Accidents

Car Accident Case Dismissed For Improper Venue

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

car_wrecked_accident_collision-scaled If you are considering filing a lawsuit, it is essential that you file it in the correct venue. Otherwise, the court may lack authority to hear your claim and will not be able to consider the merits of your case.

While driving in Terrobonne Parish, Louisiana, Joanna Gilbert had a single car accident on Highway 3011. The accident occurred where the road ended. When she went onto the unpaved pat of the road, she ran off the unpaved area and went into the water.

Gilbert filed a lawsuit in Iberia Parish, where she lived, against the State of Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (“DOTD”). She alleged the car accident had occurred because of DOTD’s negligence, which resulted in her injuries. Gilbert later added her uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance carrier as a defendant.

Prior Mistake Does Not Waive Insurer’s Defense In Subsequent Claim

Published on: October 24, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

supreme_court_building_washington_3_9-scaled If you are in a car accident and your insurance pays your claim, you likely expect the same thing will happen if you are subsequently in a similar accident. What happens if your insurer paid your prior claim, but tries to deny a subsequent claim?

Brandon Forvendel was injured in a car accident. When the accident occurred, he was driving a car he owned and was insured by State Farm. Forvendel had uninsured motorist coverage. After the accident, Forvendel recovered under his uninsured motorist policy.

When the accident occurred, he was living with his mother, who also had insurance through State Farm. Forvendel also tried to recover under his mother’s uninsured motorist policy, which had higher policy limits. State Farm denied his attempt to recover under both his and his mother’s policies under the anti-stacking provisions in La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c). Forvendel then filed a lawsuit against State Farm.

Who Is Covered By A Settlement Agreement Release?

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

writing_write_person_paperwork-scaled A settlement agreement can be an efficient way of resolving a claim and receiving compensation without a lengthy trial process. However, it is essential to understand what a settlement agreement does and does not cover to avoid surprises down the road if you later try to bring related lawsuits against other parties.

Kerry Maggio was injured in a car accident when he was hit by a vehicle driven by James Parker, who worked for Sandwich Kings. Brenda Parker owned the vehicle, which was insured by the Louisiana Farm Bureau. Maggio filed a lawsuit against James Parker, Sandwich Kings, and their insurers.

Maggio signed a settlement agreement and release of all claims with Brenda Parker and the Louisiana Farm Bureau. Neither James Parker nor Sandwich Kings was specifically mentioned in the release. Sandwich Kings and its insurer filed a summary judgment motion, arguing Maggio’s release applied to them because it released “all other persons” who were or might be liable for his injuries from the accident.

Presumption of Negligence in Rear-End Accidents Does Not Always Lead To Summary Judgment Victory

Published on: October 20, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

car_racing_crash_accident-scaled Under Louisiana law, there is a presumption the driver of a car that rear-ends another car acted negligently. However, this presumption of negligence can be overcome in certain situations, such as if the driver of the vehicle that was rear-end shifted lanes soon before the accident.

While Tammy Bloxham was stopped at a red light in her car, she was hit from behind by Andy Gibbs Jr. At the time of the accident, Gibbs was driving a tractor-trailer owned by 31 Energy. Bloxham filed a lawsuit against Gibs, 31 Energy, and 31 Energy’s insurer. Bloxham argued 31 Energy had been negligent in hiring Gibbs and not inspecting its vehicle’s brakes. The defendants filed a summary judgment motion, claiming Bloxham had not reported this claim in her pending bankruptcy. Bloxham also filed a summary judgment motion, claiming Gibbs was liable under La. R.S. 32:81 A and the presumed negligence of the driver of a following vehicle who hits the rear of another vehicle.

The trial court granted Bloxham’s summary judgment motion given the presumption that a following driver who rear ends another vehicle is negligent. The court held this applied even if Bloxham had changed lanes immediately before the accident. The defendants filed an appeal.

Can an Independent Contractor collect Workers’ Compensation Benefits?

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

labor_farmer_village_work The distinction between independent contractors and employees has always been something of a balancing test. This distinction becomes vital in workers’ compensation issues, where employees generally enjoy peace of mind with workers’ compensation in the event of an injury, whereas independent contractors usually do not. But are there some cases where an independent contractor can collect workers’ compensation benefits? The answer to this question is illustrated in the following appeal from the New Orleans Office of Workers’ Compensation.

Federico Espinoza Martinez and four others were hired by Jaroslov Rames to lower a washer/dryer combination unit to the first floor of an apartment building. During the lowering of the unit, Mr. Martinez received a laceration on his hand when one of the ropes used snapped. Despite a broken rope and cut hand, Mr. Martinez and the others completed the job. Afterward, Mr. Rames drove Mr. Martinez to the emergency room, paying five hundred dollars to ensure proper treatment was administered. Mr. Martinez later attempted to collect his pay from Mr. Rames. Mr. Rames informed him that he had deducted the five-hundred-dollar emergency room fee from Mr. Martinez’s check and planned to deduct the remainder of the hospital fee from his future earnings.

Mr. Martinez filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits he believed Mr. Rames owed him. The issue was heard by the Office of Workers’ Compensation (henceforth “OWC”), and it was found that Mr. Martinez was not an employe of Mr. Rames, but rather an independent contractor. Benefits were denied based on this finding. Mr. Martinez appealed, maintaining that the OWC failed to apply the manual labor exception outlined in La. R.S. 23:1021(7). The OWC found the manual labor exception did not apply to the set of facts, denying benefits again for Mr. Martinez.

Louisiana Jury Did Not Err In Apportioning Fault For Car Crash

Published on: September 8, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

rim_tire_wheel_round-scaled In the heart of Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, tragedy struck on Interstate 10 as a routine drive turned fatal. Arthur Huguley, behind the wheel of a tractor-trailer for AAA Cooper Transportation, found himself in a situation that would forever alter the lives of those involved. A blown-out tire, a series of events, and a wrongful death lawsuit brought forth by Curley Mouton’s surviving family members set the stage for a courtroom drama that unfolded with unexpected twists. In the end, a jury assigned fault, but the defendants, Huguley, AAA Cooper, and their insurer, were not ready to accept the verdict without a fight. This article explores the intricacies of their appeal, shedding light on the compelling arguments presented and the complexities of apportioning fault in a tragic accident.

Arthur Huguley was driving a tractor-trailer in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, on Interstate 10 while working for AAA Cooper Transportation (“AAA Cooper”). Huguley heard a bang and worried he might have blown out a tire. While performing a maneuver to see if he had blown out a tire, the tire that had blown out came apart and flew into the air. Curley Mouton was driving in a truck behind Huguley when debris from the tire started flying through the air. The debris hit Mouton’s truck, causing him to hit a guardrail, flip over, and crash. Mouton died in the crash.

Mouton’s surviving spouse and son filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Huguley, AAA Cooper, and their insurer. A jury found in favor of Mouton’s family and assigned 10% fault to Huguley and 90% to AAA Cooper for putting a defective tire on its truck. The defendants appealed, claiming the jury had erred in its ruling.

Management Company Not Qualified As Additional Insured In Cleaning Company’s Insurance Policy

Published on: September 1, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

ladder_art_red_garden-scaled It can be challenging to interpret insurance policies, especially when they involve complex provisions such as coverage for an additional insured. Before signing an insurance policy, it is imperative to understand its language and what it does and does not cover. Here, the plain language of the insurance policy proved instrumental in the appellate court’s ruling.

Pamela Sloane was injured while working for Integrity Cleaning Services (“Integrity”) at Forestwood Apartments. She was cleaning a ceiling fan while standing on a ladder. She inadvertently touched an exposed wire, which electrocuted her, and she fell from the ladder. Sloane filed a lawsuit against CLK Multifamily Management (“CLK”) and others. Sloane claimed CLK had not adequately maintained the premises or warned of the dangerous condition of the exposed wire. CLK filed its answer to the lawsuit, denying the allegations, and added Travelers Indemnity (“Travelers”) to the lawsuit. CLK claimed Integrity was contractually required to have a general liability insurance policy that covered CLK as additional insureds.

Travelers filed a summary judgment motion, claiming CLK was not an additional insured under the policy. Travelers attached a copy of the relevant insurance policy to its summary judgment motion. CLK disagreed and claimed it was indeed an additional insured. The trial court concluded CLK was not qualified as an additional insured and granted Travelers’ summary judgment motion.

Who’s At Fault if your car is stolen then involved in a wreck? The Thief, Victim, or Third Party Owner? (One Judges Dissenting Opinion)

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

car_burglary_thief_burglar-scaled In the legal system, dissenting opinions, i.e., opinions delivered by one or more judges who disagree with the decision, play a crucial role in shaping the interpretation and application of the law. They provide valuable insights into alternative viewpoints, often sparking discussion and debate and ultimately leading to the evolution of jurisprudence. One such notable dissenting opinion can be found in the case of Christopher Blanchard v. Demetrius J. Hicks et al., authored by Justice Cooks. In this blog post, we look at the case, the arguments made in the dissent, and the importance of dissent in the legal landscape.

The case of Christopher Blanchard v. Demetrius J. Hicks et al. arose from an incident in which Officer Blanchard’s patrol car was struck by a stolen truck. The plaintiff, Officer Blanchard, alleged that the defendant, Demetrius J. Hicks, was negligent in leaving his vehicle unattended with the keys in the ignition and the engine running, thereby facilitating the theft that led to the accident.

The majority of the court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s decision in Racine, which held that leaving keys in a vehicle does not create liability for the motorist if a thief steals the car and causes injury to a third party. However, Judge Cooks dissented from the majority’s opinion, arguing that Racine does not dispose of the factual matter at hand.

Louisiana Court Says Trampoline Injury Not Caused by Defect in Shreveport Trampoline Park

Published on: August 25, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

trampoline_sports_equipment_sport_1-scaled Sometimes, those delightful recreational activities we all enjoy carry an inherent risk. Often, we assume the risk of those injuries when we engage in that potentially reckless conduct. Knowing your legal options following these injuries is necessary, mainly because recovering for these somewhat ordinary injuries can be difficult. What does it look like when a party cannot recover for a recreational injury–here, an injury from a trampoline park visit?

Kurt and Tabitha Perkins visited a Shreveport indoor trampoline park, Air U. Kurt was injured while at Air U, and he was relatively young, had no known or apparent medical issues before the injury, and had done some time with the U.S. Marine Corps. The Perkinses filed a lawsuit against Air U and other parties, namely insurance companies and Air U’s unidentified employees.

Kurt stated in a deposition that he did not know why his left knee gave out when jumping on the trampoline, as he had no other injuries or treatment to his left leg. The other patrons at the trampoline park, mostly young kids, had no trouble jumping on the trampoline. Kurt and Tabitha stated that they did not notice any defects on the trampoline and that Kurt jumped normally when he was hurt. Tabitha also said that an Air U employee did not call an ambulance because he was not a manager.

Mere Possibility is Not Fact: Baton Rouge Negligence Claim Falls to Summary Judgment

Published on: August 24, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

boxes_stack_boxes_stacking-scaled Summary judgment is designed to enable judicial expediency and cost-effectiveness in the courts. It is an important and complicated procedure that can occur repeatedly during litigation. When summary judgment is asserted repeatedly in the same case, how do parties prevail in their attempts to get or defeat summary judgment motions? The following case helps answer that question.

Ozark Motor Lines transported a packed Ozark trailer from Restoration Hardware to Baton Rouge. In Baton Rouge, Exel Inc. received the trailer, and Exel employee, plaintiff, Alex Talbert, was injured by the boxes being unloaded from the trailer. Talbert then brought a personal injury suit against Restoration Hardware and Ozark for damages, arguing that the trailer was negligently packed and thus caused Talbert’s injuries.

Restoration Hardware was dismissed from the lawsuit, and later, Ozark moved for summary judgment twice. The trial court denied the first motion, but the second motion was granted after Ozark submitted additional documents to the court. Talbert appealed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment for Ozark, arguing that issues of material fact remained and that the court should not have heard Ozark’s second motion.