DWI and Personal Injury Blog

A DWI Bill was approved by the Louisiana House Committee on Transportation, Highways and Public Works yesterday.  The Bill would required a driver who was convicted of a third or subsiquent driving while intoxicated offense, but enrolled in a drug or DWI court, to lose his or her driving priviliges for at least 45 days.

Louisiana currently requires the suspension of a person's driver's license for three years for these types of convictions, but allows a driver to get an ignition interlock device and a restricted license after the first year.

The proposed House Bill, offered by State Representative Steven Pylant (R) of Winnsboro, says that the judge who is responsible for the DWI or drug court must order the loss of a license for 45 days but can order it re-ionstated and the interlock device used if the court determines the driver is not a bad risk.  Under the terms of the proposed bill, the judge may also revoke the restricted license if the driver violates the terms set forth by the judge.

The proposed legislation will now move to a the full House for a vote.  The law is labeled HB N0. 670 and the abstract reads as follows:

Proposed law provides that any licensee who is enrolled in a driving while intoxicated court or sobriety court certified by the La. Supreme Court Drug Court Office or the La. Highway Safety Commission as part of a drug division probation program and who is in good standing with the presiding judge may, not less than 45 days following suspension of his license, and upon order of the presiding judge to the department, be issued an ignition interlock restricted license sufficient to maintain livelihood or allow the licensee to maintain the necessities of life or attend chemical dependency treatment sessions or meetings. The presiding judge may revoke the restricted license, by order to the department, upon receiving satisfactory evidence of violation of any restrictions placed upon the licensee.

If you or anyone you know has been arrested for DWI, call the law firm of Harmon Smith & Vourvoulias today at 504-717-2093 for a free case evaluation.  Our experienced driving while intoxicated lawyers are available to provide you with the help you need to protect your rights.

A former Jones Act Seaman who was hurt when he fell from a gangway in New York Harbor seven years ago has settled his lawsuit against New York City, the vessel owner, for $1.2 million.
The  former deckhand, now 35, dropped 5 feet when the gangway gave away as the ferryboat Andrew J. Barberi was being moved from its berth. The seaman suffered back injuries in the fall, later required surgery and remains on Social Security disability.

"It's been a rough couple of years," the plaintiff said last week in a telephone interview. "We're just looking to move forward and get on with our lives."

According to documents filed with the court, the plaintiff was standing on a wooden gangway which extended from the dock onto the rail of the boat. The gangway, which is used only by crew and not by passengers, was in the process of being removed. Before it could be completely detached, the lines tethering the boat were prematurely released and the vessel surged away from the pier.  The gangway then slid off the rail and the Jones act seaman fell 5 feet onto the pier.

The Plaintiff suffered back injuries and later required spinal surgery.  These injuries have prevented him from returning to work. He sued the city, as owner of the vessel.

Under the Jones Act, a seaman can sue the boat owner if the vessel is deemed unseaworthy. Unseaworthiness usually relates to conditions that could have been corrected or avoided by the company such as those caused by improper design, construction, inspection and maintenance of the work place.As a result, a vessel might not be reasonably fit for her intended service. "Unseaworthiness" is normally a question of fact to be determined by the jury.

Maritime workers must either prove unseaworthiness or slight negligence on the part of the owner of the vessel in order to qualify for a settlement or judgment for their injuries over and above maintenance and cure. A maritime worker should not attempt to guess whether or not the burden can be met. It is always advisable to talk to a maritime lawyer whether the issue is complex or simple

If you or anyone you know has been injured as a result of a maritime accident, call Harmon Smith & Vourvoulias today at 504-717-2093 for a free case evaluation.  Our experienced Jones Act litigation attorneys are available to give you the help you need to protect your right to recover for your injuries.

Inspection sticker checkpoints.  All of us in the greater New Orleans area have seen them or had the unfortunate luck to be delayed by one.  Now, Louisiana state lawmakers are deciding whether the public should be notified of these polioce actions in advance.  Police are required to provide this type of notice prior to sobriety checkpoints, seatbelts and auto-insurance, why shouldn't they have to do the same for inspection stickers?

Legislation requiring police to give public warning before setting up checkpoints to stop drivers for violations of the motor vehicle inspection tag laws is nearing approval in the Louisiana Legislature. State lawmakers recently voted 63-26 for House Bill 173  that would require police agencies to alert the public before they set up these actions to search for inspection stickers.

The bill is now waiting on action in the Louisiana Senate Committee on Transportation, Highways and Public Works. The bill would expand the law that currently requires advance notice be given when checkpoints are established for proof of auto insurance, seat-belt compliance and driving while intoxicated.

The proposed law requires that police use local radio, newspapers and television to notify the public about these police actions. Police currently give the time when the checkpoints are established, about how long they will be up and the general area where they will be located.

Existing law also requires that the police lay out flares, signs and  warnings of the impending stop and that the police have an area set aside to detain motorists who are pulled over without backing up traffic.

If you or anyone you know has been received a traffic ticket, call the attorneys at Harmon Smith & Vourvoulias at 504-717-2093 for a free case evaluation.  Our experienced traffic court lawyers are available to assist you in protecting your rights.

Ordinary citizens who file personal injury lawsuits in Louisiana were provided protection this week when a Louisiana state legislative committee voted against lowering the $50,000 threshold in personal injury cases for requesting a jury trial. Louisiana has one of the nation's highest thresholds for requesting a jury. This means that lawsuits with a dollar amount less than $50,000 are currently decided only by a judge. The vote was a very rare defeat for the Louisiana buisness lobby.

State Representative Tony Ligi (R-Metairie) proposed lowering the cap to only $15,000 in civil tort cases, chiefly personal injury cases. The Civil Law and Procedure Committee, voted against the idea by a 7-5 margin.

The measure would have allowed either defendants or plaintiffs in a personal injury case to request a jury at their own expense. Joined by representatives of business and insurance, Rep. Ligi pitched the proposal as a way to reduce insurance rates even though he admitted that he had not bothered to discuss the bill with Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon or anyone in his office. He cited a U.S. Chamber of Commerce "study" that suggests Louisiana has one of the worst tort environments for business in the nation.

But several legislators disputed Ligi's claim that a change in tort law will lower insurance rates. Lawmakers also argued that corporations, rather than individual citezen-plaintiffs, would be the ones to want a jury in low dollar-value cases.

We agree with the opponents of the Ligi bill. The cost of a jury trial in low dollar-value cases would be a barrier for plaintiffs. Furthermore, any potential benefits (which there is no proof of to support) would be outweighed by the massive ineffeciency and delay in our civil courts as the result of an increase in jury trials--which generally take twice the length of time as a judge trial.

Finally, it is revealing that Rep. Ligi would limit the application of this bill to tort cases (usually involving at least one citizen-party) while carving out commercial litigation cases, which normally involve two opposing businesses or corporations.

If you or anyone you know has been injured due to the fault of another person or company, call Harmon Smith & Vourvoulias immediately at 504-717-2093 for a free case evaluation. Our staff of experienced personal injury attorneys are available to assist you in obtaining the recovery you are entitled to under the law.