Joseph J. Valencino, III

In a Jackson County, Mississippi case, the decedent’s heirs sued a paving contractor for wrongful death. The decedent died when his vehicle departed a newly paved, two lane, rural roadway at night. His family argued that the defendant contractor was negligent in failing, among other issues, to apply striping to the roadway. Deposition testimony was developed to establish that the decedent had lived in the accident area for over 40 years and was very familiar with the roadway. A lone eyewitness testified that he passed the decedent prior to the accident and saw him depart the roadway in his rear-view mirror. He testified that it was dark, however, and he could not state why the decedent left the roadway. At trial, a zero verdict was obtained for the defendant contractor. Cross-examination of plaintiff’s accident reconstructionist revealed numerous flaws in his analysis. Also, cross-examination of plaintiff’s economist revealed that he overcalculated the decedent’s beneficiaries’ loss of household income. The jury apparently adopted the defendant contractor’s trial theme that the decedent departed the roadway, but Plaintiffs could not prove why.

In an Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana wrongful timber cutting case, a timber harvesting contractor executed a contract with a landowner to cut, harvest and remove timber from its land. The contractor was never provided with a timber tract survey, although he asked the landowner for it many times. Logging operations commenced and, a few months later, the contractor was approached by an adjacent landowner’s representative who alleged that the contractor had encroached on its adjacent tract, which was not the subject of the timber contract, and removed trees therefrom. Deposition testimony of the defendant contractor, Plaintiff’s expert and Plaintiff’s representative established that the boundary line of the harvest tract at issue had never been established but that rudimentary flagging had been placed many years before. Relying on this testimony, Defendant’s expert concluded that there was no identifiable boundary between the harvest and alleged trespass tracts. He also concluded that there was no change in timber type between them which could have alerted the defendant contractor that he was moving from the timber tract to the alleged trespass tract. After a weeklong jury trial, the jury awarded $0 for loss of aesthetic value, $0 for costs of land clearing and $24,000 for loss of timber (one half of what Plaintiff’s expert testified was owed).

In an Oktibbeha County, Mississippi wrongful death case, the heirs of decedent sued a logging company. The defendant was in the process of moving logging equipment to a logging site using the right lane of U. S. Highway 82 (a four-lane highway). The decedent drove into the rear of the logging equipment and died upon impact. Deposition testimony of two eyewitnesses established that the decedent did not brake or take other evasive maneuvers to avoid the logging equipment.  The defendants’ expert established that the decedent failed to take evasive action and that the logging company did not need a permit to drive the heavy equipment on the highway because it was exempt farm equipment. These strong defense positions, supported by expert opinion and testimony, resulted in the matter settling at mediation.

In a St. Tammany Parish fire loss case, a building owner sued an adjacent restaurant owner alleging that it negligently caused a fire which destroyed his building. Work was being performed on a nearby advertising sign on a pole several feet above the ground and near the plaintiff’s building. Deposition testimony established that five independent eyewitnesses saw sparks coming from the welding operations the day before the fire started at defendant’s restaurant, which spread to and consumed plaintiff’s building. Additional deposition testimony established that none of defendant’s employees observed anything out of the ordinary in the restaurant the night before the fire. This testimony was relied on by the defendant’s cause and origin expert to conclude that the fire that started in restaurant, and which spread to the plaintiff’s building destroying it, was caused by the sparks from the welding activity and not from any defect in the restaurant, electrical or otherwise. These strong defense positions resulted in the matter settling at mediation for a reasonable sum.