Auto Accidents

Louisiana lawmaker moves to ban cell phones in vehicles

March 1, 2012 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

State Rep. Austin Badon is continuing his battle to ban all cell phone use while driving in Louisiana. Badon introduced a bill this month that seeks to ban all cell phone use while operating a motor vehicle in the state, with the exception of hands-free devices.

For the past four years, the legislature has consistently struck down similar bills involving cell phone use. But when it comes to distracted driving, the political climate may be changing in the legislature. Last session, the legislature agreed to pass a bill that banned texting while driving, allowing police officers to stop drivers for the sole offense of texting while operating a motor vehicle.

In recent years, electronic distracted driving has been a major cause of motor vehicle accidents and fatalities in the United States. In Louisiana, statistics reveal that distracted driving was a contributing factor in 2,788 motor vehicle accidents in 2011 alone.

Acadiana Area Senator To Tackle DWI Sentencing

February 26, 2012 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

The Governor’s Task Force on DWI and Vehicular Homicide recently suggested that the state require judges to sentence all convicted drunk drivers to some jail time. In light of the upcoming legislative session, Sen. Jonathon Perry now intends to introduce a bill that would mandate jail time for DWI offenders by eliminating a judge’s discretion to reduce DWI sentences.

Sen. Perry believes that the proposed legislation would assist the state in reducing alcohol-related injuries and fatalities. However, critics argue that judges need this discretion to justly sentence some DWI offenders, particularly first-time offenders with no history of substance abuse. Sen. Perry indicated that he may be willing to compromise for first-time offenders.

Louisiana DOT to install more cable barriers on I-10

February 2, 2012 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

State transportation officials began the next phase of its 22 ½ mile project to a build cable barrier along I-10’s median between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Studies suggest that cable barriers are an effective means of preventing deadly crossover crashes.

Crossover accidents can occur when a driver loses control of his vehicle, and the vehicle crosses over the median into oncoming traffic. Common causes of these accidents include speeding, distracted driving, drunk driving, unexpected changes in road conditions, or hydroplaning. All too often, in a crossover accident, an innocent driver’s vehicle is struck by an unexpected oncoming vehicle, resulting in serious injury or even death.

In the past, crossover crashes have been a major cause of highway fatalities in Louisiana. However, these cable barriers appear to be a step in the right direction for protecting Louisiana drivers. State troopers reported an almost immediate reduction in crossover accidents since the installation of the first installment of the cable barrier along I-10. According to state officials, the existing cable barrier on I-10 already reduced crossover accidents by 100 percent.

Deadly New Orleans 40-vehicle pileup could implicate municipality liability

January 2, 2012 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

An investigation following the 40-vehicle pileup in New Orleans East this month revealed that the city’s street lights on the interstate near the scene of the accident were not functioning properly, according to a New Orleans city spokesperson. The pileup killed two people and injured over 50. Investigators believe that low visibility due to fog, poor lighting and possible smoke from a marsh fire caused the pileup.

This tragic accident demonstrates the role that a city’s negligence can play in causing a motor vehicle accident. A person injured in a motor vehicle accident may sue a municipality under limited circumstances when the city’s negligence caused the accident. In determining whether a city may be held liable for an accident in comparative fault regimes like Louisiana, the city’s negligence need not be the sole cause of the accident but must in some way be linked to the cause of the accident. Generally, cities can be held legally responsible for a motor vehicle accident if there is inadequate lighting, poor road conditions, improper signs or malfunctioning street signals.

Louisiana Distracted Drivers Aided by Lawmakers

June 20, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

Distracted driving remains a serious problem across America. Nonetheless, the Louisiana Legislature killed two bills targeting distracted driving in the state and approved a controversial bill permitting TV screens in the dashboard.

Pending Governor Jindal’s approval, the controversial “Dashboard TV” bill will become Louisiana law. Under Louisiana’s current law, television screens in vehicles must be behind the driver’s seat. The law will change to permit a split screen television screen in the passenger’s side of the dashboard, provided that the screen is not visible to the driver. Louisiana will join 38 other states with similar laws permitting the use of TV screens in the front seats of vehicles. The defeated legislation purported to prohibit the use of cell phones in vehicles and to ban the use of bright lights on interstates.

Louisiana’s Dangerous Drivers Targeted

May 2, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

The Louisiana Legislature’s 2011 Regular Session convened on April 25. In the midst of this fiscal session, the Legislature introduced three new state-wide bills relative to distracted driving, including a potential ban on the use of handheld cell phones in automobiles. Last session, Governor Jindal signed into a law a ban on texting while driving. This ban designates texting while operating a motor vehicle a primary offense and permits officers to stop drivers to issue fines for violating the law.

The new bills introduced this session reflect a nationwide trend to stop distracted driving in America. First, House Bill 337 requires drivers to use a “hands-free device” when talking on a cell phone in a vehicle. If found violating the law, drivers may face significant fines. Second, House Bill 338 seeks to prohibit drivers from using handheld wireless telecommunication devices, including computers. A violation would result in a $125 fine. Last, House Bill 387 purports to strike and replace an existing state law that only permits the use of video screens in a vehicle if the screen is located behind the driver’s seat. This new legislation permits a split-screen in the front seat, as long as the split-screen is not visible to the driver.

Recent studies suggest that distracted driving is equivalent to drunk driving, often resulting in tragic accidents and injuries that could have been avoided. Across the United States, states continue to crack down on the use of electronic devices in motor vehicles. Last month alone, a Massachusetts teenager and a Minnesota mom were criminally charged after their texting while driving resulted in serious accidents causing significant injury. In addition to criminal charges, individuals who cause damage when texting while operating a motor vehicle may also face civil damages, including tort liability.

Williamson v. Mazda –Recent Supreme Court Seatbelt Holding Opens New Doors for Products Liability Plaintiffs

April 4, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

In Williamson v. Mazda, the Supreme Court ruled that a deceased woman’s relatives could sue her vehicle’s manufacturer for failing to install lap-and-shoulder belts, even though the manufacturer had complied with all relevant federal safety regulations. The decedent, Mrs. Williamson, was killed while riding in the backseat of a Mazda minivan and wearing a lap belt, the only available seatbelt in the backseat. The other passengers with lap-and-shoulder belts survived the accident.

In the case, Mazda raised its compliance with all federal safety regulations as a defense. The Supreme Court ruled that federal safety regulations do not preempt state law products liability claims. Rejecting Mazda’s defense, the Court reasoned that an automaker still has a duty to take safety precautions in designing and constructing vehicles

In Louisiana, the Louisiana Products Liability Act (“LPLA”) applies to all products liability claims made after September 1, 1988. To recover under the LPLA, a plaintiff must sue a company that meets the LPLA’s statutory definition of a “manufacturer.” The plaintiff must also prove that a product’s defective condition was the actual or proximate cause of his injury and that the product was unreasonably dangerous. Additionally, the plaintiff must prove that the product was used in its reasonably anticipated use.

Louisiana Evidence: Expert Witnesses

February 28, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

If you are hurt, an expert witnesses may play an important role in your case In personal injury cases, lawyers may hire expert witnesses to provide an expert opinion based on his professional knowledge and expertise. In a plaintiff’s claim for personal injuries caused by an automobile collision, for instance, the plaintiff’s attorney may hire a physician to evaluate the plaintiff’s injuries and to testify in court that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the negligent defendant. The judge or the jury will use this testimony to assess the plaintiff’s claims and to better allocate fault and damages among the parties in the suit.

An expert witness may testify in state court if he meets certain requirements provided by the Louisiana Code of Evidence , or in Federal Court, as articulated by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Under these rules, an expert witness may testify if the witness has special knowledge, skills or experience and if the testimony is relevant to the underlying facts in the case. An expert witness must base his testimony on reliable methodology, which typically means that the witness must meet the general standards of his profession. Additionally, the expert’s opinion must be more than a mere speculation; it must be supported by a proper factual basis and based on reasonable certainty.

Louisiana Drunk Driving Accidents

February 14, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

Authorities are cracking down on drunk driving across the nation and in Louisiana . In 2009, the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) recorded the lowest number of drunk-driving fatalities nationally in nearly a half a century . In 2009, 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-related collisions. For statistical purposes, a driver is considered to be alcohol-impaired if he has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or higher.

Louisiana had 295 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in 2009, a 13 percent decrease from 2008. Nationally, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities declined 7.4 percent from 2008 to 2009. The number of alcohol-impaired fatalities in Louisiana involving individuals under the age of 21 was 40, a 29 percent increase from 2008.

The 2009 national average for drunk-driving deaths was 3.5 fatalities per 100,000 people. The 2009 rate in Louisiana was 6.6 fatalities per 100,000 people, nearly double the national average. The 2009 national rate for drunk-driving fatalities involving individuals under the age of 21 was 1.6 fatalities per 100,000 people; whereas, Louisiana’s rate was 3 deaths per 100,000 people.

Nationally, seven out of ten individuals involved in drunk-driving accidents were hardcore drunk drivers. Hardcore drunk drivers are identified as drunk drivers with a BAC of .15 or greater, who have been arrested at least once and who are resistant to changing their behavior despite arrests, sanctions and education.

Whose Fault Was It: Comparative or Contributory Negligence?

February 7, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

Every accident is different: sometimes many people are responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries; other times, the plaintiff’s fault may have partially caused his injures. Comparative fault and contributory fault are general defenses a defendant may raise in an attempt to reduce the damages a defendant must pay. Contributory fault means that the plaintiff contributed to the wrongful act, injury, death or loss and traditionally served as a complete bar to recovery for the plaintiff. On the other hand, comparative fault is a system where courts allocate percentages to the parties involved in the suit based on each person’s fault.

Louisiana is a comparative fault jurisdiction.

Almost all U.S. jurisdictions have shifted away from contributory fault and have adopted comparative fault systems. Dependent on the jurisdiction, however, courts may apply a “pure” comparative fault system or a “modified” comparative fault system. Under a “pure” comparative fault system, the jury allocates damages based on each person’s fault and imputes a certain percentage of fault to each party. The plaintiff is not barred from recovery, even if the plaintiff is primarily responsible for his own injury. For example, if the plaintiff is 90 percent at fault, the plaintiff may still recover his 10 percent.