Product Defect

Stairway to Dismissal: Missed Deadline Leads to Summary Judgment in Injury Case

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

stairs_away_gradually_rise-scaled This case focuses on the procedural aspects of a personal injury lawsuit, highlighting the importance of deadlines and the consequences of missing them.

Case Background

Charles and Jeri Kouba sued the City of Natchitoches after Mr. Kouba fell on a staircase owned by the city. They alleged a defect in the staircase caused his injuries. The City filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Koubas opposed. However, they missed the deadline to file their opposition and requested a continuance (postponement) of the hearing. The trial court denied their request and granted summary judgment in favor of the City.

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.

Too Late to Sue: Court Upholds Prescription in Construction Site Injury Case

Published on: September 22, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-rquiros-2219024-scaled In a ruling emphasizing the critical importance of adhering to legal deadlines, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, affirmed the dismissal of a personal injury lawsuit due to prescription, leaving the injured plaintiff without recourse. In the case, the court affirmed a trial court judgment that dismissed Tammy Blanchard’s personal injury claims due to prescription or the expiration of the time limit for filing a lawsuit.

In 2015, Ms. Blanchard filed a lawsuit alleging she was injured while walking on a grassy pathway to Gerry’s Place, a business in Jefferson Parish. She claimed she tripped over concrete debris left by contractors working on a nearby drainage canal project. The initial lawsuit named several defendants, including Gerry’s Place, Jefferson Parish entities, and an unnamed contractor referred to as “ABC Contractors.”

Later, Ms. Blanchard amended her petition to add Fleming Construction Company, LLC, and Shavers-Whittle Construction, LLC, as defendants after discovering their involvement in the construction project. However, these amended petitions were filed more than a year after the injury occurred.

Louisiana Court Upholds Medical Malpractice Review Requirement in Hospital Device Lawsuit

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

pexels-shvetsa-3845129-scaled In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, the court reinforced the importance of the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA) in determining the course of lawsuits against healthcare providers. The case involved a patient who allegedly suffered injuries due to a medical device used after surgery.

Gregory Arrington, following surgery at St. Tammany Parish Hospital, was provided with an Alternating Leg Pressure (ALP) wrap to prevent blood clots. He claimed the device malfunctioned, causing him harm. The Arringtons sued the hospital, alleging negligence in the selection, purchase, and implementation of the ALP wrap.

The hospital countered with a dilatory exception of prematurity, arguing that the claims fell under medical malpractice and required a medical review panel’s evaluation before proceeding to court. The trial court agreed and dismissed the Arringtons’ claims against the hospital without prejudice. The Arringtons appealed this decision.

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.

Liability in Product-Related Injury Cases: Key Legal Questions and Liability Theories

Published on: August 15, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

wheelchair_pattern_black_background_44-scaled When an injury related to a product occurs, assigning fault can involve multiple parties. In personal injury litigation, crucial legal questions arise regarding whom the plaintiff can seek compensation from, if anyone, and the underlying theory of liability. The following case offers a valuable exploration of common liability theories often encountered in product-related injury cases.

During their stay at a PNK Lake Charles, L.L.C. casino hotel (from now on “PNK”) in July 2015, Anthony Luna, who had limited mobility due to a recent knee surgery, was provided a wheelchair by a PNK employee. While being pushed to their hotel room by one of his children, the wheelchair suddenly stopped, jamming Luna’s foot. Luna inspected the wheelchair but found nothing amiss. However, during another ride, the wheelchair abruptly stopped again, breaking the front left wheel in half and collapsing.

Anthony and Dana Luna and their minor children filed a lawsuit against PNK, alleging negligence and seeking damages under La. C.C.P. art 2315 and La. C.C.P. art 2317. They claimed that PNK’s negligence in providing a defective wheelchair caused injuries to Luna, hindering his recovery following knee surgery.

Tutrix Was Proper Party To Bring Legal Malpractice Claim On Behalf of Minor

Published on: August 3, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

court_justice_munich_bavaria-scaled A minor is generally unable to bring a lawsuit on their behalf. As seen in the following case, this can lead to disputes about who the proper party is to bring a lawsuit for the minor.

Shannon Jones and Jennifer Brunelle filed a lawsuit against healthcare providers, the manufacturers of a device used in surgery, and loss of consortium claims for their daughter, Haley Jones. They retained an attorney, Gary Roth, to represent them. They settled the medical malpractice claim against one of the defendants. Brunelle received letters appointing her as natural tutrix for their minor daughter, Haley Jones. They then filed a petition in the medical malpractice lawsuit to approve the settlement, which the court granted.

Brunelle then discharged Roth as her attorney and retained attorneys at the Gainsburgh firm. With the new representation, they settled with the medical device manufacturer. The settlement was not finalized until months later. Brunelle claimed her attorneys had committed legal malpractice while negotiating the settlement agreement and caused delays in finalizing it. After extensive disputes related to the underlying facts in the case, the trial court eventually granted the Roth defendants summary judgment motion. It dismissed Brunelle’s legal malpractice claims against the Roth attorneys. Brunelle appealed, claiming the trial court erred in dismissing her claims.

The Duty of a Seller to Deliver a Defect-Free Item: A Case of Negligence

Published on: June 9, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

tractor_red_tractor_red-scaled When an item is repaired, it is reasonable to expect it to be safe and free of defects upon its return. However, when an injury occurs after a product’s repair, the injured party is entitled to seek damages. For example, Joe McPherson suffered a knee injury after the battery compartment of a tractor, which Ronald Dauzat repaired, fell apart. The question of negligence and responsibility arose, leading to a legal dispute and subsequent appeal.

Dauzat sold his old tractor to McPherson. However, it did not function properly, so Dauzat took it in for repairs. Dauzat notified McPherson the tractor was ready to be picked up. When McPherson arrived at the shop, Dauzat was not there. But two men he assumed were employees permitted him to mount and inspect the tractor. When McPherson tried to demount, the battery compartment fell apart, and he fell and wounded his knee

McPherson filed a lawsuit against Dauzat for his injury. His complaint alleged the defective tractor caused his injuries. He stated that his injury would have been prevented if the battery box had been firmly latched. Dauzat filed an involuntary dismissal and claimed McPherson failed to present evidence that the unlatched box was the cause of his fall.

Considering a Lawsuit? Don’t Discard Evidence Critical to Your Case

Published on: April 14, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

detective_crime_scene_dagger-scaled An important safeguard in the law is the requirement for an accusing party to support its allegations with facts and, ultimately, evidence. There are multiple reasons to have this protection in place. Proceeding with a claim that makes a wrong conclusion against another party would not be particularly fair or just, nor would it be an effective use of court resources.

Louisiana courts entitle a party to move for summary judgment to press the opposing side to demonstrate there is a genuine dispute to resolve. La. Code Civ. P art. 966. If, for example, a plaintiff makes a claim that requires the support of physical evidence that they cannot produce, summary judgment will be granted. The following case out of Washington Parish, Louisiana, shows why, if you are considering a lawsuit, you should never discard evidence critical to your case.

Robert D. Byrd used a home-based oxygen machine provided by Pulmonary Care Specialists, Inc. (PCS). He was hospitalized for respiratory failure after being found unconscious by his mother, who reported that the machine was running at the time. Byrd’s machine did not undergo maintenance or repair before the incident. However, his mother did request service one day earlier. Byrd’s mother subsequently set the oxygen machine out with the trash, preventing follow-up testing or inspection.

Your Short Term Wheelchair May Be Subject To a Hidden Defect Warranty

Published on: March 26, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

wheelchair_pattern_black_background_4 Recovering from an automobile collision is already a difficult journey. Sometimes physical recovery does not occur in a straight line, and intermediate accidents can complicate the process. This was especially true for Alexandria resident Mr. Maricle.

During his recovery from injuries due to a car crash, Mr. Maricle sustained further injuries due to a defective wheelchair supplied by Axis. Maricle filed a lawsuit in 2013 against Axis. In 2014, a trial court denied Axis’s motion for summary judgment; Axis appealed this denial and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order. Significantly, the Court of Appeals held that the only issue left was determining whether Axis failed to inspect the wheelchair. Based on that holding, the trial court denied the Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion and granted Axis’ summary judgment because there were no visible defects prior to the wheelchair’s delivery to Maricle.

Maricle presented numerous issues on appeal. The first issue was that La.Civ.Code art. 2317.1, used by the trial court to grant summary judgment, does not apply because that provision is only for owners or custodians of the defective item. Liability as an owner or custodian requires proof “that the thing was in the defendant’s custody and control.” Davis v. Am. Legion Hosp. Instead, Marcile argued that La.Civ.Code arts. 2696-97, which applies to lessors of an item and specifies a warranty that attaches to the lease, should apply because Axis was strictly liable as the lessor of the wheelchair.