Louisiana House Bill HB105

Louisiana 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/25/11
• Refer: 4/25/11

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against DOTD in the matter of "Susan Guidry and Nancy Deselle, et al v. Mrs. Frank Bedell, et al" consolidated with "Leila Marie Tassin, et al v. Frank Bedell, et al"

Impact

The passage of HB 105 would provide the necessary funding to satisfy the court judgment, effectively resolving financial obligations of the state related to this specific legal case. As it appropriates funds for a court-ordered payment, this bill demonstrates the state's responsibility in addressing legal judgments against its agencies or representatives. The provision of these funds is critical in upholding the legal system's integrity and ensuring that decisions made by the courts are respected and executed.

Summary

House Bill 105 is an appropriation bill introduced in the Louisiana legislature that allocates funds from the state general fund to pay a legal judgment. The total amount appropriated is $1,427,613.60, which is designated to resolve a case involving multiple plaintiffs against various parties, including Custom Bus Charters and their insurers. The case stems from incidents that resulted in damages awarded to the plaintiffs, which include compensation for physical pain and suffering, funeral expenses, and associated legal costs.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 105 appears largely procedural, focusing on meeting a legal obligation through state funding. While there may not be significant public discourse surrounding the bill due to its specific nature, it reflects the complexities involved in funding legal settlements at the state level. The effective management of funds for such judgments is crucial to public trust in government accountability and financial prudence.

Contention

Notably, there may be points of contention related to the sources of state funds allocated for such appropriations, especially in light of budgetary constraints faced by the state. Critics may argue about the prioritization of such expenditures over other pressing needs in the community. Additionally, the larger implications of state liability in legal disputes could prompt broader discussions about tort reform and legal accountability.