Wrongful Death

High Court Orders Tobacco Companies to Pay $270 Million

August 1, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

Tobacco companies will now have to pay $270 million for the implementation of a smoking cessation program after the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated a Louisiana court order that was unilaterally blocked by Justice Scalia last September. The Court also denied the tobacco companies’ appeal.

Louisiana smokers first filed a class action lawsuit against tobacco companies in 1996. A jury ruled in favor of the class, and a Louisiana court ordered tobacco companies to make multi-million dollar payments toward programs to help smokers quit smoking.

Although Supreme Court justices have the power to block another court’s order, the justices rarely use this power. In blocking the order, Justice Scalia cited his concern for the rising abuse of class action lawsuits in state courts. The Court recently addressed this same concern in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, rejecting a class of 1.5 million female Wal-Mart workers alleging sex discrimination.

Boating Safety in Louisiana

July 25, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

Governor Bobby Jindal recently signed House Bill 291 into law, prohibiting underage drinking in waterways. The new law also increases fines for the careless operation of a watercraft and imposes penalties for flight from an officer on water.

Until this legislation, uncertainty existed as to whether the State’s underage drinking prohibitions applied to waterways. According to the bill’s authors, the legislation is now clear: A person must be 21 to consume alcoholic beverages on a boat.

The same bill also rewrote the state’s law regarding the careless operation of a watercraft. The new law requires a watercraft’s operator to issue warning signals in fog or bad weather, to operate the boat at reasonable speeds and to maintain a proper lookout. Violations of the law may result in up to a $300 fine, 30 days in prison, or both.

Pharmaceutical Companies spared by Supreme Court

July 12, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

The Supreme Court insulated generic pharmaceutical companies from state failure to warn claims concerning inadequate labeling last week. The Court held that federal law preempted generic drug makers from consumer state law claims that assert generic drug makers’ failure to include adequate warning labels about possible side effects.

In its reasoning, the Court stated that generic drug companies have no choice but to comply with federal law and cannot be held liable when they fully comply with the FDA’s regulations regarding generic drug labeling. According to the opinion, federal law already requires generic pharmaceutical companies to use warning labels that are identical to their name-brand counterparts.

Preemption occurs when a state law conflicts with a federal law, rendering compliance with both laws a physical impossibility. Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law prevails and trumps state law. Due to the FDA’s extensively regulation of the drug industry, state failure to warn claims relative to drug side effects are often preempted by federal law.

Baycol Class Action

July 5, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

The U.S. Supreme Court revived a West Virginian state-class action lawsuit against Bayer Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of the cholesterol-lowering drug Baycol. The Supreme Court held that a Minnesota federal court exceeded its authority under the Anti-Injunction Act by banning a West Virginian state-class action suit. The federal court issued the injunction to prevent the West Virginian state-class action suit after it refused to certify a federal class of West Virginian plaintiffs. The federal court stated that the injunction prevented the West Virginian plaintiffs from relitigating already decided issues. The Supreme Court reversed the federal court’s ruling, holding that the Minnesota federal court had no authority to ban the state court suit because the state suit differed from the federal case and lacked a connection to the federal suit.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the cholesterol-lowering drug, Baycol, in the late 90s. Bayer quickly removed the drug from the market upon discovering its link to several dangerous side effects, including a fatal muscle breakdown disorder. When an individual is injured from prescribed medication, redress is sometimes available under a products liability claim.

New Iberia Plant Explosion and Absolute Liability

June 28, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

An explosion occurred from a chemical fire at a Multi-Chem Corp. chemical plant in New Iberia last week, causing neighboring residents to evacuate their homes. Police reported no injuries from the explosion or its aftermath. The explosion occurred in a facility that blends chemicals for oil field operations. The accident highlights the importance of safety and prudence by Louisiana proprietors who participate in ultrahazardous activities.

Louisiana law imposes absolute liability on individuals and corporations engaging in ultrahazardous activities. Louisiana Civil Code Article 667 holds a proprietor responsible for damage without regard to his knowledge or his exercise of reasonable care if the damage is caused by an ultrahazardous activity. The Code strictly limits the definition of an ultrahazardous activity to pile driving and blasting with explosives.

Under a theory of absolute liability, the injured party can recover by simply proving damages and causation, regardless of whether the proprietor was actually negligent. Therefore, absolute liability permits liability without negligence. Louisiana courts often attach absolute liability to the storage of toxic gas and crop dusting with airplanes.

New Orleans Train Crash

May 9, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

In April, three train accidents occurred within a 24-hour period in Louisiana. The first collision occurred in Jefferson Parish, when a driver, attempting to beat an oncoming Amtrak passenger train, collided with the train. Tragically, the driver was killed in the accident. The second collision involved another Amtrak train that collided with an 18-wheeler near Slidell and derailed off the tracks. Fortunately, the passengers, crew, and 18-wheeler driver only suffered minor injuries. The third collision occurred in Calcasieu Parish, where an Amtrak passenger train struck and killed a woman walking over the railroad tracks. The accidents raise serious concerns about train safety in the state.

Louisiana is ranked fourth in the nation for automobile-train crash fatalities. Louisiana has statutes in place to promote safety at railroad crossings. La. R.S. § 32:171 requires drivers approaching a railroad crossing to obey railroad signals and to stop at least 15 feet from railroad tracks when a signal indicates an approaching train. An individual who violates the statute may be subject to hefty fines and safe driving courses. Train operators are also required to use horns to warn vehicles prior to approaching railroad crossings and to operate trains with the utmost degree of safety and diligence. These statutes establish a duty of care for both train operators and drivers.

In cases involving train accidents, courts apply a negligence analysis. If a train carries passengers, the train is considered a “common carrier” under state law. A common carrier owes a heightened duty of care to its passengers. Under Louisiana jurisprudence, a common carrier should exercise the highest degree of care, skill, and diligence in transporting passengers. If a common carrier breaches this duty, it may be held liable for even the slightest negligence.

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.

Lake Charles Offshore Accident Raises Questions about Safety Standards and Offshore Workers’ Rights

March 14, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

In light of a recent tragic offshore accident near Lake Charles, oilfield vessel operators need to be held responsible for their failure to provide safe working conditions to employees. According to The Daily Advertiser, federal authorities believe that the fatal accident occurred when an offshore worker fell while transferring from a vessel to a platform. Oilfield vessel operators often abuse their broad authority over employees, and workers who are seriously injured should not hesitate to seek legal counsel.

Maritime law applies to workers injured on navigable waters. Applicable maritime laws include the Jones Act or the Longshoreman Harbor and Workers Act. The Jones Act permits an injured seaman to recover for an injury that occurred as a result of his employer’s negligent operations or use of unseaworthy vessels. An individual may only recover under the Jones Act if he establishes seaman status. This is a highly fact-sensitive inquiry and largely depends on the facts surrounding the accident and the characteristics of the vessel. This inquiry depends on whether the worker is a member of the vessel’s crew or merely a land-based employee who happens to be working on the vessel. Generally, courts look to the total circumstances of the individual’s employment to make this determination.

If the Jones Act applies, a seaman may have three distinct claims. First, the seaman may be entitled to maintenance and cure from his employer if he is injured while “in the service of the vessel.” Maintenance is small daily compensation intended to provide food and shelter that the seaman would have received on the vessel. Cure creates an obligation for the seaman’s employer to provide medical treatment and related expenses until the seaman reaches maximum medical improvement. Second, the seaman may bring a claim against his employer in tort for the employer’s negligent acts or omissions which caused the injury. Finally, the seaman may sue the vessel’s owner if his injuries arose from a vessel’s unseaworthy condition.

Punitive Damages for Maritime Claims

March 7, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

Across the nation, courts are divided on the issue of whether punitive damages should be awarded in admiralty cases. While some courts have found punitive damages to be in unavailable in admiralty, some courts remain willing to award punitive damages under certain circumstances in a limited number of cases.

With respect to claims brought in Louisiana, Texas, and Mississipi, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that punitive damages may be available in the right kind of case. In 1981, the Fifth Circuit held that punitive damages may be recovered under general maritime law when a ship owner acts with gross disregard for a seaman’s rights. Because the Fifth Circuit is controlling precedent in Louisiana federal courts, this favorable federal jurisprudence indicates the potential for punitive damages in the state.

The decision to award punitive damages is primarily a policy decision. Punitive damages are not determined by a plaintiff’s need for compensation but rather by the economic impact that the award would have in the general maritime setting. For example, expensive medical bills incurred as a result of the injury would not be perceived as a reason for an award of punitive damages; whereas, ensuring the promotion of safe working conditions across the maritime industry may suffice. Generally, punitive damages are only awarded as a means of deterrence.