Louisiana Injury Lawyer Blog

There is a one year prescriptive period for survival action claims in Louisiana. The right to recover survival action damages for injuries sustained by a deceased person prior to their death may be brought only by the following exclusive class of beneficiary (including by adoption):

(1) The surviving spouse and child or children of the deceased, or either the spouse or the child or children.

(2) The surviving father and mother of the deceased, or either of them if he left no spouse or child surviving. However, a father or mother who has abandoned the deceased during his minority is deemed not to have survived him.

(3) The surviving brothers and sisters of the deceased, or any of them, if he left no spouse, child, or parent surviving.

(4) The surviving grandfathers and grandmothers of the deceased, or any of them, if he left no spouse, child, parent, or sibling surviving.

(5) The deceased's succession representative in the absence of any of the above class of beneficiary.

There is a one year prescriptive period for wrongful death claims in Louisiana. If a person dies due to the fault of another, suit may be brought only by the following exclusive class of beneficiary (including by adoption) to recover wrongful death damages which they sustained as a result of the death:

(1) The surviving spouse and child or children of the deceased, or either the spouse or the child or children.

(2) The surviving father and mother of the deceased, or either of them if he left no spouse or child surviving. However, a father or mother who has abandoned the deceased during his minority is deemed not to have survived him.

(3) The surviving brothers and sisters of the deceased, or any of them, if he left no spouse, child, or parent surviving.

(4) The surviving grandfathers and grandmothers of the deceased, or any of them, if he left no spouse, child, parent, or sibling surviving.

In any action (or claim for recovery of damages for injury, death, or loss asserted under any law or legal doctrine or theory of liability, regardless of the basis of liability) for damages where a person suffers injury, death, or loss, the degree or percentage of fault of all persons causing or contributing to the injury, death, or loss (including victim fault) shall be determined, regardless of whether the person is a party to the action or a nonparty, and regardless of the person's insolvency, ability to pay, immunity by statute, including but not limited to the provisions of R.S. 23:1032 (employer Worker's Compensation immunity), or that the other person's identity is not known or reasonably ascertainable (phantom tortfeasors).

If a person suffers injury, death, or loss as a result partly of his own negligence and partly as a result of the fault of an intentional tortfeasor, his claim for recovery of damages shall not be reduced.

He who conspires with another person to commit an intentional or willful act is answerable, in solido, with that person, for the damage caused by such act. If liability is not solidary then liability for damages caused by two or more persons shall be a joint and divisible obligation. A joint tortfeasor shall not be liable for more than his degree of fault and shall not be solidarily liable with any other person for damages attributable to the fault of such other person, including the victim regardless of such other person's insolvency, ability to pay, degree of fault, immunity by statute or otherwise, including but not limited to immunity as provided in R.S. 23:1032 (employer Worker's Compensation immunity), or that the other person's identity is not known or reasonably ascertainable (phantom tortfeasors).

Interruption of prescription against one joint tortfeasor is effective against all joint tortfeasors.

Generally, no person shall be liable for damages for injury, death, or loss of the operator
of a motor vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, or vessel who is found to be in excess of 25% negligent as a contributing factor in causing his damages as a result of operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, or vessel while his blood alcohol concentration was 0.08, or who was operating while he was under the influence of any controlled dangerous substance unless prescribed or provided by a health care provider.

As recognized by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Dumas v. State, DCRT, 2002-0563 (La. 10/15/02), 828 So.2d 530, 537, prior to the 1996 tort reform amendments to La. C.C. arts. 2323 and 2324(B), the policy behind Louisiana's tort law was ensuring that innocent victims received full compensation for their injuries. With the 1996 amendments, the Louisiana Legislature shifted Louisiana's policy so that each tortfeasor pays only for that portion of the damage he has caused and the tortfeasor shall not be solidarily liable with any other person for damages attributable to the fault of that other person. With the advent of this new policy, the right of contribution among solidary tortfeasors also disappeared since it is no longer necessary in light of the abolishment of solidarity. The Louisiana Legislature struck a new balance in favor of known, present and solvent tortfeasors instead of the previous priority that fully compensated injured victims.

The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Watson v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 469 So.2d 967, 974 (La. 1985), adopted the following factors (now known as the Watson factors) for determining the percentages of fault to be assigned to culpable tortfeasors, the trier of fact shall consider both the nature of the conduct of each party at fault and the extent of the causal relation between the conduct and the damages claimed. In assessing the nature of the conduct of the parties, various factors may influence the degree of fault assigned, including:

(1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the danger;

(2) how great a risk was created by the conduct;

(3) the significance of what was sought by the conduct;

(4) the capacities of the actor, whether superior or inferior; and

(5) any extenuating circumstances which might require the actor to proceed in haste, without proper thought.

And, as evidenced by concepts such as last clear chance, the relationship between the fault/negligent conduct and the harm to the plaintiff are considerations in determining the relative fault of the parties.

Establishing negligence under Louisiana law is accomplished via the following five prong duty / risk analysis:

I. Was the conduct in question a substantial factor in bringing about the harm to the plaintiff, i.e., was it a cause in fact of the harm?

-It is irrelevant in determining cause in fact whether the defendant's actions were lawful, unlawful, intentional, unintentional, negligent, or non-negligent. The inquiry is a neutral one, free of the entanglements of policy considerations - morality, culpability or responsibility-involved in the duty-risk analysis. Ask whether the defendant's conduct was a necessary antecedent of the accident, that is, but for the defendant's conduct, the incident probably would not have occurred.

-Is there a factual causal relationship between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries? Did defendant's actions have something to do with the injury the plaintiff sustained? Did the defendant's conduct appreciably enhance the chance of the accident occurring?

-Generally, cause in fact entails a "but for" inquiry: If the plaintiff probably would have not sustained the injuries but for the defendant's conduct, such conduct is a cause in fact. But, when multiple causes are present, cause in fact is found to exist when the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff's harm.

II. Did the defendant owe a duty to the plaintiff?

-Duty is a question of law. Simply put, the inquiry is whether the plaintiff has any law - statutory or jurisprudential - to support his or her claim?

III. Was the duty breached?

-Did the defendant fail to conform to the legally imposed duty?

IV. Was the risk, and harm caused, within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached?

-Regardless if stated in terms of proximate cause, legal cause, or duty, the scope of the duty inquiry is ultimately a question of policy as to whether the particular risk falls within the scope of the duty. The scope of protection inquiry asks whether the enunciated rule or principle of law extends to or is intended to protect this plaintiff from this type of harm arising in this manner. Although, the determination of legal cause involves a purely legal question, this legal determination depends on factual determinations of foreseeability and ease of association. The extent of protection owed by a defendant to a plaintiff is made on a case-by-case basis to avoid making a defendant an insurer of all persons against all harms.

-Substandard conduct does not render the actor liable for all consequences spiraling outward until the end of time. Ask whether too much else intervened - time, space, people, and bizarreness?

-Ease of association: in determining whether there is a duty-risk relationship, the inquiry is how easily the risk of injury to plaintiff can be associated with the duty sought to be enforced, or how easily does one associate the plaintiff's complained of harm with the defendant's conduct, or how easily the risk of harm can be associated with the rule which was breached. Is the purpose of the duty substantially related to the risk of harm?

-Although ease of ease of association encompasses the idea of foreseeability, it is not based on foreseeability alone. Ease of association melds policy and foreseeability into one inquiry: Is the harm which befell the plaintiff easily associated with the type of conduct engaged in by the defendant?

-Legal cause requires a proximate relation between the actions of a defendant and the harm which occurs and such relation must be substantial in character.

-Because legal cause analysis is so fact bound, other legal cause cases serve only as examples of the methodology and can only be analogized from when the facts bear a striking resemblance to the case to be decided.

V. Damages.

-Was the defendant's culpable conduct a cause of the plaintiff's harm?

Continue reading "Louisiana's Negligence Duty / Risk Analysis in a Nutshell" »

For the sixth straight year, Baton Rouge, Louisiana personal injury lawyer, Paul H. Due' of Due', Price, Guidry, Piedrahita & Andrews has been rated by Louisiana Super Lawyers. "Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Super Lawyers magazine features the list and profiles of selected attorneys and is distributed to attorneys in the state or region and the ABA-accredited law school libraries. Super Lawyers is also published as a special section in leading city and regional magazines across the country. Super Lawyers magazine is published in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., reaching more than 13 million readers."

Baton Rouge, Louisiana personal injury lawyer Donald W. Price has been rated by Louisiana Super Lawyers 2012 in the practice area of Personal Injury Plaintiff. Donald Price has been rated by Louisiana Super Lawyers every year since its inception in 2007. "Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations."

Baton Rouge, Louisiana personal injury lawyer, B. Scott Andrews, of Due', Price, Guidry, Piedrahita & Andrews has been recognized by Louisiana Super Lawyers 2012 in the practice area of Personal Injury-Plaintiff. "Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations."

The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld a $23 million St. Landry Parish jury verdict in favor of six members of an Opelousas, Louisiana family who were horribly burned in a house fire and explosion in June 2003. According to the family's lead trial attorney, Randy Piedrahita, of the Baton Rouge, Louisiana personal injury law firm of Due', Price, Guidry, Piedrahita & Andrews, Centerpoint Energy was held responsible for one-half of the judgment for failing to properly lock its gas meter when discontinuing service to a rent house for non-payment. Centerpoint Energy failed to comply with federal law and its internal procedures by either placing a locking device on the gas meter to prevent it from being turned on, or installing a blind plate to prevent the flow of gas through the line in the event the meter was turned on by an unauthorized person. Centerpoint Energy's negligence enabled just such an unauthorized person to turn the gas meter on to the rent house with devastating consequences to the residents because of a gas pipe that had inadvertently been left open in the house. Fugitive gas flowed into the house for several hours while the family slept, and was then ignited by an unknown source.

Continue reading "Multi-Million Dollar Jury Verdict Against Centerpoint Energy Upheld by Louisiana Supreme Court" »

In a case arising from a fire at an oil well site which left a worker severely burned, a deeply divided Louisiana Supreme Court held in a 4-3 decision that a timely filed lawsuit against a worker's statutory employer who is immune from tort liability and who had not paid any benefits (because benefits were paid by the direct employer) can interrupt prescription against an alleged third-party tortfeasor because of the solidary liability that exists between them for medical expenses and lost wages. Glasgow v. PAR Minerals Corporation, 2010-2011 (La. 5/10/11), rehearing denied, (La.7/14/11). The Supreme Court concluded:

The Civil Code provides a two-part formula for interrupting prescription in this situation: 1) a timely lawsuit (and service, if in an incompetent court; see LSA-C.C. art. 3462); and 2) a solidary relationship between a party sued within the prescriptive period and a party not sued within the prescriptive period (see LSA-C.C. art. 1799 or art. 3503). The procedural posture here is comparable to that in Williams v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 611 So.2d 1183 (La. 1993), except that in Williams, the suit in district court was for workers' compensation and the suit was brought against a direct employer rather than a statutory employer. The procedural distinctions here are without a difference, because LSA-C.C. art. 1797 provides that the source of the solidary relationship is immaterial. For this reason, to the extent Keller v. McLeod, 2003-267 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/11/04), 866 So.2d 388; Williams v. Holiday Inn Worldwide, 2002-0762 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/15/02), 816 So.2d 998; and Layman v. City of New Orleans, 1998-0705 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/9/98), 753 So.2d 254, are inconsistent with the conclusion that a timely lawsuit (and service, if in an incompetent court) against a principal or statutory employer interrupts prescription as to a third-party alleged tortfeasor, those cases are overruled. In the instant case, we find both parts of the formula provided by the Civil Code for interrupting prescription have been met; the lower courts erred in sustaining the alleged third party tortfeasor's exception of prescription. Accordingly, we reverse the decisions of both lower courts and remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Given the inherently dangerous nature of gas, gas companies are required to exercise the utmost care to reduce hazards to life as far as is practicable. A gas company is under a duty to safeguard against occurrences that can be reasonably expected or contemplated. When an accident or occurrence can be reasonably anticipated, it is within the scope of the duty owed by the electric company to the injured party because there is an ease of association between the risk presented by the gas company's conduct under the overall circumstances and the resulting injury. An electric company is held to the standard of a reasonable person with superior attributes, and is required to recognize that there will be a certain amount of negligence that must be anticipated.

Foley v. Entergy Louisiana, Inc., 2006-0983 (La. 11/29/06), 946 So.2d 144, 154.

Continue reading "Louisiana Jury Instructions - Burn Injuries - Utility has Duty of Utmost Care to Reduce Hazards" »

A thirteen year-old girl who suffered extensive burn injuries over 84% of her body and blindness in one eye was awarded $10 million in compensatory damages by a Philadelphia state court from a drug manufacturer who failed to warn of the risk of contracting Stevens Johnson Syndrome when taking certain fever medications. The young girl contracted Stevens Johnson Syndrome after taking Children's Motrin in 2000. The drug manufacturer claimed that no causal link was shown in the case and that only 1 out of 25 million people taking the drug contract Stevens Johnson Syndrome.

When Stevens Johnson Syndrome caused by severe drug reactions are preventable, monetary compensation may be available from the drug manufacturer or from a healthcare provider who prescribed the medication or who failed to timely diagnose and treat the condition. Recently, Donald W. Price with the Baton Rouge, Louisiana personal injury law firm of Due', Price, Guidry, Piedrahita & Andrews, obtained a multi-million dollar jury verdict against a deceased Baton Rouge pediatrician who allegedly prescribed an inappropriate sulfa-drug to his minor patient for a sinus infection who soon developed Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and was left permanently scarred and disfigured. Even though the Louisiana Medical Review Panel that reviewed the case unanimously ruled that the pediatrician did not commit medical negligence, the Baton Rouge jury found that the evidence supported a finding that the pediatrician deviated below the applicable standard of care and that the deviation caused the child's severe burn injuries.

It is well settled that gas is an inherently dangerous instrumentality because of its highly flammable and explosive character. Those who handle and distribute it are charged with the duty to exercise that degree of care commensurate with its dangerous character and necessary to protect the public from any foreseeable injury therefrom.

Giordano v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 93-1614 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/05/94), 643 So.2d 492, 496.

Continue reading "Louisiana Jury Instructions - Burn Injuries - Highly Flammable and Explosive Character" »