gets.primecure.net

Tag: Damages

  • Power Lines and Damaged Crops: Who Pays When Farming Meets Infrastructure?

    The following case revolves around the intersection of farming and infrastructure development, and the legal implications when construction activities impact agricultural land.

    Case Background

    Lanie Farms, a sugarcane and soybean farming operation, sued CLECO Power and its contractor, Highlines, for damages caused during the construction of new power lines across the farmland. Lanie Farms claimed that the construction activities damaged their crops and required costly remediation efforts. The trial court ruled in favor of Lanie Farms, awarding them $38,000 in damages. However, Lanie Farms appealed, arguing the award was insufficient. CLECO and Highlines also appealed, claiming the court should have dismissed the case.

    Legal Issues

    The case raised several key legal issues:

    • Measure of Damages: How should the damages to the crops be calculated – based on the gross value of the lost crops or the net value after deducting expenses?
    • Involuntary Dismissal: Did Lanie Farms present sufficient evidence to support their claims and avoid dismissal of their case?
    • Contractual Obligations: Did the servitude agreement between CLECO and the landowners create an obligation for CLECO to pay for damages to Lanie Farms’ crops?

    The Court’s Analysis

    The appeals court reviewed the evidence and addressed each of these issues:

    • Damages: The court acknowledged that while gross value is often used in pre-construction negotiations, this case was different. The court found that the net value, which accounts for expenses, was a more accurate reflection of the actual losses suffered by Lanie Farms.
    • Involuntary Dismissal: Although Lanie Farms primarily argued negligence, they also presented evidence of a contractual obligation by CLECO to pay for damages. The court found this sufficient to deny the motion for involuntary dismissal.
    • Contractual Obligations: The court confirmed that the servitude agreement created a “stipulation pour autrui” – a benefit for a third party (Lanie Farms). This meant CLECO was contractually obligated to compensate Lanie Farms for crop damage caused by their construction activities.

    Key Takeaways

    • Servitude Agreements: When granting servitudes for infrastructure development, landowners and lessees should carefully consider provisions for potential crop damage and ensure clear language regarding liability and compensation.
    • Expert Testimony: Expert witnesses play a crucial role in determining damages, especially in complex cases involving crop valuation and remediation costs.
    • Contractual vs. Negligence Claims: Even when negligence is alleged, the existence of a contractual obligation can significantly impact the outcome of a case.

    Outcome

    The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the $38,000 damage award. This case demonstrates the importance of contractual agreements in determining liability for crop damage caused by infrastructure development. It also highlights the court’s discretion in assessing damages and the weight given to expert testimony.

  • Siblings Awarded $200K in Legal Malpractice Case: A Cautionary Tale of Attorney Negligence

    In a poignant reminder of the potential consequences of attorney negligence, the Louisiana Court of Appeal recently upheld a substantial $200,000 legal malpractice award to four siblings who tragically lost their brother due to their former attorneys’ alleged mishandling of a wrongful death lawsuit. This case highlights the importance of competent legal representation and the potential consequences of attorney negligence.

    Case Background

    The plaintiffs, siblings of the deceased Frank Anthony Dawson, hired the defendants, Gray & Gray and James Gray, II, to represent them in a wrongful death and survival action against the Sheriff of St. Tammany Parish. Mr. Dawson tragically died by suicide while under suicide watch in the sheriff’s custody.

    The initial lawsuit was dismissed due to procedural errors. While an appeal led to a partial reversal and remand, the case was ultimately dismissed again due to abandonment, primarily caused by the defendants’ inaction.

    Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a legal malpractice claim against their former attorneys, alleging negligence in handling their original case. The trial court granted partial summary judgment on the liability issue, finding the defendants negligent. After a trial on damages, each of the four plaintiffs was awarded $50,000.

    Key Issues on Appeal

    The defendants appealed the judgment, challenging the grant of summary judgment on liability and the damages awarded. They also argued for a new trial due to the trial court’s failure to provide written reasons for its decision, which was attributed to the trial judge’s illness.

    Court’s Analysis

    The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision on several key points.

    • Liability: The court upheld the summary judgment on liability, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie legal malpractice case. The defendants’ negligence in failing to comply with procedural rules led to the dismissal of the original lawsuit, causing the plaintiffs to lose their opportunity to pursue their claims.

    • Damages: The court found the $50,000 award to each sibling reasonable, considering the evidence presented and prior awards in similar cases. The plaintiffs’ emotional loss and the value of their potential recovery in the underlying wrongful death suit were considered.

    • Written Reasons for Judgment: The court acknowledged the defendants’ request for written reasons but determined that the absence of such reasons did not warrant a new trial. It emphasized that the appellate court reviews judgments, not reasons for judgment and that a complete record and trial transcript were available for review.

    Conclusion

    This case is a stark reminder of the importance of competent legal representation, especially in sensitive matters like wrongful death claims. Attorney negligence can have devastating consequences, depriving clients of their opportunity to seek justice and compensation.

    The court’s decision underscores the need for attorneys to adhere to procedural rules and diligently pursue their clients’ cases. It also highlights the potential for substantial damages in legal malpractice cases when negligence results in the loss of a viable claim.

    If you believe you have been a victim of legal malpractice, seeking advice from another attorney is crucial. They can assess your case, determine if you have a valid claim, and help you pursue the compensation you may be entitled to.

    Additional Sources: Connie Dawson, et al. v. Gray & Gray, A Professional Law Corporation, and James A. Gray, II

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Legal Malpractice: Understanding Legal Malpractice Claims: Establishing Negligence and Loss and Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Legal Malpractice Case, Underscoring Importance of Contractual Claims in Insurance Disputes

  • Louisiana Court Adjusts Damages in Car Accident Case, Emphasizes Need for General Damages

    A recent ruling by the Louisiana Court of Appeal has highlighted the importance of awarding general damages in personal injury cases, even when the primary focus is on medical expenses. The case involved a car accident where the jury awarded the plaintiff past medical expenses but failed to award any general damages for pain and suffering.

    In 2013, Steven McDowell was involved in a car accident with Russell Diggs. McDowell sued Diggs and his insurer, seeking damages for physical and mental pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and medical expenses.

    The jury found both drivers equally at fault (50% each) and awarded McDowell $8,000 for past medical expenses. However, they did not award any general damages. McDowell appealed, arguing that it was legal error to award special damages without also awarding general damages.

    The Court of Appeal agreed with McDowell, finding that the jury’s decision to award medical expenses but no general damages was an abuse of discretion. The court conducted a de novo review of the evidence and awarded McDowell an additional $25,000 in general damages.

    Understanding the Types of Damages

    • Special Damages: These are quantifiable economic losses, such as medical expenses, lost wages, and property damage.
    • General Damages: These are non-economic losses that are more difficult to quantify, such as pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.

    Why General Damages Matter:

    General damages compensate for the intangible harms caused by an accident. They acknowledge the physical and emotional toll an injury can take on a person’s life. Even if medical expenses are covered, the pain, suffering, and reduced quality of life deserve compensation.

    Key Takeaways from the Case:

    • Legal Error: The court emphasized that it’s a legal error for a jury to award special damages without also awarding general damages when the injuries are proven.
    • De Novo Review: When such an error occurs, the appellate court can conduct a de novo review, meaning they will independently assess the evidence and determine an appropriate award for general damages.
    • Importance of General Damages: The case highlights that general damages are an essential component of fair compensation in personal injury cases.
    • Seek Legal Counsel: If you’ve been injured in an accident, it’s crucial to consult with an attorney who can help you understand your rights and ensure you receive full and fair compensation for all your losses, including general damages.

    This case serves as a reminder that even in cases where medical expenses are the primary focus, general damages for pain and suffering should not be overlooked. The court’s decision emphasizes the importance of ensuring that injured individuals receive just compensation for the full spectrum of harm they’ve suffered.

    Additional Sources: STEVEN MCDOWELL VERSUS RUSSELL DIGGS, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law firm articles on General Damages: Louisiana Court Affirms General Damages Awarded to Ascension Parish Woman Injured In Auto Accident and Falling Tree Victim Entitled to Increase of General Damages

  • Louisiana Court Upholds Modest Damages in Minor Car Accident Case: Highlighting the Importance of Proving Causation and the Impact of Pre-Existing Conditions

    A recent ruling from the Louisiana Court of Appeal underscores the challenges of securing substantial damages in personal injury cases, especially when pre-existing conditions and the severity of the accident are at play. The case, Pourciau v. Melville and State Farm, involved a minor rear-end collision. While the defendant admitted fault, the court ultimately upheld a modest damage award, emphasizing the plaintiff’s burden to prove a direct causal link between the accident and the claimed injuries.

    Douglas Pourciau was rear-ended by Dennis Melville at an intersection in Baton Rouge. While the accident was minor, Pourciau claimed it aggravated his pre-existing back and neck pain. He sued Melville and his insurer, State Farm, for damages.

    The trial court found Melville partially at fault but awarded Pourciau only a modest amount in general damages, citing the lack of evidence linking his ongoing pain to the accident. Pourciau appealed, seeking a higher award and additional damages for future medical expenses and loss of use of his vehicle.

    The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the plaintiff’s burden to prove causation and the extent of their injuries.

    • Pre-existing Conditions and Causation: The court acknowledged Pourciau’s prior back and neck issues and highlighted the need to establish a direct causal link between the accident and any claimed aggravation. It noted that Pourciau had reported improvement and a return to his pre-accident condition shortly after the accident, raising questions about the ongoing nature of his complaints.

    • Credibility and Medical Evidence: The court considered Pourciau’s testimony and medical records. It noted inconsistencies in his reporting of neck pain and the lack of evidence supporting his claims of severe ongoing pain. The court also found that Pourciau had not sought further medical treatment beyond chiropractic care and was managing his pain with over-the-counter medication.

    • Future Medical Expenses and Loss of Use: The court rejected Pourciau’s claims for future medical expenses and loss of use of his vehicle. It found insufficient evidence to support these claims, particularly given the lack of recent medical treatment and the absence of evidence showing any rental car expenses or significant inconvenience caused by the loss of his vehicle.

    Things to Know: 

    The Pourciau decision highlights several important aspects of personal injury claims:

    • Proving Causation is Crucial: It’s not enough to have pre-existing conditions and experience pain after an accident. You must prove that the accident directly caused a new injury or significantly worsened your existing condition.
    • Medical Evidence Matters: Consistent medical records and expert testimony are vital in proving the extent of your injuries and their connection to the accident.
    • Credibility is Key: Your testimony and the consistency of your claims play a significant role. Inconsistent statements or gaps in medical treatment can weaken your case.
    • Mitigating Damages: If you’re seeking damages, you must take reasonable steps to mitigate them. This includes following medical advice and seeking appropriate treatment.

    The Pourciau case serves as a reminder that even in cases where fault is admitted, proving the extent of damages and their connection to the accident can be challenging, particularly when pre-existing conditions are involved.

    If you’ve been injured in a car accident, consulting with an experienced personal injury attorney is critical. They can help you gather strong medical evidence, build a persuasive case, and fight for the compensation you deserve. Remember, understanding the legal requirements and having skilled representation can make all the difference in securing a fair outcome.

    Additional Resources: DOUGLAS POURCIAU VERSUS DENNIS MELVILLE AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Pre-existing Injuries: Louisiana Court Awards Damages in Car Accident Case Despite Pre-Existing Conditions and How Does a Pre-Existing Injury affect your Workers’ Compensation Claim?

  • No Pain, No Gain? Understanding the Importance of Proving Injury in Louisiana Car Accident Cases

    A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, Cruz v. Creecy, underscores the critical importance of proving injuries in personal injury cases arising from car accidents. The case reminds us that even when fault is established, a plaintiff must still provide credible evidence of their injuries to secure damages.

    The case started when Rosa Cruz was involved in a car accident with Martha Creecy. A lawsuit was filed, and the trial court found Ms. Creecy to be at fault for the accident. However, the court declined to award damages to Ms. Cruz, concluding she failed to prove she sustained any injuries directly caused by the accident.

    Ms. Cruz appealed this decision, arguing that her testimony and medical records were sufficient to prove both injury and causation.

    The Court’s Ruling

    The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing Ms. Cruz’s burden to prove both the existence of injuries and that those injuries were caused by the accident.

    • Credibility Issues: The court highlighted inconsistencies in Ms. Cruz’s testimony. She claimed to have vomited and suffered a head injury immediately after the accident, but this was contradicted by other witnesses and the police report. The court found Ms. Cruz to be an “extremely poor historian” and questioned her credibility.
    • Medical Evidence: The court scrutinized the medical records, noting that Ms. Cruz’s initial complaints at the hospital focused on headaches and stomach problems. Only later did she report a wider range of symptoms to a chiropractor. The court found that the medical evidence did not definitively link her complaints to the accident.
    • The Housley Presumption: Ms. Cruz invoked the “Housley presumption,” a legal principle that can help plaintiffs establish causation in personal injury cases. However, the court pointed out that this presumption only applies after an injury has been proven. Since the court found Ms. Cruz failed to prove she suffered any injury from the accident, the Housley presumption was irrelevant.

    Key Takeaways

    • Proving Injury is Essential: Even if the other party is at fault in a car accident, you must prove you were injured to receive damages.
    • Credibility Matters: Your testimony plays a crucial role in proving your case. Inconsistent statements or a lack of corroborating evidence can undermine your credibility and harm your chances of success.
    • Medical Evidence is Key: Medical records and expert testimony are often critical in establishing the existence and cause of your injuries.
    • The Housley Presumption has Limits: The Housley presumption can be a helpful tool for plaintiffs, but it only applies if you can first prove you were injured in the accident.

    Additional Sources:ROSA LOPEZ CRUZ VERSUS MARTHA CREECY AND USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Proving Damages: Louisiana Appeals Court affirms no damages should be allocated to minors Because of Lack of Proof and Harvey Man Denied Damages For Truck Falling On Foot, Importance of Proof in Lawsuits

  • A Car Crash, a Faulty Repair, and a Battle Over Damages

    Patricia Spann’s life took a dramatic turn when she lost control of her Chevrolet Cobalt, resulting in a severe accident that left her with multiple fractures and a lengthy hospital stay. She believed the cause of the accident was a faulty power steering system, recently replaced by Gerry Lane Chevrolet as part of a recall. Spann sued Gerry Lane, alleging negligence in the repair and the hiring and training of their mechanics.

    The legal journey was not a smooth one. Initially, the trial court dismissed Spann’s case, granting Gerry Lane’s motion for summary judgment due to a perceived lack of evidence. However, Spann fought back, securing a new trial based on additional evidence from her expert witness.

    This expert, a mechanical engineer, had conducted multiple inspections of Spann’s car, ultimately concluding that the power steering system failed due to improper installation. Gerry Lane challenged the admissibility of this expert’s testimony, arguing it lacked scientific basis and that some inspections violated a court order. However, the court allowed the testimony, stating that challenges to the expert’s conclusions were about the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The court also determined that while the inspections without the defendants present were “troubling,” there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing.

    At trial, a jury found Gerry Lane partially at fault for the accident and awarded Spann damages for medical expenses and lost wages. However, they did not award any damages for pain and suffering, a decision that Spann challenged. The trial court agreed with Spann, finding the jury’s verdict inconsistent. It granted a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV), significantly increasing the damages to include a substantial amount for pain and suffering. (see La. C.C.P. art. 1811).

    Gerry Lane appealed, arguing several points, including the admissibility of the expert’s testimony, the evidence from the inspections, the granting of a new trial, and the large increase in damages awarded by the JNOV.

    The appeals court carefully reviewed the evidence and legal arguments. It upheld the trial court’s decisions regarding the expert testimony, the evidence from the inspections, and the new trial. However, while it agreed that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent and a JNOV was warranted, it found the trial court’s increase in damages to be excessive. The appeals court reduced the additional award for pain and suffering, striking a balance between recognizing Spann’s injuries and respecting the jury’s initial findings.

    This case underscores several important legal concepts. It highlights the critical role of expert witnesses in complex cases, particularly when technical or scientific issues are involved. It also emphasizes the importance of adhering to court orders and the potential consequences of violating them, even if unintentional.

    Furthermore, the case demonstrates the power of a JNOV to correct an inconsistent or unjust jury verdict. However, it also shows that even when a JNOV is granted, the court’s discretion in awarding damages is not unlimited and must be based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence.

    Spann v. Gerry Lane serves as a reminder that the legal process can be long and complex, with multiple layers of review and potential for appeals. It underscores the importance of seeking experienced legal counsel to navigate these complexities and ensure that justice is served.

    Additional Sources:PATRICIA SPANN VERSUS GERRY LANE ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A GERRY LANE CHEVROLET, ABC AND XYZ

    Written by Berniard Law Firm 

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Increase of Jury Awards: How can an Appeal Affect a Jury’s Award for Mental and Physical Pain and Suffering?  and Allocating Damages in Wrongful Death Cases: Navigating the High Standard of JNOV Motion