Personal Injury: Representative Works
Personal Injury
Mr. Murphy secured the dismissal of a multi-million dollar suit brought against a sugar mill and its insurers by several plaintiffs, including one plaintiff who was rendered a quadriplegic as a result of a vehicular collision that occurred in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in March 2008. The sugar mill had arranged for the driver of a tractor-trailer operated by another company to load raw sugar at the sugar mill, using equipment belonging to the sugar mill, and to transport the raw sugar to a refinery located approximately 60 miles away. The driver loaded more raw sugar on the trailer than the statute governing weight limits on roadways allowed. While in transit to the refinery, the tractor-trailer rear-ended several vehicles, including the vehicles operated by plaintiffs. The sugar mill moved for summary judgment in the trial court, contending the tractor-trailer company was an independent contractor and therefore the sugar mill should have no liability for the actions of the tractor-trailer company or its driver. After the motion was filed, the trial court authorized plaintiffs to take the depositions of representatives of both the sugar mill and the tractor-trailer company. At the hearing on the motion, the trial court denied the motion. Following the denial, the sugar mill and its insurers applied for a supervisory writ of certiorari to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals. The First Circuit granted the writ, reversed the trial court and entered summary judgment in favor of the sugar mill and its insurers. The First Circuit held that plaintiffs had failed to establish that they will be able to carry their evidentiary burden at trial to demonstrate the sugar mill's vicarious liability or that the sugar mill had a duty to prevent the overloading of the tractor-trailer. Plaintiffs thereafter applied for a supervisory writ of certiorari to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court denied. Manchester v. Conrad, No. 2009-CW-1074 (La. App. 1st Cir.)
Personal Injury - Paralysis
Mr. Keller and Mr. Glas represented Joyce Grundmann and her insurer in connection with an auto accident that occurred on November 8, 2005. The plaintiff claimed paralysis as a result of the accident, and her damages exceeded $5,000,000.00. The defendants stipulated to liability, and argued that the accident did not cause plaintiff's alleged injuries. The defendants argued that a rare spinal cord disorder caused plaintiff's paralysis. The jury was unable to answer the first interrogatory as to whether the accident caused plaintiff's alleged injuries. The case was tried before the Honorable Michael Bagneris with the result of a hung jury.
Cynthia Craige v. Joyce Grundmann et al., Suit No. 06-12739
Personal Injury
Mr. Kerrigan, Mr. Glas and Ms. Belsome obtained precedent-setting summary judgments on behalf of U.S. Gypsum Corporation and its subsidiary, L&W Supply Corporation, in a multi-million dollar untarping case. Plaintiff was a Western Express truck driver who was paralyzed after falling from atop his load of stacked sheetrock while on L&W Supply property. Plaintiff claimed that Defendants knew that truck drivers were sometimes forced to climb their load during untarping, and did nothing to prevent the practice or protect the drivers. Plaintiff argued that Defendants owed a duty under OSHA's Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine and Louisiana state law, and breached that duty by failing to provide fall protection, warnings, and assistance. Defendants argued that they owed no duty to tell a non-employee, professional truck driver how to do his job while on L&W Supply property. Judge Engelhardt of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana wrote an eleven-page judgment agreeing that the Defendants neither owed nor assumed a duty to the Plaintiff; he further concluded that Plaintiff's "failure to take precautions when faced with obvious risk, combined with [Western Express’] seemingly lax driver/untarping policies and procedures, resulted in an unfortunate accident. [Plaintiff’s] remedy, albeit limited, is found in workers’ compensations benefits provided by his employer.” The ruling was issued one week before trial, and only days after opposing counsel demanded $8 million to settle the case.
James Offord and Patricia Offord v. United States Gypsum Corporation, Seacoast Supply, and L&W Supply Corporation, USDC EDLA, No. 07-8704, Section “N”
Maritime Personal Injury
Mr. Murphy obtained summary judgments for LLOG Companies, the largest privately owned oil and gas company operating in the Gulf of Mexico, and Diamond Offshore Companies, a leading U.S. deepwater drilling contractor, when a plaintiff claimed to have sustained bodily injuries while standing on a vessel which lunged due to choppy seas, causing him to fall. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants directed him to leave the cabin of the vessel for the deck, where he was injured. LLOG Offshore, the time charterer of the vessel, moved for summary judgment on the basis that it has no liability because the voyage the vessel performed was subject to the sole right of the captain of the vessel to determine whether movement of the vessel may be safely undertaken. Diamond Offshore moved for summary judgment because the plaintiff had testified he did not believe the seas were too dangerous for work, and in fact, he safely completed a personnel basket transfer to the drilling rig after his injury.
Christopher S. Callahan v. Gulf Logistics, LLC et al., USDC WDLA, Lake Charles.
Product Liability
Mr. Kerrigan, Mr. Le Clercq and Mr. Walsh obtained a dismissal with prejudice on a motion for summary judgment in the 19th JDC, Parish of East Baton Rouge, on behalf of a manufacturer of access control devices. The manufacturer had been sued by a university police officer who claimed injuries resulting from a malfunction of a parking lot's exit gate. Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles was able to prove that the plaintiff, who was riding his duty motorcycle at the time, knew that motorcycles and parking gates were incompatible and that the plaintiff's employer had removed the manufacturer's warnings. Judge Hernandez gave written reasons for judgment.
Jones Act
Mr. Kerrigan and Mr. Walsh successfully defended an equipment rental company against a third-party claim brought against it in a Jones Act personal injury case. A seaman employee sustained serious injuries to his knees and back when a 110' manlift experienced an "uncontrolled retraction" of the manlift's boom. Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles was able to show that the rig's Offshore Installation Manager (OIM) knew the manlift was malfunctioning and then, rather than call the defendant to fix the unit as it had on prior occasions, ordered the seaman to try to repair it. This, it was argued, constituted superseding negligence under both the general maritime law and Louisiana state law. Judge LeBlanc, who ruled from the bench, agreed, dismissing Rowan's third-party claims with prejudice.
Personal Injury
Mr. Groome handled the defense of a personal injury case when a client's truck trailer clipped the back of a vehicle. Two plaintiffs received medical treatment for eight months, and one alleged continued physical impairment. An aggressive motion practice and attention to detail led not only to the client defendant paying no money to settle this matter, but in the Court sanctioning both plaintiffs and their attorney. Both plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their suit with prejudice in exchange for defendants not pursuing the money judgment against them. The plaintiff's attorney who had withdrawn and filed an intervention in the suit paid his share of the judgment to the client in order to bring the entire misadventure to an end.
Eric Rojas, et al. v Hwy-Tech, Inc. et al.
Personal Injury
Bert Cass obtained a defense verdict for his client, a general contractor, who was being sued for millions in a serious personal injury suit. The sheet metal worker plaintiff alleged that the contractor had improperly placed and installed a safety gate, which he was opening from atop a ladder, when he fell eighteen feet, crushing his left heel, ankle, and left elbow. Four other defendants settled a week before the trial, leaving Mr. Cass to face three plaintiff's attorneys, their experts, and the plaintiff's co-workers, who testified that opening the safety gate while standing on the ladder was dangerous and who were critical of the gate's placement. After a jury trial that lasted from May 5-14, 2008, the jury found in the defendant's favor. The case was tried in Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, which is a notoriously unfriendly forum for defendants.
Joseph Vitari v Lou Con et. al, New Orleans, Civil District Court
Personal Injury
Following a five and a half week jury trial, Mr. Kerrigan and Mr. Walsh obtained a defense verdict as to all claims brought by three employees of Gaylord Chemical/Container against a trucking company alleged to have delivered and moved four stainless steel trailers at Gaylord Chemical's Bogalusa plant. The last of the "Gaylord Chemical" cases, plaintiffs' alleged that their injuries and damages were caused by nitrogen tetroxide that leaked from the trailers in the days prior to the October 23, 1995, explosion. Because the cause of action accrued in 1995, plaintiffs were allowed to pursue punitive damages in addition to the forty million dollars ($40,000,000.00) they prayed for in closing argument. After deliberating for forty-five minutes, the jury found in favor of the trucking company and against the plaintiffs, dismissing their claims, with prejudice, and at their cost.
In re Chemical Release at Bogalusa, No. 73,341, Div. "C."
Wrongful Death
Mr. Murphy secured a favorable ranking of insurance coverage for an excess insurer that was one of several insurers sued in connection with a multi-vehicle collision caused by a tractor-trailer rig, that precipitated two wrongful death claims and numerous bodily injury claims.
Wanda Lafleur, et al v. AFTCO Enterprises, Inc., et al, 927 So.2d 1200 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 2006), writ granted and partially reversed, 940 So.2d 649 (La. 2006).
Bodily Injury
Mr. Murphy obtained the dismissal of bodily injury claims brought by the passenger of a public transit bus against the transit company on account of a fall the passenger sustained while the bus was in motion.
Doretha Covington v. Louisiana Transit Company, Inc., No. 591-547 (24th Judicial Dist. Ct. 2007).
Trucking - Wrongful Death
Ms. van Zutphen obtained a summary judgment for the defendant trucking company and the driver in this case where the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were liable for the wrongful death of the Plaintiff's decedent who ran into traffic stopped on I-10 due to construction work being performed on the road. The Court held that the Plaintiff's decedent's actions in hitting the carrier's tanker at 50 miles-per-hour without applying the brakes was the sole proximate cause of the accident, and denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration on December 11, 2006.
Chadwick v. DK&S Client, CI-2001-00,174(2), Circuit Court of Jackson County, MS.
Personal Injury
Ms. Marshall and Ms. Gilbert handled this case arising out of an accident involving a seven year old boy who was playing with a rope on a merry-go-round with an open platform. The rope wrapped around the base of the merry-go-round, tangled with his foot, and dragged him underneath the merry-go-round where his foot was badly broken, requiring two operations. Plaintiff contended that the merry-go-round, which was more than 25 years old and had an open design not consistent with standards set forth in the 1990s, had caused the injury to the child. A biomechanical expert testified that the cause of the injury was the rope wrapping around the child’s ankle, which could have occurred with or without an open platform on the merry-go-round. The trial court granted a defense verdict.
Daisey Taylor, et al vs. Corcoran Jennison Management Co., et al., CDC No. 02-10631, Div. “E”. August, 2006.
Slip and Fall
In this case handled by Mr. Roux, the plaintiff brought an action against Kenny’s Key West after he allegedly slipped and fell while at the bar. The Trial Court entered a judgment in favor of the defendants at the close of the trial. In affirming the Trial Court’s judgment, the Fifth Circuit clarified LSA-R.S. 9:2800.6 and found that a bar is a merchant under Louisiana’s slip and fall statute. It further held that the plaintiff did not prove that the bar had constructive notice of the spill when he only showed that his pants were damp after the fall. The plaintiff also failed to prove that the bar had actual notice of the condition because the bar had employees stationed throughout the bar to check for dangerous conditions. The bar presented positive proof that there were no reports of any puddles or spills on the evening of the alleged accident.
Ballas v. Kenny’s Key West, Inc., 02-684 (La. App. 5th Cir. 12/11/2002), 836 So.2d 289
Timely Request of Service
The plaintiff in this case filed a petition for damages after he allegedly slipped and fell on the stairs in a building owned, operated and managed by an individual and an estate. The plaintiff’s service instructions requested service on the estate but not the individual. When the individual was ultimately served years later, Mr. Roux filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that the plaintiff failed to timely request service under LSA-C.C.P. art. 1201. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion. The Fourth Circuit denied the defendants’ subsequent writ application. The Supreme Court, however, granted the defendants’ writ application and dismissed the plaintiff’s petition finding that he did not show good cause for the delay in requesting service. This was the first case the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed which interpreted the provisions of LSA-C.C.P. art. 1201.
Norbert v. Loucks, 2001-1229 (La. 6/29/2001), 791 So.2d 1283
