Patricia Bergeron, George Bergeron, Jr., and Wendy, individually and on behalf of her minor child, Alexis Bergeron, and Jennifer Tuttle Hopkins, individually and on behalf of her minor child, Abbigail Tuttle, and William Tulak and Heather Tulak, individua VS Lanier James Soudelier, Power Torque Services, LLC, American States Insurance Company, America First Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT PATRICIA BERGERON, BERGERON, JR. , AND BERGERON, INDIVIDUALLY BEHALF OF HER ALEXIS BERGERON, BEHALF ON CHILD, OF TULAK ANG OF THEIR AND HEATHER BEHALF IAN MINOR TUTTLE, INDIVIDUALLY M ON JENNIFER HER TULAK, CHILDREN, AND CHILD, AND ABBIGAIL HIILLIAM 1996 INDIVIDOALLY HOPKINS, AND CW WENDY MINOR TUTTLE 2013 N0. GEORGE AND ON MINOR CKENZIE TULAK AND TULAK VERSUS LANIER JAMES TORQUE SERVICES, SOUDELIER, STATES COMPANY, AMERICA INSORANCE INSURANCE FIRST COMPANY, MUTUAL Z 8 2014 LLC, AMERICAN LIBERTY AP POWER AND INSORANCE CCMPANY In Jr. , Bergeron, George Wer.dy Patricia Bergerori, Bergeron, Re: individually and on behalf of her minor child, Bergeron, Alexis Tuttle Jennifer and behalf her and individually and William Tula;c and Heather Tulak, and on of minor individually Tuttle, and behalf on Pulak, Ian and their of Court, District Judicial for applyinq Mackenzie children, minor Tulak writs, 32nd supervisory Parish Hopkins, Abbigail child, Terrebonne, of No. 167, 907 . KUHN, BEFORE: WRIT trial GRANTED court value this of is 1st to we court' s hit tc the to related that violation the issue is of PART. We arrest for possession La. Code moving So. 2d in court' s part, in evidence exemplary ruling order inadmissible of the risk Accordingly, to the as not damages . We with of the issue of 2010 find of unfair this reverse being of probative ( La. relators' on tne Evid. 93- 2381 Martin, v. trial tre and the by Ange= on 40 . agree related to violation, outweighed See to exception sufficiently the writ JJ. IN 2010 an a is 649 94) , regard grant run to defendant . ruling holding and the as not evidence 12/ 22/ Cir. is THERIOT, DENIED of relating the denied with However, evidence it AND AND PART admissible nut damages prejudice IN because 404 ( B; exemplary App. that is marijuana Art. HIGGINSOTHAM, writ issue. the arrest trial for a sufficiently that evidence of a hit and run violation is relevant to the issue of exemplary damages and *_ hat its probative value is not outweighed by a risic oi ur.fair prejudice evidence cf in properly of Evid. the to arrest for authenticated, Arts . 8C1 ( C) defendant . the and the ncn- 802 . 20" 0 hit hearsay With we However, and run form, reqard to pu no*_ e that violation suar. t the tc t_affic the must La. be Code tickets, CONTINOED) STATE OF LO JI iANA L, FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPE 2013 N0. Cw 1996 Page the is granted in cnly with regard which the wrii: reversed viclations for dismissal produce La. of the properly Code of plaintiffs' Evid. writ, the regarding part ar.d charge 801 ( C) inscfar is as and it JEK TAgi iJRT F P.PPEAL, pU7' Y FOR CLERK THE FIRST OF CIRCGI' L COORT CJURT t ia1 show for court' s for that which 2arsay 802 . addresses denied. MRT C can and r. cn-:^ authenticated, tickets, tickets pla:intiffs ticketed Arts . the all to In there the the other trial is vehicular has been plaintiffs evidence, all ruling moving 2 pursuant respects, court' s no can to the ruling
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
