Louisiana House Bill HB1146

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/3/12
• Refer: 4/4/12

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgments in favor of Bridget Bourgeois and Manya Louis in the matter of "Bridget Bourgeois, et al v. State of Louisiana DOTD, et al" consolidated with "Tim Green v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, et al" consolidated with "Johnathan Louis and Manya Louis v. State of Louisiana DOTD"

Impact

The passage of HB 1146 will have a direct impact on the state's financial resources as it mandates the allocation of specific funds to satisfy legal judgments. By prioritizing payment for judgments, the bill illustrates the state's commitment to upholding judicial decisions and ensuring that individuals who win legal battles against state agencies receive their rightful compensation. This appropriates funds specifically designated for legal obligations, essentially reinforcing the principle that state entities are accountable for their actions, as determined by the courts.

Summary

House Bill 1146, authored by Representative Girod Jackson, is designed to appropriate funds from the state's General Fund to address and fulfill court-ordered judgments in the case involving plaintiffs Bridget Bourgeois and Manya Louis against the State of Louisiana and various insurance companies. The total sum appropriated under this bill is $270,000, which is intended for the payment of consent judgments related to incidents arising from the actions of the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). The bill emphasizes the obligation of the state to honor the financial liabilities resulting from court decisions, reflecting a responsibility towards those affected by state-related matters.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HB 1146 is likely to be supportive among legislators concerned with legal accountability and fiscal responsibility. There may, however, be underlying concerns regarding the allocation of state funds, especially if it affects funding for other state programs or services. Most discussions would likely focus on the necessity of fulfilling legal judgments, with experts highlighting the importance of maintaining trust between citizens and the state government in the face of legal challenges.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB 1146 may arise regarding the source of the appropriated funds and the implications of prioritizing such payments over other budgetary needs. Critics may question if this precedent sets an expectation for other entities to seek similar appropriations for judgments, potentially leading to continuous financial strain on the state's budget. Additionally, discussions may include the broader context of legal liabilities faced by the state and how they inform future legislative decisions related to resource allocation and risk management concerning state operations.