Louisiana House Bill HB1047

Louisiana 2014 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/24/14
• Refer: 3/25/14

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgments in the matter of "Alex Feverjean, Janice and Steven Hanks, Alicia Breaux Morgan, Amie Broussard, Richard and Bessie Benoit, and Marli Sonnier v. BNSF Railway Company, the State of Louisiana through DOTD and the Parish of Acadia"

Impact

The passage of HB 1047 will have the effect of enforcing the payment of these legal settlements against the state treasury, thereby formally recognizing and satisfying the judgments that have been rendered by the court. As a result, this bill reflects the state's commitment to uphold its legal responsibilities, and may set a precedent for how similar cases involving state appropriations and consent judgments are handled in the future.

Summary

House Bill 1047 is an appropriations act that allocates funds from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2014-2015. The bill specifically sets aside $18,000 for Janice Hanks, $6,000 for Alicia Breaux Morgan, and $12,000 for Bessie Benoit to satisfy consent judgments arising from a lawsuit entitled 'Alex Feverjean, Janice and Steven Hanks, Alicia Breaux Morgan, Amie Broussard, Richard and Bessie Benoit, and Marli Sonnier v. BNSF Railway Company, the State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development and the Parish of Acadia'. The funds are intended to cover legal obligations resulting from this case.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1047 appears to be pragmatic, focusing on the necessity of ensuring that state obligations are met. While the bill is unlikely to generate widespread controversy, it may face scrutiny from those concerned about the allocation of state funds for indemnifying private parties. Proponents likely view it as a necessary step to maintain legal integrity, whereas critics may question the prioritization of funding judgments over other state needs.

Contention

One notable point of contention may arise from the implications of state funds being directed towards settlements from legal disputes. Some may argue that appropriating funds in this manner could divert resources from other pressing state needs, such as education or infrastructure. Additionally, the specifics of the lawsuit may raise questions about the state's liability and the circumstances surrounding the judgments, which could lead to discussions about reforming how state funding is allocated to settle legal claims.