Litigation

Power Lines and Damaged Crops: Who Pays When Farming Meets Infrastructure?

Published on: December 11, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

crop_rows_agriculture_field-scaled The following case revolves around the intersection of farming and infrastructure development, and the legal implications when construction activities impact agricultural land.

Case Background

Lanie Farms, a sugarcane and soybean farming operation, sued CLECO Power and its contractor, Highlines, for damages caused during the construction of new power lines across the farmland. Lanie Farms claimed that the construction activities damaged their crops and required costly remediation efforts. The trial court ruled in favor of Lanie Farms, awarding them $38,000 in damages. However, Lanie Farms appealed, arguing the award was insufficient. CLECO and Highlines also appealed, claiming the court should have dismissed the case.

When Accidents Happen: The Limits of a Homeowner’s Liability for a Child’s Injury

Published on: September 29, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-binyaminmellish-106399-scaled A tragic accident involving a young boy with autism has raised questions about the legal responsibility of homeowners when someone is injured on their property. The case of Justin Stollenwerck v. Robert Schweggman, Jr., et al. explores the boundaries of a homeowner’s duty of care, especially when the injured party is the guest of a tenant. This blog post examines the case details and the court’s ruling, shedding light on the complexities of premises liability law.

The Accident:

Ryse Stollenwerck, a five-year-old boy with autism, was severely injured while playing at his mother’s boyfriend’s house. The boyfriend, Robert Schweggman Jr., was spinning another child around when they accidentally struck Ryse, causing serious injuries that left him wheelchair-bound and unable to speak.

Louisiana Medical Malpractice: When the Mailbox Rule Doesn’t Deliver

Published on: September 28, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-karolina-grabowska-4021775-scaled Filing a medical malpractice claim in Louisiana involves navigating a complex process, including meeting strict deadlines. One crucial step is timely paying the filing fee to the Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Board (PCF Board). But does the “mailbox rule” apply to these payments? A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case, In re: Medical Malpractice Review Panel Proceedings of Tiffany Anderson, grappled with this question, highlighting the importance of understanding the nuances of the law and the potential consequences of missed deadlines.

Tiffany Anderson’s Case:

Tiffany Anderson filed a request for a medical review panel with the PCF Board alleging medical malpractice. She mailed the required filing fee within the 45-day deadline, but the payment was not received by the PCF Board until after the deadline. The PCF Board declared her claim invalid, and the district court upheld this decision. Anderson appealed.

Underwater Collision Sparks Legal Battle: Shell Offshore vs. Tesla and International

Published on: September 24, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-lastly-590178-scaled In the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, a seemingly minor incident set off a chain of legal events that reverberated through the maritime industry. An underwater sonar device, or towfish, collided with the mooring line of a Shell Offshore drilling rig, causing significant damage. The resulting legal battle involved Shell, the company operating the sonar device (Tesla Offshore), and the vessel’s owner (International Offshore Services). This blog post explores the key issues of the case, the court’s rulings, and the implications for maritime operations.

The Incident:

Tesla Offshore was conducting an archaeological survey of the ocean floor using a towfish pulled by a vessel chartered from International Offshore Services. Despite having prior information about the location of Shell’s drilling rig, Tesla failed to share this with the vessel’s crew. The towfish struck one of the rig’s mooring lines, causing damage and disrupting Shell’s operations.

Safety Recall Doesn’t Negate Redhibition: Louisiana Court Rules in Favor of Car Buyer

Published on: September 23, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-mikebirdy-193999-scaled In a victory for consumer rights, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal recently overturned a trial court’s decision to dismiss a redhibition claim against Mercedes-Benz USA (MBUSA). The case, Philip A. Franco v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, involved a defective airbag and highlights the interplay between safety recalls and Louisiana’s redhibition laws.

Case Background

Philip Franco purchased a used 2010 Mercedes-Benz GL450 SUV in 2013. In 2016, he received a safety recall notice from MBUSA regarding a potentially dangerous defect in the driver-side airbag. The defect could cause metal fragments to be propelled toward the driver or passengers in the event of an accident, potentially resulting in severe injury or death. MBUSA’s notice stated that a suitable replacement was not yet available but would be provided free of charge when it was.

When Ignoring Student Debt Comes Back to Bite: Xavier University Wins Key Court Battle

Published on: September 21, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-pixabay-159740-scaled In a recent ruling highlighting the importance of responding to legal actions, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, sided with Xavier University of Louisiana in a case involving unpaid student debt. The court reversed a lower court’s decision, granting Xavier University a preliminary default judgment against a former student, Elemuel Coleman.

Xavier University filed a lawsuit in 2015 seeking to recover over $21,000 in student loan debt from Coleman. After initial attempts to serve Coleman through the sheriff’s office failed, the court appointed a private process server. The process server successfully delivered the legal documents to Coleman’s residence, leaving them with a person of suitable age and discretion who also lived there.

Despite being served, Coleman failed to respond to the lawsuit within the required timeframe. Xavier University then filed a motion for a preliminary default judgment, a legal maneuver that can lead to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the defendant fails to respond to the lawsuit.

Siblings Awarded $200K in Legal Malpractice Case: A Cautionary Tale of Attorney Negligence

Published on: September 19, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-sora-shimazaki-5669602-1-scaled In a poignant reminder of the potential consequences of attorney negligence, the Louisiana Court of Appeal recently upheld a substantial $200,000 legal malpractice award to four siblings who tragically lost their brother due to their former attorneys’ alleged mishandling of a wrongful death lawsuit. This case highlights the importance of competent legal representation and the potential consequences of attorney negligence.

Case Background

The plaintiffs, siblings of the deceased Frank Anthony Dawson, hired the defendants, Gray & Gray and James Gray, II, to represent them in a wrongful death and survival action against the Sheriff of St. Tammany Parish. Mr. Dawson tragically died by suicide while under suicide watch in the sheriff’s custody.

No Bond, No Appeal: Louisiana Court Dismisses Workers’ Comp Appeal for Procedural Misstep

Published on: September 18, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-pixabay-209271-scaled In a decisive move highlighting the importance of procedural adherence in workers’ compensation cases, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, dismissed an appeal because the appellants failed to post a required appeal bond.

This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in workers’ compensation appeals.

Case Background:

Louisiana Court Grapples with Complexities of Adoption in Wrongful Death Case

Published on: September 16, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-fotios-photos-1909015-scaled A recent ruling by the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, has shed light on the complex interplay between adoption and the right to file wrongful death and survival actions. The consolidated cases, stemming from a tragic car accident that claimed the lives of Richard Stewart, Jr., and his two minor children, raised questions about whether adopted children and biological half-siblings can pursue such claims.

The accident resulted in the deaths of Richard Stewart, Jr., and his two minor children. Mr. Stewart was survived by his wife, Lisa Stewart, and two adult sons, Daniel Goins and David Watts, who were adopted as minors. Additionally, the deceased minor children had a biological mother, Brandi Hardie, who was not a party to the lawsuits.

Following the accident, multiple survival and wrongful death actions were filed. The central issue was whether Goins and Watts, as adopted children and biological half-siblings, had the right to bring these claims.

Louisiana Court Raises the Bar on General Damages in Unprovoked Attack Case

Published on: September 15, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-sora-shimazaki-5668772-1-scaled In a recent decision, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, affirmed and amended a default judgment in favor of Matthew Hillman, who was injured in an unprovoked attack by Corey Seneca. The court upheld the special damages award but found the general damages award to be abusively low, increasing it from $2,500 to $10,000.

Matthew Hillman filed a lawsuit against Corey Seneca after being attacked without provocation. Mr. Seneca failed to respond to the lawsuit, leading to a default judgment in favor of Mr. Hillman. During the confirmation hearing for the default judgment, Mr. Hillman provided evidence of his injuries, which included a lacerated lip requiring fifteen stitches, fractured teeth, and the inability to eat solid food for two months. He also testified about his pain and suffering and loss of income due to the attack.

The trial court awarded Mr. Hillman special damages of $2,894.19 for lost wages, past medical expenses, and future dental treatment. However, it granted only $2,500 in general damages for pain and suffering. Mr. Hillman appealed the judgment, arguing that the general damages award was insufficient.