Articles Posted in Louisiana Personal Injury Law

| by

The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff has the absolute right to dismiss with prejudice an original defendant and to secure an order prohibiting all defendants from filing subsequent third party demands against the previously dismissed defendant. DiBenedetto v. Noble Drilling Co., 2009-0073, 2009-0464, 2009-1025 (La.App. 4 Cir.10/21/09), ___ So.3d___.

This Louisiana personal injury legal update is provided by Baton Rouge, Louisiana injury lawyer Scott Andrews of the Louisiana accident and injury law firm, Dué Guidry Piedrahita Andrews Courrege L.C..

| by

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating an airplane crash that occurred in Pineville, Louisiana, on October 10, 2009. Two Cessna 150 airplanes collided over Lake Buhlow during the annual Pineville Fall Fly-In. Both planes crashed into the woods. The occupants of one plane were killed and the occupants of the other plane were seriously injured.

According to NTSB Aviation Statistics, there were 3,312 aviation accidents in the United States in 2008, which resulted in 1,136 fatalities.
Continue reading

| by

In a Louisiana medical malpractice trial, defense counsel had an ex parte meeting with a prior treating physician who was not a party to the case to go over the plaintiff’s medical records, without a medical authorization allowing verbal communication with the health care provider and without advance notice to the plaintiff’s lawyer. Nevertheless, the trial court allowed the physician’s testimony at trial over plaintiff’s objection. The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal held that the testimony of the treating physician should have been excluded and found that the improperly admitted testimony tainted the jury’s verdict. Ernst v. Taylor, 08-1289 (La.App. 3d Cir. 5/6/09), 17 So.3d 981, writ denied, 09-1262 (La.9/18/09), 17 So.3d 977, citing Coutee v. Global Marine Drilling Co., 04-1293 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/16/05), 895 So.2d 631, writ granted, 05-756 (La. 5/13/05), 902 So.2d 1000, writ reversed on other grounds, 05-756 (La. 2/22/06), 924 So.2d 112 and Wood v. Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 07-1589 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/23/08), 1 So.3d 764.

See also Boutte v. Winn-Dixie of La., Inc., 674 So.2d 299, 306-07 & n.12 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1996), writ denied, 96-1936 (La. 11/8/96), 683 So.2d 268 (the impermissible contact deprived plaintiff of her right to a fair and impartial hearing); and Johnson v. Apeck Construction, Inc., 96-1283 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/5/97), 692 So.2d 476, 481 (“[c]ontacts by an adverse party or by its representative of a treating physician will not be tolerated, as they strike at the very heart of our system of civil justice.” cf. Hortman v. Louisiana Steel Works., 96-1433 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/20/97), 696 So.2d 625, 629, Kuhn, J. concurring (“Although contacting an opponent’s treating physician is not in violation of the physician-patient privilege, it clearly impugns upon the Code [of Professional Conduct]’s mandate of professionalism. The practice of law should be a search for the truth, through honorable and professional means long established but perhaps forgotten.”).

This personal injury legal update is provided by Baton Rouge, Louisiana injury lawyer Scott Andrews of the Louisiana accident and injury law firm, Dué Guidry Piedrahita Andrews Courrege L.C..

| by

The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal held that where the general employer’s business is to loan out his or her employees and equipment to others, the general employer’s business is being furthered even if he does not control the details of the work. The special employer benefits because it is his work that is being done as well. The relevant enterprise benefited by the work consist of a combination of the general and special employers, who are liable in solido for damages occasioned by the borrowed employee. This applies where a hospital is the general employer of a nurse and an independent contractor physician is “in charge” of the delivery room. Grimes v. LAMMICO, 2009-0292 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/11/09), citing Morgan v. ABC Manufacturer, 97-0956 (La. 5/1/98), 710 So. 2d 1077, 1080.

This personal injury legal update is provided by Baton Rouge, Louisiana injury lawyer Scott Andrews of the Louisiana accident and injury law firm, Dué Guidry Piedrahita Andrews Courrege L.C..

| by

The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal held that an injury victim does not fail to mitigate his damages when he refuses to undergo surgery which would not significantly alleviate his disability or which carries risks of failure, more scarring and pain, or when the treatment is painful, or when he is unable to pay for the treatment. Flemings v. State, 2007-1290 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/26/09), 19 So.3d 1220.

This personal injury legal update is provided by Baton Rouge, Louisiana injury lawyer Scott Andrews of the Louisiana accident and injury law firm, Dué Guidry Piedrahita Andrews Courrege L.C..

| by

Randy Piedrahita of the Baton Rouge, Louisiana law firm of Dué Guidry Piedrahita Andrews Courrege L.C. wins candidacy challenge, creating new election law. Randy represented the challenger to the incumbent Mayor of Walker. The incumbent Mayor filed his candidacy paperwork two minutes late on the last day of qualifying, resulting in a challenge brought by Randy’s client. Despite the lack of case law, Randy Piedrahita was able to convince the trial court and Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal that the deadline was firm and had not been met, resulting in the challenger being declared the winner without a formal election.

| by

The Baton Rouge, Louisiana injury lawyers at Dué Guidry Piedrahita Andrews Courrege L.C. settled an industrial accident case caused by a defective horizontal boring machine. The plaintiff, a machine operator at Cooper Cameron Valves in Ville Platte, Louisiana, sustained severe orthopaedic injuries on March 9, 2004 while operating a 6″ horizontal boring machine, model G-60T, which had been retro-fitted with a Numeripath 8000 CNC control, and which was manufactured by Giddings & Lewis. Plaintiff became entangled in the rotating spindle while reaching across the spindle to check the depth of a hole he had just tapped on a large valve body.

Louisiana product liability attorney, B. Scott Andrews, brought a product liability action under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, La. La.R.S. 9:2800.51, et seq., against the manufacturer, alleging that it failed to design, construct and retrofit the machine in accordance with accepted hazard control, design and construction safeguarding and failed to equip the machine with a fixed or interlocked movable guard or with other available safeguarding or protective devices such as pull back (pull out) and restraint devices; electro-optical, RF, and area scanning presence-sensing safeguarding devices; safety mat devices; safety edge devices; and/or probe detection devices, all of which were allegedly available options on the retail market at the time of plaintiff’s accident. Giddings & Lewis argued that the plaintiff was solely at fault for reaching across the rotating spindle, that the employer was at fault for failing to properly train plaintiff and/or that the employer was responsible for the selection and implementation of optional safety devices.

The case settled with Giddings & Lewis paying $250,000 and the employer waiving its $180,000 worker’s compensation reimbursement claim and remaining responsible for plaintiff’s accident related future medical expenses.
Continue reading

| by

In Berg v. Zummo, 2000-1699 (La.4/25/01),786 So.2d 708, the Louisiana Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision held that the liability of a vendor of alcoholic beverages who sells or serves alcohol to a person under the legal drinking age is determined under La.Civ.Code arts. 2315 and 2316 using the traditional duty/risk analysis rather than under La.R.S. 9:2800.1. Under this analysis, the vendor owes a duty to refrain from selling or serving alcohol to a person under the legal drinking age, and if the other requirements of breach, causation and damages are proven, then the vendor will be liable even if the vendor does not commit an additional affirmative act, such as unreasonable ejectment from the premises, that increases the peril of the intoxicated patron.

The Supreme Court further held that punitive damages under La.Civ.Code art. 2315.4 cannot be assessed against a vendor of alcoholic beverages for selling or serving alcohol to an intoxicated person whose intoxication while operating a motor vehicle causes injury.

The plaintiff, Berg, was injured during an altercation with Zummo and his companions and was then struck by Zummo’s truck as Zummo left the scene. Berg filed suit against Zummo and his insurer, Zummo’s companions, and a bar that sold Zummo alcohol immediately before the altercation (The Boot). All defendants except The Boot settled.

Continue reading