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.

A Jefferson Davis Parish man filed a lawsuit against his employer and an equipment manufacturer for injuries sustained during a workplace incident.

Wendell Simar was working on a rig and was required to use a swing rope and cable in order to board a vessel adjacent to the rig.  The facts of the suit allege that when Simar attempted to use the apparatus, the cable broke, causing the claimant to fall.  Simar struck the side of the vessel before careening into the water below.  The lawsuit states that Simar severely injured his back in the process.

Maritech Resources, Tetra Technologies Inc., and Supreme Offshore Services Inc., were named as defendants in the suit.  The suit alleges that the cable in question was in disrepair and thus posed a risk of injury.  Simar’s argument is that the defendants breached their duty of reasonable care by failing to adequately inspect equipment and provide a safe work environment.

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.

A 1-year old child was electrocuted by exposed wiring in a air conditioning unit while playing outside of her Addis apartment.  Kristiana Tillman was playing with other children from ages 5 to 10 when it is believed she came into contact with the wires.  She was barefoot and the ground around the unit was wet, according to the report of chief investigator Yancy Guerin of West Baton Rogue Parish Coroner’s office.  Guerin also reported that the unit lacked a cover to hold the wiring.  The child was left in the care of her aunt, who went into their apartment for a minute when the event occurred, Guerin believes.

Addis Police Chief Ricky Anderson said that the police did not suspect foul play and are still investigating.  However, he did believe that “it was piss-poor maintenance to leave the unit exposed like that.”

Potential criminal ramifications aside, this tragic case presents us with a potential example of comparative fault.  Louisiana’s concept of comparative fault revolves around the idea that if there are multiple sources of harm, the total responsibility for the injury shall be portioned out  between those sources.  While no lawsuit for damages as a result of negligence has been filed, we can speculate the potential parties: the victim’s family being the plaintiffs and the apartment complex owners being the defendants.  If the apartment complex owners outsource their maintenance tasks to a repair company, then it is likely that that company will be named as a party—if it can be determined that the unit was left uncovered after a repair—which would reduce the percentage of liability for the complex owners.

A Gretna man was thrown from his go-kart while racing through a track curve and collided with the pavement.  The individual claims that the vehicle he was riding in hit rocks and other debris located on the track, which caused him to be ejected at a speed which caused him significant injuries.  The injured racer brought suit against NOLA Motor Club LLC, as well as others, alleging vicarious liability as well as numerous failures on the part of the company and its staff.

The root of all Louisiana liability law is the somewhat oddly phrased Article 2315 of the Civil Code.  “Every act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it.”  Essentially, this means that if you perform an act that damages someone else you are required to right those damages.  However, real life is rarely so clean cut and to the point.  Almost every phrase of that sentence can be muddied by circumstance.  What if someone else acted with you?  What if the injured person also played some part in the act?  What if it is unclear whether or not it was your specific act that actually injured the person?  Thus, the law had to be broken down further into neater categories.

The vicarious liability theory applicable to this go-karter’s case would be that of employer liability.  Article 2320 states, albeit also somewhat antiquatedly, “Masters and employers are answerable for the damage occasioned by their servants and overseers, in the exercise of the functions in which they are employed.”  As such, NOLA Motor Club is responsible for the action, or lack of actions, of their employees that cause injury to someone as long as such performance was within their normal duties as an employee.  This is why it is important for companies to advise and train their employees with the greatest of care.  However, sometimes even the most rigorous and stringent training cannot prevent some injuries from occurring.  Even so, an employer by their very nature takes responsibility for the acts of its employees that occur during normal operations.

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).

Contact Information