Louisiana Lawyer Blog

Vermillion Parish Jury Awards Over $1.48MM to Plaintiffs in 18-Wheeler Collision

January 10, 2020 | by Broussard & David

Plaintiffs Latoya Fontenot and Michael Robertson were injured when an 18-wheeler changed lanes and struck their vehicle. There was minor property damage on the Fontenot’s vehicle and neither plaintiffs sought medical attention at the scene. Robertson and Fontenot began treating with chiropractor Dr. Rowdy Gautreau. When conservative measures failed, Robertson and Fontenot both presented to Dr. William Brennan, a Lafayette neurosurgeon. Dr. Brennan performed a laminectomy on Robertson; one year later, Brennan performed a fusion at L4/5 L5/S1. Dr. Brennan also performed a three-level cervical fusion on Latoya. Michael Robertson was enrolled in pain management after the accident and was treating with Dr. Sanjiv Jindia for chronic pain. At the time of the accident, Robertson was working offshore.

Defendants defended the case on all angles: liability and damages. On the first morning of trial, defendants stipulated to liability. With respect to damages, defendants attacked Robertson’s credibility, particularly the fact that Robertson, a convicted felon, had testified that he did not return to work after the accident despite evidence that Robertson returned to his job for six days. Defendants also argued that Robertson failed to disclose his 2010 treatment to “chronic back pain” to his treating physicians and that he overexaggerated the facts of the crash and the property damage to the vehicle. With respect to Fontenot, the defendants argued that while Fontenot was treating with Dr. Brennan and complaining of neck pain, the visits she made to her primary care providers contained no mentions of neck pain.

Plaintiffs experts were as follows: Sy Arceneaux and Stony Landry, vocational rehabilitation, and John Theriot, economist. Defendants retained Dr. James Domingue to give expert testimony about Latoya Fontenot’s EMG, and Dr. Chambliss Harrod to provide an Independent Medical Exam regarding the plaintiffs’ need for surgery.

Search for Survivors in Gulf Coast Helicopter Crash Suspended

December 21, 2019 | by Broussard & David

On November 7, 2019, a helicopter is presumed to have crashed in the Gulf of Mexico. The helicopter was owned and being flown by Panther Marine. Panther Marine was operating the aircraft under Panther Helicopters of Belle Chasse. The helicopter was hired by Cox Oil.

The last communication was about ten minutes before the helicopter was expected to land. Unfortunately, the crew did not reach their destination.

Because the last known location of the helicopter was approximately 13 nautical miles off the coast of Louisiana, the Coast Guard is searching for the two passengers. “The passengers were transiting from one offshore rig to another” the Coast Guard stated. Since beginning the search, the Coast Guard discovered debris at 40 nautical miles. As of Saturday November 9th, the Coast Guard was still searching.

Jury awards $5.4MM for Jones Act seaman with permanent nerve injury

December 2, 2019 | by Broussard & David

ST. MARTINVILLE, LA – November 11, 2019

A Jones Act seaman was injured on January 29, 2016, when his coworker was piloting an Oceaneering survey vessel at high speeds while on his phone and slammed into a piling in the Empire Canal (Plaquemines Parish). The plaintiff was on the back deck of the vessel, an admittedly common practice at Oceaneering at the time, and he was slammed into the cab upon impact injuring his back.

Oceaneering contested liability arguing that the plaintiff should not have been on the back deck of the vessel while traveling at high speeds. Plaintiff successfully recovered under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims based on evidence that the pilot was on the phone, the crew was improperly trained, and that Oceaneering failed to have rules regarding phone use while operating vessels, having a lookout, or passengers working on the back deck while moving.

California Jury Verdict Awards Plaintiff $2 Billion in Roundup Weed Killer Suit

June 21, 2019 | by Broussard & David

While thousands of cancer patients are currently involved in lawsuits against the agrochemical corporation Monsanto Company, only three have gone to trial, all of which have resulted in verdicts favoring the plaintiff. Most recently, a California jury awarded the plaintiff the eighth-largest personal injury verdict in United States history—$2.055 billion—claiming, both, that the company’s popular weed killer Roundup has carcinogenic properties and that the company “manipulated science, the media, and regulatory agencies to forward their own agenda.”

The couple receiving the award, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, both started using Roundup in the 1970’s. Now almost fifty years later, both individuals suffer from cancer; Mr. Pilliod suffers from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in his bones, including his spine, and Mrs. Pilliod suffers from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma brain cancer. As a result, the couple received $55 million in compensatory damages. This, however, pales in comparison to the $2 billion punitive award against Monsanto, who continues to claim that the herbicide at play, glyphosate, is non-carcinogenic. Working against the defense is a “mountain of evidence” showing that the agrochemical company explicitly tried to interfere with governmental agencies who wanted to review the product. Various investigations have illuminated a concerning relationship between Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency, which involved EPA officials that offered to help Monsanto prevent another company from reviewing the effects the herbicide.

It is certainly expected that the defense will appeal the case, and though there is little chance that the verdict will be reversed, it is additionally expected that the initial $2 billion award will be dramatically reduced, similar to a previous Roundup case wherein a jury award of $289 million was cut down to $78 million. Plaintiff’s attorneys admit that, though the actions of Monsanto Company were egregious and reprehensible, the Supreme Court has issued guidelines that “punitive damages usually should not exceed 10 times the compensatory damages.”

New York Family Fighting for Fair Compensation in the Face of Unjust Taxi Law

June 10, 2019 | by Broussard & David

The parents of Sherena Hundalani, 26, are fighting for justice after their daughter was tragically killed by a taxi in Queens, New York. Hundalani was standing on a sidewalk in front of a Mobil Station on February 24, 2019, waiting to cross the street, when a taxi struck her from behind, dragged her underneath the car, and then fled the scene. Hundalani was taken to a hospital before she later succumbed to her injuries. The taxi’s driver, Lakhvinder Singh, was questioned by police and claimed that the vehicle malfunctioned before he was then released without having any charges pressed against him. The case is still being investigated.

The suit, which names City of New York, the Department of Transportation, and the Taxi and Limousine Commission, alleges that Singh was using the Mobil station as an illegal turnaround at the time of the incident, a common practice among taxi drivers in that location. Hundalani’s parents, Prakash and Bina, claim that the various city agencies were aware of the dangerous conditions that led to their daughter’s death and allowed them to continue. “We are devastated beyond words by the loss of our beautiful Sherena,” they expressed. “We are grateful to so many friends who have supported us and expressed their love for our daughter, but there must be accountability when an innocent young woman is killed by a taxi licensed by the City of New York while standing on the sidewalk of all places.”

Though the Hundalani’s are seeking $25 million in damages, an outrageous New York taxi and limousine regulation is potentially standing in their way. That is, under current New York City law, insurance payouts for those injured or killed by a standard taxi or limousine are limited to $100,000 per person, $300,000, per accident, $200,000 in personal injury protection, and $10,000 in property damage. As a result, the city’s streets and sidewalks are being opened to reckless, unlicensed, and underinsured bicyclists as well as underinsured taxis and limousines who face very little threat of legal or financial consequences following a crash.

Injured Highway Worker Files Suit Against Construction Company

June 4, 2019 | by Broussard & David

A Harris County man is suing a Houston construction company following a work incident that left him with a broken ankle. Jose Louis Amador was working on a concrete removal project on Highway 249 when another worker mishandled the excavator that he was operating.

The suit states that Amador was cutting steel wire attached to the concrete barrier being removed when the excavator approached him. The operator of the excavator then tried to remove a large portion of the barrier that contained a piece of wire that had not been cut. Consequently, the barrier was pulled onto Amador’s leg, breaking his ankle. Apart from the physical pain of the injury, the inconvenience of regular medical appointments, and mental anguish, Amador’s sufferings also included the inability to return to work for an extended period of time.

Amador and his attorneys filed the complaint on April 30, 2019 in the Harris County District Court. It claims that the sister construction companies in charge of the project, Webber LLC and Webber Materials & Equipment LLC, exercised negligence in their failure to properly train and supervise their employees.

Louisiana Native Sues Fishing Captain Following Maritime Injury

May 31, 2019 | by Broussard & David

A Louisiana man is suing a Texas fishing captain following injuries suffered while working on the captain’s vessel. David Robling, the plaintiff, was working aboard the fishing boat, Red Bull, on February 20, 2019, when he suffered injuries resulting from the negligence and unseaworthiness of the ship-captain, Delbert E. Bull, Jr. The suit, filed in the Galveston County District Court, is in accord with the Jones Act, specifically 46 U.S.C. §30104, which protects seamen injured in the course of their employment and which affords them the right to legal action and a trial by jury against the ship’s owner.

According to Robling’s complaint, the ship’s captain, Bull, turned on the boat’s winch without warning the crew. As a result, the boards, nets, and tickler chains were thrown overboard. Without time to react, Robling found himself in the path of the chains, which wrapped around his chest and violently threw him to the deck of the boat. Unable to free himself, Robling was then struck by other falling equipment leading to injuries and mental anguish.

This is not Robling’s first legal encounter with Galveston’s maritime industry. In 2015, Robling filed a complaint against a shipping company after he tripped on equipment that the previous crew had left behind. The fall left Robling with serious and disabling injuries that could have been avoided had the ship’s owner or crew properly maintained the ship and its equipment or warned him of the existing hazards on deck.

Wrongful Death Suit Filed Against Tesla Following California Crash

May 9, 2019 | by Broussard & David

The family of a Walter Huang has filed a wrongful death suit against Tesla Motors Inc. following a crash that ended his life. On March 23, 2018, Mr. Huang was traveling southbound on Highway 101 when his vehicle, a Tesla Model X, misread the lane lines, failed to detect a concrete traffic barrier, failed to brake the car, and instead, accelerated the car until it struck the median at 71 miles per hour (according to an investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board). Huang was killed on impact.

According to the suit, “Based on Tesla’s advertising and promotional material, Decedent Walter Huang believed the Tesla Model X’s technology was such that the autopilot features included designed-in programs, software, hardware, and systems that would eliminate the risk of harm or injury to the vehicle operator.” It continues to allege that Mr. Huang “reasonably believed the 2017 Tesla Model X vehicle was safer than a human-operated vehicle because of the Defendant’s claimed technical superiority regarding the vehicle’s autopilot system, including Tesla’s ‘traffic-aware cruise control’, ‘autosteer lane-keeping assistance’ and other safety components.” Huang’s family notes that, despite these advertisement claims by Tesla, Mr. Huang complained on numerous occasions about his vehicle’s autopilot problems that Tesla was never able to resolve.

Plaintiff’s attorneys hold that Tesla either knew or should have known about the vehicle software’s defects that consequently left owners and operators of the Model X in danger of crashing, and moreover, Tesla either knew or should have known that said owners and operators were wholly unaware of the Model X’s defects. Thus, these operators should have been notified of the software issues, sparing them of potential harm. Instead, Mr. Huang was unknowingly driving a computer-operated vehicle that had the potential to malfunction and crash at any moment, and this potential was tragically actualized resulting in Mr. Huang’s death.

Illusory Bill Passes Louisiana House of Representatives

May 6, 2019 | by Broussard & David

A bill that claims to lower Louisiana’s auto insurance rates has passed through the state’s House of Representatives following a vote of 69-30. House Bill 372, proposed by Rep. Kirk Talbot, is based on the purported fact that Louisiana ranks as having the second-highest auto insurance rates in the United States. The cause, according to Talbot, is the increasing number of car crashes and, consequently, increased expenses for the insurance companies who are thus forced to raise their rates. In reality, the bill is nothing more than a scheme to bolster the wealth of insurance companies and gain their political support, all the while presenting the enticing disguise to Louisiana residents that their insurance rates will be radically reduced.

Talbot’s bill, also known as the “Omnibus Premium Reduction Act of 2019”, proposes an insurance carrier wishlist of way to save money on claims without any reduction in insurance premium costs. The first of which is to increase the prescriptive period for filing suit from one to two years. This change would certainly reduce lawsuits (as our neighbors in Texas and Mississippi have at least two years to file suit). In doing so, the bill encourages lengthened legal negotiations following automotive incidents resulting in a greater number of settlements and, therefore, reduced court costs. In a similar vein, the bill also reduces the jury threshold from the previous 50,000-dollar minimum to a mere 5,000 dollars, theoretically dissuading attorneys from taking cases to court, and again, resulting in reduced court costs. Talbot also puts forward the idea of limiting the amount of recoverable medical expenses following a car crash to that amount that is paid by the health insurance company rather than the amount billed. Lastly, Talbot wants to change the law so the insurance companies can no longer be defendants (just at fault drivers). Consequentially, according to Talbot, by reducing the expenses of insurance companies, the insurance companies unilaterally choose to lower the cost of their premiums for Louisiana residents.

Opponents of the bill rightly argue that its power-hungry proponents are taking advantage of honest citizens. Though the bill presents itself as looking out for Louisiana drivers, the bill will instead leave many victims of negligent and careless driving without being able to obtain the justice they deserve. Rather than settling cases outside of court and reducing court costs, the bill will force justice-seeking plaintiffs to take their cases to a jury trial, prolonging a verdict and clogging up courtrooms that could otherwise be free had the case been more expeditiously ruled by a judge. Moreover, by reducing the possible amount of medical expenses to be recovered by a given victim, the victim will often be left paying for large portions of his medical bills, himself, instead of that expense being charged to the person responsible for his damages.

Plaintiffs Seek Immediate Access to Landfill in Air Pollution Lawsuit

January 11, 2019 | by Broussard & David

The plaintiffs in an air pollution lawsuit are requesting immediate access to a landfill in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana in order to conduct environmental testing. The lawsuit is one of roughly eighty that have been filed against the parish landfill, claiming that an abundance of strong odors is making living conditions unbearable in the surrounding area. Such tests, the plaintiffs argue, are essential to a well-rounded, well-informed case.

Against the plaintiffs’ motion are a multiplicity of tests that have already been conducted by the parish and state and that have concluded that the majority of the odors have origins distinct from the landfill in question. One particular study conducted by a California-based company pointed to a number of other potential sources of the smells, such as two privately owned landfills adjacent to the parish landfill. On the contrary, plaintiffs argue that there has been no “comprehensive analysis” of the gases emitted from the landfill, but rather, the state tests only looked for a limited subset of chemicals, resulting in an insufficient test scope.

Thus, to resolve the apparent testing issue, plaintiff’s attorneys are requesting access to the parish landfill to conduct their own private testing of the emissions and have hired a Maryland-based environmental scientist for the job. “Absent a prompt opportunity to inspect and sample at the landfill,” they say, “petitioners will lose the opportunity to obtain the most pertinent site-specific information that would help establish what has transpired over the last year and how those conditions affected petitioners.”