Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Preston Jones of Shreveport died last Monday of his injuries after an 18-wheeler collided with his car in Richland Parish.

According to the State Police investigation, the 18-wheeler, driven by Jon Simmons of Cruger, Mississippi, was driving west on I-20 when it changed lanes in front of Jones’s vehicle, a 1997 Ford Explorer.  Unfortunately, there was not enough space between the two automobiles to complete the maneuver, and the rear of the 18-wheeler’s trailer struck the front of the Explorer.  Jones lost control of the vehicle as it spun rapidly after the collision.  The vehicle was sent into the median and began rolling.  Jones was not wearing his seatbelt at the time of the accident and was flung from the vehicle.  He later succumbed to his injuries at a local hospital. A toxicology sample has been obtained and is awaiting analysis.

According to La. R.S. §32.295.1 (B), each occupant of a passenger car, SUV, or pickup truck is required to have a seatbelt fastened around his or her body at all times when the vehicle is in forward motion.  While this is done for safety reasons and the lack of an in-use seat beat is a violation, it does not play into comparative fault for civil suits.  Subsection E of the aforementioned statute relates that, “in any action to recover damages arising out of the ownership, common maintenance, or operation of a motor vehicle, failure to wear a safety belt in violation of this Section shall not be considered evidence of comparative negligence.”  Further, violation of the seatbelt requirement cannot be admitted as evidence to mitigate damages.

A class-action suit has been filed against Blue Bell Creameries relating to the listeria outbreak in their products.  The event lead to a product recall in March.

Steven J. Leon, of Hammond, Louisiana, brought a class-action suit against the company, alleging negligence, redhibition, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment.  The suit’s putative class consists of upwards of 100 members and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

The accompanying complaint posits that consumers who purchased Blue Bell products between March 13 and April 20 are entitled to damages because Blue Bell purportedly failed to provide adequate notice of the recall.  The recall was posted on the Blue Bell website on or about March and April, but, according to the suit, the company had had positive test results for a potentially lethal bacterium since 2013.

Robert James Dick, Jr., an employee of Blackwater Diving LLC, was conducting an underwater burn on a conductor when he was allegedly injured by an explosion.  This event took place on or about June 21 and the explosion allegedly resulted in severe physical damage, psychological trauma, loss of enjoyment and capacity, permanent impairment, and medical expenses for Dick.

The plaintiff was employed by Blackwater as a seaman, a commercial diver, and a crewman of a marine vessel.  He has alleged negligence on the part of his employer and is seeking maintenance and cure.

As a part of his suit, Dick has invoked the Jones Act and claimed that Blackwater was negligent in failing to provide a safe workplace and safe equipment.  The Jones Act, also known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, is a federal statute that provides for the promotion and maintenance of the American merchant marine.  The Jones Act specifically applies to shipping between two points of the same country, whether in-land or along the coasts.  This is collectively referred to as cabotage.  The Act took contemporary legislation regarding the recovery rights of railroad workers and extended the principles therein to sailors of such vessels.  It allowed seaman to bring action against ship owners based on claims of unseaworthiness or negligence, rights not afforded by common international maritime law.

Two different drunk driving accidents claimed three lives in Louisiana this week.  The first accident occurred in the town of Loranger.  Bruce Pierre was driving his vehicle on Hwy. 40 with Charles Harper in the passenger seat.  The police report states that Pierre was speeding when he collided with the end of a utility trailer being hauled by a pickup truck.  The vehicles collided with such force that Harper, who was not wearing a seatbelt, was ejected from the vehicle and pronounced dead at the scene.

After arriving on the scene, authorities gave Pierre a blood sample test, which he failed.  He was arrested for DWI, vehicular homicide, careless operation, and driving without a license.  The driver of the pickup truck was not inebriated.

The second accident occurred in Washington Parish and resulted in the death of both parties involved, 84-year-old Marjorie Orr and 35-year-old Justin Farley.  Police reported that Farley, who was believed to be inebriated at the time of the crash, veered off the road after missing a turn, overcorrected, and hit another vehicle in which Orr was a passenger.  The impact was enough to tear Farley’s vehicle in two and eject him from the vehicle, despite the fact that he was wearing a seatbelt.

Judith Hayes, a Gretna woman, has filed a lawsuit against Rite Aid, claiming the pharmacy gave her the wrong medication, which caused her collapse in her home and injure her head.

On May 26, 2014, Hayes alleges that she visited the Rite Aid located at 4535 Westbank Expressway in Marrero to receive a prescription for metformin, a diabetes medication.  Hayes claims that, instead of her medication, she was given an antibiotic by the pharmacist on duty, Long H. Nguyen.

On May 31, five days later, the plaintiff claims that she became dizzy after standing up, lost her balance, and stuck her head, resulting in injury.  Hayes has sued Rite Aid Headquarters Corporation, Rite Aid Corporation, Rite Aid Pharmacy and the on-duty pharmacist Nguyen.

After approximately five years, the litigation surrounding the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill seems to be reaching a conclusion.  The company responsible, BP, has reached a tentative settlement of $18.7 billion with both the federal government and five Gulf Coast state governments.  The parties in the settlement are the state governments of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, as well as over 400 smaller government bodies.  The settlement is to be dispersed over a 16-year period.

At a press conference with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, State Attorney General Buddy Cadwell announced that $6.8 billion provided to the state was preferable to a protracted trial.

Settlement is a valid and often preferred method of litigation resolution.  It is a compromise between the parties.  In civil law jurisdictions, like Louisiana, a compromise is an agreement through which the parties involved end or prevent litigation through mutual agreement.  A valid compromise has four requirements: existing litigation, an agreement between the parties involved, reciprocal concessions between the parties which are given with intention of ending or preventing current or future litigation between them.

The bicycle manufacturer, Trek, is recalling over 900,000 bicycles in the United States after series of accidents caused by a defect, one of which left the user paralyzed.  The Consumer Product Safety Commission stated that a quick-release lever can come into contact with the front disc brake assembly, resulting in either total wheel separation or an instant stop.  The recall consists of models built from 2000 to 2015 equipped with front disc brakes and a black or silver quick release lever on the front wheel hub.  Bikes equipped with front release levers that do not open 180 degrees from the closed position are not included in the recall.

This recall will doubtlessly avoid many serious injuries but never would have happened without the courageous lawsuit filed on behalf of a client of Broussard, David & Moroux. Cycling and engineering experts overcame Treks denial of fault. Diligent prosecution of important product liability claims is not new to Broussard, David & Moroux.  Attorneys have obtained record verdicts and settlements for five decades on a wide range of products including automobiles, boats, tractors, forklifts, trailers, farm equipment, airplanes and helicopters.

Individuals injured by the defective products have the potential to recover from the manufacturers, suppliers, or sellers of such products.  Such actions fall under the legal field of products liability and are generally brought under the legal theories of negligence, warranty, strict liability or a combination or variation of the three, depending on the circumstances of the case.  The Louisiana Products Liability Act, enacted in 1988, provides that the “manufacturer of a product is liable for damage ‘proximately caused’ by the product to any person if the product, when put to a reasonably anticipated use, is unreasonably dangerous because of its construction or composition, its design, an adequate warning was not provided, or an express warranty about the product was not satisfied.” La. R.S. 9:2800.52.

Under Louisiana law, property owners have a duty to keep their property in a reasonably safe condition for invited guests or other individuals who have a legal right to be on the property. Determining how far this duty extends, or what this duty encompasses, depends on how this person is legally classified.

Perhaps the greatest duty is owed to invitees, who are defined as “a person who goes on the premises at the express or implied invitation of the owner.” For invitees, property owners owe an invitee a duty to keep the property in reasonably safe condition for use which is consistent with the purpose of the invitation, including the discovery of reasonably foreseeable conditions which may be dangerous.

Second to invitees, with regard to a property owner’s duty, are licensees. A licensee is one who enters premises with the occupier’s express or implied permission but only for the entering person’s own purposes which are unconnected with the occupant’s interest. For licensees, the property owner or occupier must only warn him or her of any latent, non-apparent dangers or defects which are actually known to the occupier or property owner.

Many of us have undoubtedly taken advantage of the recent low gas prices. At well under $2.00/gallon in January and February, gasoline consumption has skyrocketed. And as we flock in droves to our local gas stations, we expect properly working equipment; we expect safeguards. But, sometimes, these safeguards fail, exposing gas station customers to a multitude of dangers. In a recent lawsuit filed against Brothers Belle Chasse LLC and Exxon Mobil Corporation, a Terrytown man allegedly received several injuries sustained while pumping gas at the iconic “Brothers” gas station. As the petition sets forth, the plaintiff was pumping gas when the gas hose ruptured, spraying gasoline on him. The injuries primarily complained of are the alleged result of gasoline making contact with his left eye.

Such malfunctions occur when the gas station owners, managers, and attendants fail to properly maintain the protective safeguards of gas stations as required by law, oftentimes resulting in injury. In this particular instance of the Terrytown Brothers gas station, the plaintiff is alleging the gas stations’ “fail[ure] to correct a hazard, creating a dangerous condition, failing to adequately inspect and failing to warn customers.” As illustrated by this case, individuals responsible for maintain a safe environment at gas stations must adhere to regulations, and must make the effort to ensure that their stations are always operating in a safe manner.

The attorneys at Broussard, David & Moroux have the knowledge and experience necessary to handle cases of this nature and will fight to obtain fair compensation for your injuries. If you or a loved one has suffered harm as a result of another’s negligence, contact the attorneys at Broussard, David & Moroux to discuss your legal rights at (337) 233-2323 (local) or (888) 337-2323 (toll-free).

Several local oil and gas companies recently received a setback by two federal judges in an ongoing environmental lawsuit filed by Jefferson and Plaquemines parishes. Finding that the claims asserted by the plaintiff-parishes were based in Louisiana law and involved at least one Louisiana-based oil company, U.S. District Court Judges Lance Africk and Ivan Lemelle remanded the lawsuits from federal court back to state court. Filed in November 2013, the defendant oil companies immediately had the lawsuits removed, or switched, to federal court where they hoped to have the dispute resolved. Oftentimes, large and foreign corporations will seek to have their disputes decided in federal court, where judges aren’t elected by State citizens and, thus, will likely be more sympathetic. State court also usually hosts a much more “local” jury which large, foreign corporations fear may risk having the case decided on inappropriately considered evidence. For these reasons, among many others, the defendant oil companies fought hard to keep these lawsuits in federal court. But, as Judges Africk and Lemelle ruled, there just wasn’t enough to satisfy federal jurisdictional requirements.

The lawsuits themselves, filed by Jefferson and Plaquemines parishes, are seeking relief from the courts for environmental damages allegedly caused by the defendant oil companies’ construction of canals through fragile wetlands. Because these lawsuits, and many others like it, arise from facts and circumstances that occurred as long as multiple decades ago, they’re often referred to as “legacy lawsuits.”

Despite the judges’ rulings, a spokesman for Shell, Chevron, and BP, who are all defendants in the lawsuit, maintain that this lawsuit properly belongs in federal court because it involves “important federal issues dealing with navigable waterways and oil, gas and pipeline operations directly affecting mineral production from the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States.”

Contact Information