Louisiana House Bill HB982

Louisiana 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/4/16
• Refer: 4/5/16

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the DOTD in the matter of "Charles Falcon, individually and on behalf of interdict Anya Marie Falcon v. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Glenn Patrick, Edward J. Gay Planting & Manufacturing Company, ABC Insurance Company and XYZ Insurance Company"

Impact

The enactment of HB982 has immediate fiscal implications, appropriating funds that will satisfy court-awarded judgments. This bill illustrates the state's commitment to honoring legal verdicts and settlements, reinforcing norms in public accountability when it comes to legal obligations. On a broader scale, such appropriations show the interplay between state budgeting and judicial decisions, as funds must be diverted from other potential state uses to address these legal commitments.

Summary

House Bill 982 focuses on appropriating funds from the General Fund of Louisiana for the fiscal year 2016-2017, intended to pay for a jury verdict that resulted from a legal case against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). This case, entitled 'Charles Falcon, individually and on behalf of interdict Anya Marie Falcon v. DOTD and others', involves significant financial implications, with a total appropriation of $901,732.53. The funds will support the awarded amounts to various parties, including future medical expenses for Anya Falcon, indicating the bill's direct impact on state-funded legal settlements and appropriations.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB982 appears largely administrative, focusing on fulfilling legal responsibilities rather than engaging in contentious policy debates. Stakeholders, including representatives from the DOTD and legal authorities, likely view the bill positively as it resolves a long-standing financial obligation stemming from a court decision. However, the implications of continually needing to fund large legal judgments could evoke concerns about future appropriations and budgetary impacts.

Contention

While the bill addresses a specific legal obligation, it raises questions regarding the management of state funds and the responsibilities of state entities that lead to such financial judgments. The necessity to appropriate such a significant sum indicates potential systemic issues with how the state handles legal cases related to its operations. Critical discussions may emerge about preventive measures and accountability systems within the DOTD and related entities to minimize future liabilities.