was liable for an “unavoidable Act of God/force majeure.” In addition, Little Pine asserted it owed no duty to Lowe to extinguish the marsh fire. The trial court granted Little Pine’s motion for summary judgment, and Lowe appealed.

No Pay, No Play, No Problem? Uninsured Motorist Injured in Car Accident Obtains Jury Award

Published on: March 2, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

harry_potter_car_1176447-scaled Car accidents are traumatic experiences that occur every day across Louisiana. An accident can cause initial damage upon impact, but many accident victims also spend months and sometimes years coping with accident-related injuries.

On June 27, 2014, Jasmine Raymond, a twenty-four-year-old driver who did not have auto insurance as required by Louisiana law, was heading eastbound on Interstate 10. Her car was rear-ended by Lance Cook, a truck driver for Rubber & Specialties, Inc. when he took his eyes off the road to check the GPS on his phone. Over the next two years following the accident, Raymond required numerous surgeries and procedures to address injuries she sustained in the crash.

Raymond filed a lawsuit against Cook and his employer, seeking damages for injuries arising from the accident. Before trial, Cook, his employer, and his insurance company filed an affirmative defense to Raymond’s claims under the “no pay, no play statute.” This law states that the victim of a car accident without proper insurance may not recover the first $15,000 of bodily injury damages and the first $25,000 of property damages in any claim related to the accident. La. R.S. 32:866. The rule does not apply when the accident is caused by a drunk driver, a driver who flees the scene, or a driver who otherwise intentionally causes the accident. According to a 2012 report by the Insurance Research Council, the no pay, no play rule intends to provide relief for at-fault drivers who nevertheless complied with state insurance requirements. Raymond filed a motion to dismiss the defendant’s affirmative defense. However, the trial court deferred the issue and proceeded to trial.

Baton Rouge Car Dealer Escapes Vicarious Liability Claim in Accident Involving Motorcyclist

Published on: February 28, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

crash_test_collision_60_2-scaled It’s a common scenario: a potential buyer visits a car lot, finds a vehicle he’d like to test drive, and heads out onto the road with the salesperson in the passenger seat. What happens, though, if an accident occurs during the test drive? Suppose the potential buyer loses control of the vehicle while driving — who is responsible for injuries and property damage that result?

On October 27, 2007, Ronald Branstetter was riding his motorcycle on Airline Highway in Baton Rouge when he was allegedly forced off the highway. Branstetter states that defendants Beal and Rives were test-driving a 1988 Ford Bronco when Beal lost control of the truck. To avoid a collision, Branstetter swerved off of the highway, causing him to suffer injuries. Branstetter brought a lawsuit against Beal and Rives to recover damages from his injuries, alleging that the injuries were caused by Beal’s and Rives’s negligence. Branstetter also named Millenium Auto Sales (“Millenium”) as a defendant in the case, alleging that Millenium owned the Ford Bronco and that the company employed Rives, giving rise to a vicarious liability claim.

Under Louisiana law, employers are generally responsible for the damage caused by their employees, but only if the employee is acting within the course and scope of his employment. La. C.C. art. 2320. A “servant,” or employee, is considered to be a person under the control of another employed to perform services. On the other hand, a non-servant agent may contribute to the employer’s business but is not under the employer’s control. In determining if there is a master-servant relationship, courts often look to factors including compensation, the status of the employee, performance of a specific mission, the intensity of the relationship, control, the role of the employer in exercising control, and the direct benefit to the company. See Cason v. Saniford, 148 So. 3d 8 (La. Ct. App. 2014).