Articles Posted in Products Liability

A pilot’s wife has accused several companies of performing faulty maintenance on the helicopter her husband was flying when it suffered catastrophic engine failure, which led to his death.

Colleen Hicks, of Oklahoma, individually, on behalf of her minor children, and as representative of her husband, Brandon Seth Ricks, filed suit on December 10 against Cadorath Aerospace LaFayette LLC, H&H Turbine Services LLC and Rotorcraft Leasing Co. LLC, claiming negligence that resulted in Brandon Ricks’s death.

The complaint states that Brandon Ricks, age 40, was piloting a Model 206 L-1 helicopter from Griffin Memorial Airport in Mississippi to aid in a controlled burn initiated by the U.S. Forest Service on March 30.  At a point during the flight, engine failed, resulting in a crash that killed both Ricks and the passenger.  According to the suit, Cadorath and the other defendants performed negligent maintenance on the craft from 2009 to 2014 which caused the engine failure in question.

Another lawsuit has arisen from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, this time stemming from the cleanup of the aforementioned accident.

Josip Piacun filed a complaint against BP Exploration & Production Inc., and B.P. America Production Co. alleging gross negligence under general maritime law.  Piacun claimed that the company negligently exposed him to hazardous and cancer-causing compounds.

Piacun was hired as a vessel captain in April 20, 2010, in response to the BP oil spill.  While he was employed from June 2010 to December 2010, Piacun claims BP negligently exposed him to dermal and airborne chemical compounds that are generally accepted to be toxic, volatile, and carcinogenic.  The suit states that, as a result of this exposure, Piacun “developed psychological, dermal, respiratory, and cardiopulmonary complications.”

Up to four people have been left dead and two injured after an explosion occurred at Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company, a Williams Partners’ subsidiary, on Bayou Black Drive in Terrebonne Parish.

After the explosion occurred at 11 a.m. on October 8th, 2015, it was initially reported that the 13 employees stationed at the facility were uninjured and accounted for.  Four contractors who were performing scheduled maintenance at the facility are being treated for injuries sustained as a result of the incident, the severity of which is unknown at this time.

However, Terrebonne Parish Sheriff on the scene Jerry Larpenter reported that he believed at least believed three people were dead at the plant and one other worker had died at the hospital after being recovered by hazmat teams from the site.  The hazmat suits are required due to the heat remaining at the explosion site.  Two other individuals suffered serious injuries.

Jerry D. Franklin, Jr., has brought suit against his employer, Lebeouf Bros. Towing, LLC, for injuries resulting from their negligence.

According to the lawsuit, the Tangipahoa Parish resident was a crewman aboard the H. J. Dupre when it was offshore in 2014.  On or about July 11 of that same year, Franklin alleges that he was instructed to manually move a 20-foot crossover asphalt transfer hose from the deck of one barge to another without an adequate lifting device.  In complying with these instructions, Franklin states that he suffered severe lower back injuries.  The injuries are alleged to be so serious as to require extensive medical treatment and surgical intervention.

The suit alleges negligence on the part of Lebeouf Bros. Towing, and that they breached their duty when it failed to provide safe equipment, adequate crew and proper supervision owing to the un-seaworthiness of the vessel.  The plaintiff seeks maintenance and cure, alleging sever physical and psychological pain, loss of enjoyment of life, lost wages and earning capacity, and permanent disability.  The total sum sought in relief and expenses is $3.65 million.

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.

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.

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).

A Gretna mother recently filed suit for injuries sustained by her four-year-old son during an attack by a neighborhood pit bull. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, who keeps four pit bulls in his fenced-in yard next door to the plaintiff, failed to supervise and control the dogs thereby negligently permitting them to roam the neighborhood from an opening in the fence.

The plaintiff claims that, on the day of the incident, her son was chasing their family cat around the neighborhood when he ran by the opening in their neighbor’s fence through which the dogs commonly exited the yard. As the child approached this opening, one of the pit bulls reached through the opening in the fence, biting the child and dragging him through to the neighboring yard. The child sustained scratches and lacerations to his face and skull, severe lacerations to his thigh, puncture wounds, bruises, and contusions.

Like most, if not all, jurisdictions, Louisiana recognizes negligence as a theory of liability upon a showing that the defendant (1) owed a duty of care, (2) the defendant breached the duty owed, (3) the defendant’s substandard conduct was both a cause-in-fact and legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, (4) actual damages. Successfully proving each of these elements establishes a prima facie case of negligence from which a plaintiff may recover for damages sustained.

Contact Information