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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

The Louisiana Sportsmen Coalition is in a battle with the Louisiana oil industry over rights to use coastal marshwaters for their respective enterprises. Representatives of local fisherman argue that oil companies who own nearby lands have unjustly also claimed ownership of adjacent waters that flow in and out of manmade channels. The sportsmen state that the waters, though very good for fishing, are being treated as off-limits, and the fishermen themselves are being treated as trespassers. Specifically, they say, “It has gotten to the point where [oil companies] are having local law enforcement agencies, like the sheriff’s office and justices of peace, write criminal trespassing tickets to people.”

The conflict came to a head last year when a professional Bassmaster fishing tournament was held in these areas. The world-renowned fishermen, individuals who make a living by these tournaments, unknowingly wandered into “privately owned” waters and were met by authorities. Following the tournament, the Bass Angler Sportsmen Society (B.A.S.S.), the national organization responsible for the well-known Bassmaster tournaments officially announced that it would no longer schedule professional tournaments in Louisiana tidewaters, a decision that will, without doubt, negatively impact the state’s fishing industry. Thus, as the sportsman’s coalition argues, the battle over water access is more than a debate about who can travel where; it is actually a battle over the prioritization of industries, and favor traditionally lies with the oil industry.

Unfortunately for the fishermen, a recently proposed bill that would have granted public access to the marshwater failed in Louisiana’s House of Representatives. The bill argued that because the waters are “running waters”—they freely flow into positively public waterways such as the Gulf of Mexico—they cannot be partitioned as either public or private, and therefore, their default status would be considered public. Opponents of the bill argued that just as one can claim ownership of dry land, one can claim ownership of the bottomlands underneath the water, for coastal erosion is constantly converting dryland into bottomland. The House’s vote reinforces Louisiana’s status as one of the only coastal states that does not consider tidal waters open for public use.

A wrongful death suit has been filed against Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD following a zipline incident wherein a 27-year-old woman was seriously injured and her newlywed husband was killed. The incident occurred as a part of a shore excursion in Roatan during the journey of the Allure of the Seas, though the excursion was operated by an independent contractor, Extreme Caribe Zip Line Tour.

The 24-year-old husband, Igal Tyszman, did not survive his injuries after his wife, Shir Frenkel, became stuck halfway down the zipline, and he had already begun his descent. Tyszman had no way of stopping or slowing down, and he collided with Frenkel in midair. Records indicate that the zip line operators could not communicate to each other when one person had completed their ride and, thus, it was safe for the next person to begin, communication that could have prevented the tragedy.

The suit alleges that Extreme Caribe has a history of zip line incidents, citing more than ten, one of which led to a woman having both of her legs severed, and it asserts that Royal Caribbean was well aware of this and other incidents involving the excursion operator but failed to make those issues known to the participants. Additionally, the cruise ship misled the family to believe that the excursion was operated by the cruise company, itself. The plaintiff’s attorneys state, “These newlyweds were expecting a fun excursion with the highest safety standards, and that is obviously not what they received; and the consequences in this case proved tragic.” In addition to Frenkel’s physical injuries—multiple rib fractures, splenic fracture, multiple transverse fractures, and more—she also will have to undergo treatment for the emotional and mental trauma resulting from her husband’s death.

A lawsuit has been filed against the St. John the Baptist Parish School Board as a result of potentially carcinogenic emissions from a nearby neoprene manufacturing plant. The plant, located in Laplace, Louisiana, is one of only a few in the country that produces polychloroprene, a solid substance used to make adhesives, automotive or industrial parts, coatings, dipped goods, neoprene wetsuits, and the like. Consequently, however, manufacturing plants of this kind emit into the air a gaseous form of the liquid chemical chloroprene, which the Environmental Protection Agency has deemed to be a “likely carcinogen”.

The chemical plant has been owned by Denka Performance Elastomer since 2015, but it was formerly owned by Dupont Performance Elastomer who operated the plant since 1969. The specific health effects of chloroprene are not definitively known; however, many local residents are concerned that they are at risk. These fears have been previously articulated in lawsuits against Denka, but now those fears are directed at the school board. According to the case, which was filed by a parent whose child attends the school, “There is presently and has been for years a very serious health hazard and/or life-threatening health hazard to the children/students who attend school at Fifth Ward Elementary School.”

In response to the suit, the EPA established six monitoring stations around St. John Parish, one of which was located at the school in question, and data confirmed the suspicion of high chloroprene levels at the school. Denka, however, maintains the position that chloroprene is being wrongly depicted as a harmful chemical. According to the 2015 National Air Toxics Assessment also conducted by the EPA, St. John Parish residents have the highest risk of cancer from an airborne pollutant, but it is unknown if this risk is due to chloroprene or some other cause. With more research being conducted by the day, the parish school board is determined to prove the safety of its students.

Super Lawyers
Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
National Board of Trial Advocacy
Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Martindale-Hubbell
The National Trial Lawyers
Bar Register Preeminent Lawyers 2016
Americas Top 100 Attorneys
Top Lawyers of Acadiana
Top One Percent