On May 3, 2023, Perrier & Lacoste trial attorneys, Trent P. Roddy and Guy D. Perrier, obtained a Defense Verdict on liability in New Orleans trucking accident trial. After years of delays, a stay, and motion practice, the trial was completed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. A unanimous jury found no fault on the Defendant truck driver.
The Plaintiffs alleged that they were injured in a November 29, 2017 side-swipe car accident on Interstate-10 in New Orleans. Plaintiffs claimed that they were passengers in a Nissan Murano. They alleged that the Defendant’s 18-wheeler entered their lane and side-swiped the Murano. They testified that the Defendant’s 18-wheeler “ate up” the side of their car and “dragged” them down the Interstate. Plaintiffs later sought medical treatment from several New Orleans health care providers for alleged cervical and lumbar spine injuries. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs asked for damages in excess of $1,000,000.
However, during the Defense’s case, the Defendants proved that the truck driver did not enter the Plaintiffs’ lane at all. The Defendant truck driver testified that he did not change lanes on I-10 and did not see, hear, or feel any impact. The Defendant truck driver told the jury how he was alarmed when another motorist drove on the side of his 18-wheeler at night on I-10 and attempted to waive him to the shoulder of the Interstate.
The Defendant truck driver’s testimony was supported by an accident reconstruction expert. The Defense accident reconstruction expert proved that the accident could not have happened in the way the Plaintiffs described. The Defense accident reconstruction expert proved that Defendant’s 18-wheeler did not change lanes, did not hit the Plaintiff vehicle, and did not drag the Plaintiffs’ vehicle down Interstate 10. The accident reconstruction expert explained to the jury that the damage to the Plaintiffs’ vehicle was caused by the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle steering into an 18-wheeler.
Defendants exposed the fact that several friends and relatives of the Plaintiffs were involved in claimed side-swipe accidents with 18-wheelers on I-10 in New Orleans, all within weeks of the Plaintiffs’ alleged accident. These other accidents all fit an established pattern of facts just like the facts of the Plaintiffs’ alleged accident. Plaintiffs attempted to deny that their associates were involved in these similar accidents and that they had spoken with these associates before their accident. However, using Plaintiffs’ cell phone records, Defendants brought to light the fact that the Plaintiffs were communicating with associates involved in similar side-swipe accidents around the time of their alleged accident. Defendants also used the cell phone records to show that the Plaintiffs were not even in the same vehicle when the accident occurred. Through Defendants aggressive pre-trial discovery, they were able to find evidence that the Plaintiffs conspired to intentionally stage their accident.
Defendants presented expert testimony from a neuroradiology expert, who testified that there was no evidence of any injuries in Plaintiffs’ MRIs. The Defense also investigated the Plaintiffs’ multiple prior injury claims. As a result of their investigation, the Defense team was able to expose the Plaintiffs’ false testimony about their medical histories on cross-examination.
Defendants could not have been able to present a winning case if they had not defeated Plaintiff’s several pre-trial motions to withhold critical evidence from the jury. The Plaintiffs filed several evidentiary motions intending to prevent Defendants from presenting any evidence that the Plaintiffs staged the accident. The Defense defeated Plaintiffs’ motion seeking to exclude any facts that Plaintiffs’ associates were in similar I-10 side-swipe accidents. The Defense defeated Plaintiffs’ attempt to exclude Defendants’ accident reconstruction expert from showing that Plaintiffs’ accident shared the same pattern of facts as their associates’ other I-10 side-swipe accidents. Defendants also prevailed when Plaintiffs moved to exclude Defendants’ medical expert from testifying that the Plaintiffs’ MRIs show no injuries from the accident.
After defeating motion after motion, the Defense was able to expose the Plaintiffs’ lies and present the facts to the jury. The jury vindicated the Defendants and returned a unanimous verdict that Defendant truck driver had no fault in Plaintiffs’ alleged accident.
This was a non-emergency medical transportation case, and the decedent had a complex medical history. The decedent allegedly fell from her wheelchair during transit to a medical appointment. She was treated at the ER and diagnosed with contusions, including a contusion to her hip, and discharged. Fourteen days later she was admitted to the hospital for sepsis, allegedly from a wound on her hip.
The plaintiff remained in the hospital for approximately 6 weeks when she unfortunately passed away. The hospital admission expenses totaled approximately $480,000.00.
Decedent’s mother brought a wrongful death suit against the transportation provider. In addition to the wrongful death claim, the plaintiff sought to recover the entire medical expenses from the six-week hospital admission for $481,000.00. The plaintiff’s theory was the contusion became an infected wound that resulted in sepsis and, ultimately, death.
Perrier & Lacoste filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the wrongful death and hospital admission charges based on lack of evidence of proximate cause. The plaintiff’s expert was unable to provide testimony on the proximate cause as to death and hospital admission. The plaintiff ultimately conceded the motion for partial summary judgment on those damages. Instead of a potential policy limits case with $491,000.00 in damages and significant potential excess exposure, the case became a minor contusion case with only approximately $10,000.00 in medical expenses.
The plaintiff claimed she suffered a hip injury and needed a hip replacement as a result of a fall in a fast-food restaurant. The plaintiff fell as she was walking towards the beverage machine to fill her drink. The plaintiff alleged the floor was wet and slippery from a spill. Perrier & Lacoste filed a motion for summary judgment on liability, arguing that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof under Mississippi law as to the existence of a dangerous condition or defendant’s actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. The motion was so compelling that the plaintiff ultimately conceded the motion instead of having a hearing on it.
The plaintiffs alleged they were struck by an 18-wheeler in a hit-and-run accident. The plaintiffs claimed they were able to obtain the DOT number and motor carrier name during the accident before the 18-wheeler fled. The plaintiffs’ lawsuit was filed 8 days before the statute of limitations expired. The plaintiffs failed to serve process timely, so they obtained two ex parte extensions of time. In order to obtain the ex parte extensions of time, the plaintiffs alleged issues with identifying the alleged driver, the motor carrier’s agent, as well as staffing and process server issues due to Covid. Ultimately, the defendant motor carrier was served over 500 days after the lawsuit was filed. Perrier & Lacoste filed a motion to set aside the ex parte extensions and dismiss the case for failing to timely serve process. The Court set aside its two prior orders extending time to serve process. The Court held that the plaintiffs did not have good cause for the extensions. Additionally, without the extensions of time to serve process, the claims were now time barred so the case was dismissed with prejudice.
The Perrier & Lacoste trial team of Ralph Aucoin, Jr. and Guy Perrier obtained a defense verdict in the 22nd Judicial District Court following a three-day jury trial.
The claim was brought by a driver who was rear-ended by a third vehicle after she stopped on Hwy 25 for the defendant’s tractor-trailer which was attempting to back into a parking lot at night in the dark.
As a result of the collision the plaintiff sustained severe neck and back injuries with treatment consisting of medications, physical therapy, multiple injections including 7 lumbar ESIs, 2 cervical ESIs, 2 cervical facet injections, and 3 cervical RFAs administered by Dr. Steve Lee. The plaintiff ultimately underwent a C4-5 ACDF performed by Dr. Shamieh and was continuing to treat at the time of trial. Past medical expenses totaled $351,029.60. At trial Plaintiff also alleged to have suffered a mild traumatic brain injury based on one post-accident visit to a neurologist and a negative CT of her brain. Plaintiff’s expert life care planner, John Mark Hanawalt, testified that the total cost of her future medical care which included medications, therapy, injections, and a recommended lumbar fusion surgery would cost $1,380,168.00. Prior to trial the plaintiff claimed that her general and special damages totaled $2.2M.
Defendants contested both liability and medical causation. During her sworn deposition testimony, the plaintiff confirmed that the road where the accident occurred was straight and unobstructed. She saw the defendant’s tractor-trailer backing into the parking lot and came to a stop for 30-50 seconds approximately 50 feet from it before she was rear-ended by the third vehicle.
During discovery, the defendants learned that the plaintiff had been a professional rodeo barrel racer. A dangerous occupation that took a physical toll on her body. She was involved in at least 5 earlier incidents in which she had been thrown from a horse, kicked in the head, fallen off a tractor, rolled over, and trampled. She was also involved in an earlier work-related fall from a delivery truck. She had been taking medications and undergoing chiropractic care for neck and back complaints for years leading up to the subject accident. She continued to work as a delivery driver after the accident and was raising and training horses to barrel race.
The plaintiff was also involved in two subsequent accidents. The first, just 3 months after the accident at issue, happened when her zero-turn lawn mower fell off its jack stands while she was performing repairs injuring her head and hand. The second occurred 9 months after the subject accident when she struck a cow that had escaped its enclosure.
Defense expert, Dr. Everett Robert testified that plaintiff did not sustain any anatomical injury to her spine as a result of the subject accident. If anything, she suffered from noting more than some sprain/strain to her neck and back for which the appropriate treatment would have been 2-3 months of conservative therapy and would not include injections or surgery. There was no need for any future medical care.
At the end of the trial the jury deliberated for 13 minutes before reaching a unanimous verdict that the defendants were not at fault for the subject accident.
Perrier & Lacoste attorneys Megan B. Jacqmin and Guy D. Perrier obtained a defense verdict in Gretna, Louisiana in favor of a commercial trucking company, its driver, and its insurance company on May 18, 2022. Following a three-day trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict after less than 30 minutes of deliberation in the matter of Bailey v. Paul, et al, No. 805017, Div. “C” 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana finding that the defendant driver was not negligent and was not liable for the accident which allegedly caused Plaintiff’s injuries. Liability verdicts for commercial trucking companies are rare in Louisiana, but the extensive pre-trial investigation and discovery conducted by the Perrier & Lacoste attorneys led to such a verdict.
The matter arose out of a two-vehicle accident that occurred in St. Bernard Parish; however, the lawsuit was filed in Jefferson Parish. Plaintiff was operating a vehicle in the left lane of a small road while on his way to lunch during a work break. The Defendant, Paul, was operating a tractor-trailer en route to a delivery when he approached the Plaintiff’s vehicle from behind. Plaintiff was at a complete stop some distance from a red traffic signal, so Paul came to a stop behind him. At some point, the front seat passenger in the Plaintiff’s vehicle exited the vehicle, crossed the opposite lane of traffic, and approached a vehicle on the shoulder to retrieve an item from the driver. While the passenger was away from the vehicle, Paul observed the traffic signal change to green, yet Plaintiff remained stopped in the left lane. Assuming the vehicle was broken down, Paul pulled into the right lane and began to pass Plaintiff’s vehicle. As Paul was nearly completely past Plaintiff’s vehicle, the passenger returned and opened the front passenger door into the rear wheels of the Defendant’s trailer. The Plaintiff and his passenger alleged that the passenger left the door ajar approximately one inch when he exited the vehicle and Paul passed too close to Plaintiff’s vehicle striking the slightly open door and causing injuries to Plaintiff who was still present inside the vehicle.
Plaintiff claimed injuries to his neck and back and presented approximately $100,000 in medical bills to the jury. Prior to trial, Plaintiff demanded $750,000 in damages from Defendants, however his presentation to the jury did not include a specific amount with regards to general damages.
Defendants’ extensive investigation and use of experts were key factors in leading the jury to their verdict. Depositions of the Plaintiff and his passenger revealed testimony that was inconsistent with the investigating officer’s report and were not supported by the damages to the vehicle. Expert accident reconstructionist and engineer, Jon van Poppel of ESi, presented his findings to the jury disputing Plaintiff’s version of events. Using engineering principles, he was able to definitively establish that Plaintiff’s door had to be open far wider than Plaintiff and his passenger claimed for the contact to occur. A cross-examination of Plaintiff revealed several inconsistencies in his prior version of accident details and called his credibility into question.
The Perrier & Lacoste attorneys presented their witnesses and expert witnesses over the course of two days. Only 27 minutes after the jury retired to deliberate, they returned a verdict in favor of Defendants and a judgment was entered dismissing Plaintiff’s claims. After deliberating for approximately one hour, the jury returned a unanimous verdict finding the Defendants completely free from fault.
The Perrier & Lacoste litigation team of Ralph Aucoin, Jr. and Guy Perrier obtained a unanimous defense verdict on liability following a jury trial in Orleans Parish Civil District Court.
The case involved a commercial truck driver operating an 18-wheeler attempting to make a wide right turn in an industrial area. Plaintiff argued that his vehicle was struck when the commercial driver made a right turn from the left-hand lane. Plaintiff’s testimony was supported by an independent witness who testified via Zoom and in uniform as he is a currently deployed member of the Louisiana National Guard. The defense team was able to point out enough inconsistencies between the Plaintiff’s version of events and the independent witness to discredit their testimony.
Plaintiff alleged injuries to his neck and back with treatment including a lumbar radiofrequency ablation, and five bilateral lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Past medical expenses totaled over $100,000.00. Recommended future medical treatment included 2-3 injections per year for 4-5 years followed by a recommended lumbar fusion surgery. Estimated future medical expenses averaged $425,000.00. Plaintiff sought in excess of $2.1M in total damages.
After deliberating for approximately one hour, the jury returned a unanimous verdict finding the Defendants completely free from fault.
On December 15, 2022 the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s post-trial motions challenging the jury’s verdict.
The Perrier & Lacoste trial team led by Curt Rome obtained a defense verdict in Houma, Louisiana in favor of a commercial trucking company, its driver, and its insurance company on March 21, 2019. Following a four-day jury trial, a defense verdict was returned in the matter of Davis v. Tucker, et al, No. 179921, Div. “A” 32nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Terrebonne, State of Louisiana, finding that the alleged negligence of the defendant-driver was not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. Such verdicts in Louisiana are rare for commercial vehicles and came as a result of significant pre-trial investigation and posturing.
The case arose out of a series of events that began with the back, driver’s-side tire of a box truck driven by the defendant-driver allegedly rubbing the front, driver’s-side bumper of the vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger. The alleged tire rub occurred while the defendant-driver was allowed to cross through traffic by Plaintiff’s driver in order to make a left turn. After the alleged tire rub, the defendant-driver traveled approximately three quarters of a mile while Plaintiff and his driver pursued. At a stop light, Plaintiff exited his vehicle and climbed atop Defendants’ vehicle and began banging on the door. The parties’ accounts differ as to whether Plaintiff then slipped off or jumped off of Defendants’ vehicle after banging on the window. Upon landing on the ground in a split-like fashion, Plaintiff claimed injury to his groin and low back. Over time the low back pain allegedly increased, radiated down his leg, and caused lower leg weakness. Several months later, the lower leg weakness allegedly caused a fall, injuring Plaintiff’s right shoulder. Plaintiff claimed that both the low back and shoulder injuries required surgery.
Plaintiff presented approximately $175,000 in past and future medical expenses to the jury. He also claimed $325,000 in past, present, and future pain and suffering, seeking a total award of $500,000.
Discovery efforts by the P&L trial team helped set the stage for a successful defense. Plaintiff’s past medical history was significant and time was spent educating the jury about Plaintiff’s long-standing back and shoulder issues. Through social media discovery, surveillance, and representations made by Plaintiff to the social security disability administration, the P&L trial team was able to establish that Plaintiff had not suffered any change in his physical ability or lifestyle. Further, a vigorous cross-examination of Plaintiff revealed several inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s story related to the accident, his post-accident vacations and activities, his pre-existing back pain, and prior shoulder conditions.
With respect to liability, the P&L trial team was able to persuade the jury that the defendant-driver was not the cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, but that Plaintiff’s decision to approach and climb on Defendants’ vehicle in traffic was the cause. Further, they were able to elicit testimony from several witnesses, including Plaintiff and his driver-girlfriend, that Plaintiff and his driver had cell phones they could have used to notify the police or take pictures of the vehicle instead of climbing onto the vehicle, which was the reason Plaintiff fell and injured himself. After twenty minutes of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants.
Perrier and Lacoste attorneys Guy Perrier and Ralph Aucoin, Jr. obtained a dismissal with prejudice and at plaintiffs’ costs for a trucking client in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The lawsuit originated in state court and involved alleged accident that occurred on the interstate between defendant’s 18-wheeler and plaintiffs’ car with 4 occupants. Defendants removed this matter to federal court upon receipt of a post-suit demand for just one of the plaintiffs seeking a nearly seven figure settlement amount.
Once the case was removed to federal court Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) arguing that Plaintiffs’ cause of action had prescribed. The subject accident occurred on January 14, 2017. Plaintiffs’ counsel faxed a Petition for Damages to the state court on January 15, 2018, but the original Petition for Damages was not received and filed by the state court until January 29, 2018, more than seven days after the fax filing in violation of La. R.S. 13:850(B). That statute provides that any document in a civil action may be filed with the clerk of court by facsimile transmission and the “facsimile filing shall have the same force and effect as filing the original document, if the filing party complies with Subsection B of this Section.” La. R.S. 13:850(A) (emphasis added). Subsection B requires the filing party to deliver the original document, including attachments, exhibits and orders, to the clerk of court within seven days, exclusive of legal holidays, after the clerk of court receives the facsimile filing. Subsection C states that “[i]f the filing party fails to comply with any of the requirements of Subsection B of this Section, the facsimile filing shall have no force or effect.” Id.
The court agreed with Defendants assertion that because Plaintiffs failed to comply with Subsection B, Plaintiffs’ cause of action against Defendants was prescribed on its face. The motion was granted and the entire lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.
After a week-long trial in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, a jury returned a verdict totaling just $4,000 after reduction for third-party fault in a suit arising out of a single vehicle accident that occurred on September 9, 2014 in the employee parking lot of a chemical plant. The plaintiff alleged injuries to her head, neck, and wrists. She underwent an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as well as a right carpal tunnel release. Incurred medical expenses were in excess of $150,000. Plaintiff sought damages for bodily injury, mental anguish, lost wages and earning capacity, and medical expenses past and future. The case was tried by the Perrier & Lacoste litigation team of Guy Perrier and Ralph Aucoin, Jr.
The plaintiff was a passenger on a bus being operated by the defendant. Plaintiff alleged that the bus driver misjudged his turn and ran into a metal gate at the entrance to the plant. She initially claimed that the fence came through the window, striking her in the face, and causing her injuries. Months later she told her treating physicians that she braced using her hands and wrists. However, at trial when confronted with contradictory photographs and testimony, the plaintiff testified that she did not know how the accident occurred, that she was still trying to figure it our herself, and that she may have told “50 different versions of what happened.” She was forced to admit that there was no broken glass or damage to the interior of the bus and that she was holding her phone, not bracing when the incident occurred.
Plaintiff’s alleged eye-witnesses did not help her cause. The first testified that her eyes were closed and that she did not see anything. The next witness could not recall where she was seated on the bus or where the plaintiff was in relation to her.
The defendants established that as the bus driver was making his turn into the gate of the parking lot, another driver in his personal vehicle attempting to exit the lot cut in front of the bus causing the driver to tighten his turn and brush up against the chain link gate. Both the bus driver and a passenger on the bus called by the defense testified concerning the phantom vehicle. The jurors assigned 60% fault to the unknown driver of the other vehicle and 40% fault to the defendant driver. Strategically, based on the favorable testimony already elicited, defendant did not question its driver in plaintiff’s case in chief and chose not to call him in the defense case in chief.
Plaintiff’s credibility remained at issue throughout the trial. Her treating neurosurgeon confirmed that her MRI films and his lack of objective findings did not match up with plaintiff’s subjective complaints. He was only able to relate her injuries to the accident by history alone and confirmed that when doing so the plaintiff’s history being complete and accurate is of critical importance. Defendants were able to establish that the plaintiff did not inform her treating neurosurgeon about a prior incident involving her wrists or a subsequent slip-and-fall with new complaints of injury to her head and neck.
The defense argument that plaintiff sustained nothing more than a soft tissue contusion to her cheek was bolstered by the testimony of an expert in the fields of accident reconstruction and injury biomechanics. The defense expert testified that the mechanism of injury for a wrist or neck injury were not present in this accident as the forces sustained were less than every day activities and were not oriented in the right direction. The damage to the exterior of the bus was pulled out and away, not pushed in towards the plaintiff.
The defenses’ argument was supported by testimony from plaintiff’s family members who confirmed that post-accident she got married, moved houses, attended parades, and regularly dances at second lines.
The jury also did not believe the plaintiff’s expert in the field of vocational rehabilitation and life care planning. Plaintiff’s initial expert reports concerning future medical needs and costs totaled over $2,000,000. By the time of trial the expert had corrected the report five times and the estimate had been reduced to $300,000. Despite the multiple prior reductions the expert testified that the current amount was not subject to change and represented the minimal amount necessary for plaintiff’s future medical care. This was in spite of the fact that the plaintiff herself testified that she had completed treatment approximately a year and a half before trial and had no plans or recommendations to seek further treatment.
Plaintiff’s claims for past and future lost wages and loss of earning capacity were also adversely impacted by her own testimony. The plaintiff worked as a fire-watch at the plant. Her medical and employment records indicate that following the accident she was cleared to return to work, but was placed on a height restriction due to her uncontrolled diabetes, an unrelated and pre-existing condition. Plaintiff also testified that her work schedule varied and that the amount of money she earned was directly related to the number and lengths of jobs available. Her records show that she was let go about a month after the accident due to a reduction in the workforce.
Plaintiff asked the jury for $1.13M in total damages. The jury determined that plaintiff sustained nothing more than a soft-tissue type injury of short duration resulting in a total award of $4,000 after reduction for third-party fault. Plaintiff’s post-trial motions for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, New Trial, and Additur were denied.