- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/12/25 at 2:52 pm to NIH
quote:
Then you reptile the jury to believe a non-culpable corporate entity is a bloodthirsty profit machine.
That's interesting, because I thought the whole theory being removing directly naming insurers was to avoid this. What kind of case? Like slip and falls? I'm just trying to think of a non-auto case with corporate liability.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 2:52 pm to NIH
You practiced in La. for awhile if I remember right. Any appreciable difference you saw in comparative versus modified comparative regarding quality of claims being weeded out?
I could see our new setup weeding out some premises cases depending on the facts.
I could see our new setup weeding out some premises cases depending on the facts.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 2:52 pm to Train is comin
quote:
The biggest crime here is Marsiglia is in any trouble at all. Doesn't make sense.
They're saying you cannot defend yourself? The other guy threw the punch and Marsiglia just shoved him.
Yeah that makes no sense, at all.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 2:57 pm to boosiebadazz
Depends on the venue. Firms will think twice about shaky premises facts in rural counties or redder suburban counties. In the cities Plaintiff’s firms just need an injury and a company with insurance.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 2:57 pm to NIH
quote:
In the cities Plaintiff’s firms just need an injury and a company with insurance.
Got it
Posted on 8/12/25 at 2:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
I meant in the premises / workplace contexts. You sometimes see it in trucking cases where the 18 wheeler really didn’t do anything wrong but there was an injury.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:00 pm to NIH
Does TX have anything like the premises liability statute here?
When I worked for a firm doing PI, we'd always get TX firms calling us freaking out 11.5 months in because they realized slip and falls were hard here and we only have a 1 year SOL. The casinos + TX patrons made that a recurring thing. I always assumed they were easier in TX.
When I worked for a firm doing PI, we'd always get TX firms calling us freaking out 11.5 months in because they realized slip and falls were hard here and we only have a 1 year SOL. The casinos + TX patrons made that a recurring thing. I always assumed they were easier in TX.
This post was edited on 8/12/25 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
We’re local for a guy in Houston and he came to mediation here not long ago against one of the casinos arguing res ipsa in a premises case 
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:15 pm to AUFANATL
quote:The article does not indicate that she is the children's mother, just the decedent's girlfriend. Maybe it's supposed to be assumed.
Nothing unusual about this. He is dead so any legal claims belong to his estate. He had children so they are automatically his estate under the law. The mother would file a claim on their behalf as they are minors and any money awarded would go into a trust managed by someone appointed by the court.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:23 pm to udtiger
quote:
Writs to the First Circuit.
I'd love to know the rationale for the 2 downvotes. Fred's absolutely should seek supervisory review of this ruling.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the LASC agrees that moving 2 people fighting inside the bar, to outside the bar, is negligent, then I wonder if any insurer will offer policies to bars moving forward and/or how expensive those policies will become.
when I was a Fred's/Murphy's doorman 127 years ago we were told to get the fighting people out the door as quickly as possible.
Not to try to manage the two idiots fighting, but to protect the patrons inside not involved in the fight.
Girls have a tendency of getting injured when two guys fighting crash into them and their families tend to sue the bar.
when the guys fighting were outside they were on their own and bystanders had space and could get away from them
extending the responsibility for the doormen to interact with guys fighting outside of the establishment is incredibly foolish
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:28 pm to jbgleason
The denial of a MSJ doesn’t mean a jury won’t zero the plaintiff. Chip just likes to put insurance company money back into the community, so keeps the claim alive. Writ to the First Circuit might
work here, depending on the panel.
work here, depending on the panel.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:33 pm to Mung
quote:
The denial of a MSJ doesn’t mean a jury won’t zero the plaintiff. Chip just likes to put insurance company money back into the community, so keeps the claim alive. Writ to the First Circuit might
work here, depending on the panel.
Sounds like this was a ruling on an exception of no cause of action.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:37 pm to jbgleason
So many thoughts on this
They aren't babysitters. I cannot think of one bar that would hand hold two guys fighting in a bar after they are thrown out.
A 26 year old dude, much less one who can't handle his liquor, should not be at a college bar in Baton Rouge.
This might be fair - not sure how you prove it either way, but at some point they should, in theory, be cut off.
Case should start and end here - If you enter the FA stage, and then you FO, you have no case. He attacked someone, then got got.
quote:
“These patrons were removed from Fred’s Bar and Grill already knowing that they were aggressive with one another,” he said. “And to throw them out together without any oversight, without any supervision, I believe that is a cause of action.”
They aren't babysitters. I cannot think of one bar that would hand hold two guys fighting in a bar after they are thrown out.
quote:
Repath, a 26-year-old Westwego man, was in town for a friend’s bachelor party.
A 26 year old dude, much less one who can't handle his liquor, should not be at a college bar in Baton Rouge.
quote:
The plaintiffs contend the defendants are liable for Repath’s death, alleging Fred’s violated state liquor laws that prohibit licensed establishments from selling or serving alcohol to intoxicated persons. According to the complaint, cameras showed staff serving the brawlers the entire time they were inside the bar, even after they became boisterous and belligerent.
This might be fair - not sure how you prove it either way, but at some point they should, in theory, be cut off.
quote:
Repath took a swing at Matthew Marsiglia, a 21-year-old LSU student involved in the fracas. Marsiglia ducked the punch and shoved Repath, whose head hit the pavement when he fell to the ground.
Case should start and end here - If you enter the FA stage, and then you FO, you have no case. He attacked someone, then got got.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:40 pm to udtiger
quote:
exception of no cause of action.
que?
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:42 pm to supatigah
quote:
extending the responsibility for the doormen to interact with guys fighting outside of the establishment is incredibly foolish
Yes.
That's why this theory is pretty weak/silly.
*ETA: it's also going to lead to more bouncers having to defend themselves from those guys outside. Nothing screams internal control like an a-hole fighting in a bar.
This post was edited on 8/12/25 at 3:43 pm
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:42 pm to Lakeboy7
quote:
quote:
exception of no cause of action.
que?
State court equivalent of a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Presumes the allegations of the petition/complaint are true and then determes whether the law affords a remedy based on those presumed facts.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
Nursing homes
Charter school
Car washes
Walmarks
Charter school
Car washes
Walmarks
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:44 pm to udtiger
quote:
Fred's absolutely should seek supervisory review of this ruling.
Often it's better to wait on the MSJ
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News