Source: https://www.louisianapersonalinjurylawyerblog.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:58:17+00:00

Document:
Imagine going to get a massage and leaving with an injury that forever altered your life. After such an injury, it is difficult to put a dollar value on these injuries. The following lawsuit discusses the types of damages that can be sought by a Plaintiff who believes that they have been injured by a massage gone wrong.
In October 2007, Maureen Jones received a Swedish massage from Larry Ashton, Jr., a massage therapist employed by Paris Parker Salon in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Jones reports that the massage therapist was “rough and aggressive” during the massage, causing her pain and discomfort. By the next day, she experienced sharp and burning pain. She sought medical attention and discovered she had ruptured a disc.
In October 2008, Jones sued Neill Corporation, who was doing business as Paris Parker Salons, Ashton, and ABC Insurance Company. She alleged that Ashton negligently performed the massage and he breached the reasonable standard of care, causing serious, permanent, and disabling injuries. The trial court found in favor of Jones and founding that Ashton breached the applicable standard of care. The trial court awarded damages consisting of pain and suffering, mental anguish and distress, loss of enjoyment of life, permanent disability, past lost wages, and past medical expenses.
This is a continuation of a previous post on the “DE Property,” an enclosed estate in St. Martin Parish.
Where there is an enclosed estate, which is a property that cannot get to a public road, Louisiana law allows the owner of the estate to force an adjoining property owner to allow them to cross their property. La. C.C. art. 689. That passage usually has to be taken in the shortest manner across the other person’s property. La. C.C. art. 692. Once a trial court determines the choice of route that should be granted, any review by an appellate court is a manifest error standard. May v. Miller, 941 So.2d 661 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
A consent judgment is a functional contract between two parties that puts an end to a lawsuit. Plaquemines Par. Gov’t v. Getty Oil Co., 673 So.2d 1002 (La. 1996). Because it is a contract, a consent judgment has no effect on a third party unless otherwise provided by law. La. C.C. art. 1985. Louisiana public policy encourages settlements, including by consent judgments. Domingue v. Luke Fruge, Inc., 379 So.2d 490 (La. Ct. App. 1979). Louisiana law also recognizes that a consent judgment may not be attacked through an appeal of a collateral judgment, as an appeal is inappropriate for relief from a consent judgment. Lee v. Marksville Ford L/M, Inc., 741 So.2d 122 (La. Ct. App. 1999). A consent judgment can only be attacked collaterally for the reasons listed in La. C.C.P. art. 2002.
Entrusting a child to the care of a school bus requires a certain amount of faith that they will arrive at the correct destination, safely. For any parent or guardian this evokes a certain amount of anxiety. For a parent with a special needs child, this act of faith likely garners even greater angst. Unfortunately, one Lafourche Parish parent’s fears materialized when her special needs son was struck by a car at his bus stop one afternoon. Whether the Lafourche Parish School Board (“LPSB”) could be held responsible became an issue for a jury in this recent lawsuit.
Thibodaux High School student Diamonte Bolden was hit by a car after exiting his school bus one afternoon in December of 2012. Although only in ninth grade, Diamonte was seventeen years old at the time of the accident. He was in the special education program and contended with a variety of learning disabilities including language delays. Diamonte’s bus stop was at an intersection located about half a mile from his home. The availability of sidewalks or other safe walking space along the walking route from bus stop to house was in dispute. Diamonte’s mother filed a lawsuit against LPSB, the driver of the car, and various others. At issue in the lawsuit against LPSB specifically was whether LPSB could be held liable for failing to reasonably supervise a student in light of the bus stop location and whether the accident was foreseeable.
Louisiana law provides that a school board owes a duty of reasonable supervision over its students. See Wallmuth v. Rapides Parish School Bd., 813 So.2d 341, 346 (La. 2002). Liability for inadequate supervision requires a finding of negligence plus a connection between the negligence of the school board and the damages suffered by the student. The Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education has the authority to promulgate regulations relating to the operation of school buses pursuant to La. R.S.17:164.
Families. While often a source of love and comfort, families can at times be the source of much conflict. Sometimes the death of a parent turns siblings against one another rather than binding them together. Greed can cause people to fight over insignificant or even imaginary problems. Such was the case for a large Allen Parish sibling group when they engaged in a legal battle over cows following the death of their mother. A battle that the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal refused to engage in.
The Martin family of Allen Parish, composed of six siblings, owned a plot of land indivision with one another (basically, each person owns the property equally). Sister Sheila grazed cattle on the land. The cows might have belonged to the siblings’ mother before she passed however Sheila claimed the cows were solely her property. There was no proof of ownership either way. The family troubles began when sister Linda and her husband Carlos moved onto the property. Sisters Sheila and Amy alleged Linda and Carlos would purposefully leave gates open so the cattle could escape. In one unfortunate instance, a cow and the three baby calves she was pregnant died after allegedly escaping the pen due to Carlos’ activities. Sheila and Amy also claimed that Carlos stole several gates, purposefully left harmful food out for the cows, and blocked with his car portions of the property.
Sheila and Amy filed a lawsuit in the Judicial District Court for the Parish of Allen claiming damages for the lost cow and eventually sought to hold defendants in contempt of court for failure to move his car from the land. The District Court denied the claim for damages and contempt but ordered the return of the stolen gates. An appeal was filed to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal.

References: art. 689
 art. 692
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 1985
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 2002
 v.