Louisiana House Bill HB533

Louisiana 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/3/16
• Refer: 3/3/16
• Refer: 3/14/16

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the DOTD in the matter of "Donald M. Ragusa, Individually and on behalf of his minor son, Trevor Ragusa, and Tina Cristina vs. State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development"

Impact

The passage of HB 533 would have a direct financial impact on the state budget, requiring the allocation of $350,000 to satisfy the court's judgment. This appropriation reflects the state's accountability in legal matters involving its agencies and fosters a system where aggrieved citizens can expect redress through the judicial process. By ensuring that payments are made promptly from the general fund, the bill seeks to uphold the integrity of the state's promise to honor legal judgments against it.

Summary

House Bill 533 authorizes the appropriation of a total of $350,000 from the state general fund of Louisiana for the fiscal year 2016-2017. This funding is specifically designated for the payment of a consent judgment in a legal case involving Donald M. Ragusa, his minor son Trevor Ragusa, and Tina Cristina against the State of Louisiana, through its Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). The case revolves around a legal disagreement that led to this court settlement, thereby necessitating this allocation of state funds to fulfill the judgment.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 533 is generally neutral and pragmatic, centering on the operational aspects of funding legally mandated payments rather than facing public contention. There are likely stakeholders who are concerned about the implications of such judgments on state finances, but there doesn’t appear to be significant public opposition or support since the bill's purpose is rooted in fulfilling a legal obligation rather than introducing new policy or reforms.

Contention

While HB 533 itself may not raise significant points of contention among lawmakers, it does underscore a broader discussion regarding state liability and financial management in the context of legal disputes. There could be concerns about the repeated need for such appropriations if the state frequently faces litigation or if payouts become a regular necessity, which could indicate systemic issues that need addressing. However, as it stands, the bill appears to be a straightforward legal remediation with minimal political controversy.