Portrait of David K. Groome, Jr.

David K. Groome, Jr.

Partner

Portrait of David K. Groome, Jr.
  • Overview
  • Events
  • News

David K. Groome, Jr. represents insurance companies and their insureds professional liability, product liability, property loss and personal injury litigation.  As part of Deutsch Kerrigan’s rescue counsel team, David takes over as trial counsel on an emergency basis when other firms are not prepared to take their clients’ cases to trial. In both emergency and non-emergency matters, David serves as defense counsel for matters involving:

  • Products liability (petrochemical plants, latex gloves, scaffolds, marine hoists, elevators, heavy machinery, municipal water purification systems, and airplane composites and design)
  • Transportation claims (commercial vehicles, rail cars, heavy transport, and barges)
  • Extra-contractual liability (excess claims, errors and omissions, and professional liability)
  • Professional liability (errors and omissions and medical malpractice)
  • Chemical exposure (benzene, asbestos, silica, phosgene and lead)

When faced with pending litigation, David’s clients look to his industry specific knowledge to help them efficiently achieve favorable results. For more intransigent matters, he focuses on quickly understanding the industry-specific issues involved and providing his clients with cost-effective defense representation on determinative issues. For several clients, David serves as lead attorney statewide in both Louisiana and Mississippi.

David has a thriving litigation practice, having handled more than 100 jury trials since beginning his career in the District Attorney’s Office for Orleans Parish, where he tried cases as part of the federally funded Violent Offenses Task force.

Born in Louisiana and raised in Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, David speaks Portuguese and Spanish. He enjoys traveling and often enjoys matching the pace set by his wife, Sanda, who teaches at Tulane University and in Innsbruck, Austria for six weeks during the summer, often with their three children.

    • Louisiana State University (J.D.)
    • Tulane University (B.A.)
    • Louisiana State University (J.D.)
    • Tulane University (B.A.)
    • Louisiana
    • Mississippi
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    • Louisiana
    • Mississippi
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
  • American Bar Association

    Louisiana State Bar Association

    Mississippi Bar Association

    Claims & Litigation Management Alliance

    American Bar Association

    Louisiana State Bar Association

    Mississippi Bar Association

    Claims & Litigation Management Alliance

    • The Best Lawyers in America©, 2021-present

    • AV Preeminent Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™

    • The Best Lawyers in America©, 2021-present

    • AV Preeminent Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™

  • Alliance for Good Government, Treasurer

    Alliance for Good Government, Treasurer

    • David obtained dismissal for his excess carrier client at no cost to the client midway through trial with multiple co-defendants continuing to defend their respective layers of excess. The plaintiff claimed damages in excess of $50 million.
    • David obtained dismissal for subcontractor after filing a motion for summary judgment in a matter involving gas asphyxiation at an industrial site.
    • David obtained an involuntary dismissal in a dram shop case involving more than $200,000 in medical bills.
    • David obtained an involuntary dismissal based on pre-suit investigation of the professional liability claim prior to lengthy discovery which was later conducted by co-defendants .
    • A jury found zero damages after a five-day trial with testimony from the plaintiff’s four psychiatric experts and introduction of extensive medical records.
    • David obtained an involuntary dismissal in a case involving an industrial timber plant accident.
    • Following an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment filed by a co-defendant, David filed his own motion for summary judgment which was granted in a products liability case involving an alleged roofing defect which was claimed to have led to multiple surgeries for the lead plaintiff.
    • David’s aggressive motion practice in a commercial vehicle matter resulted in dismissal of both plaintiff’s cases, at their cost, with one third of the cost being borne personally by their attorney.
    • David obtained dismissal for his excess carrier client at no cost to the client midway through trial with multiple co-defendants continuing to defend their respective layers of excess. The plaintiff claimed damages in excess of $50 million.
    • David obtained dismissal for subcontractor after filing a motion for summary judgment in a matter involving gas asphyxiation at an industrial site.
    • David obtained an involuntary dismissal in a dram shop case involving more than $200,000 in medical bills.
    • David obtained an involuntary dismissal based on pre-suit investigation of the professional liability claim prior to lengthy discovery which was later conducted by co-defendants .
    • A jury found zero damages after a five-day trial with testimony from the plaintiff’s four psychiatric experts and introduction of extensive medical records.
    • David obtained an involuntary dismissal in a case involving an industrial timber plant accident.
    • Following an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment filed by a co-defendant, David filed his own motion for summary judgment which was granted in a products liability case involving an alleged roofing defect which was claimed to have led to multiple surgeries for the lead plaintiff.
    • David’s aggressive motion practice in a commercial vehicle matter resulted in dismissal of both plaintiff’s cases, at their cost, with one third of the cost being borne personally by their attorney.

Firm Highlights

  • Insight

    No Mercy for Employers in Louisiana Supreme Court’s Recent Magill Decision

    In its recent per curiam opinion, Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska[1], the Louisiana Supreme Court has foreclosed a routine defense strategy to shield employers from direct negligence claims. The high court has extended their 2022 decision in Martin v. Thomas[2], and now allows plaintiffs to pursue direct negligence claims against an employer despite the employer’s stipulation that its employee was in the course-and-scope of employment and caused the accident. Essentially, employers who fail to implement better employment practices will permit plaintiffs to ramp up potential exposure with evidence, if such exists, that heretofore they were routinely barred from introducing at trial. The Supreme Court’s Magill holding should encourage employers to update where needed their policies and procedures pertaining to hiring, training, supervising, and entrusting duties and property to employees, not only for the safety of their employees and customers in this state, but also eliminate employer’s exposure to direct negligence claims. Prior to Martin, a litigation strategy had taken shape where employers stipulated to 1) an employee being in course-and-scope of employment at the time of the accident, 2) that the employee was at fault for the accident being caused, or 3) both. By stipulating these facts, employers were largely able to exclude evidence of any direct negligence on part of the employer and/or narrow the scope of trial to only a contest of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court in Martin held that despite an employer admitting their employee was in course and scope when the accident occurred, plaintiffs could pursue direct negligence claims against the employer—as the issue of liability had not been admitted. Accordingly, employers found success by admitting both course and scope and liability—as seen in the Western District of Louisiana’s holding in Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona[3]. In Ferguson, the defendants stipulated that their employee was acting in course-and-scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. Due to the employer’s stipulation of fault, Judge Wicks of the Western District of Louisiana held that Martin did not apply and that plaintiffs could not pursue direct negligence claims. In Magill, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided scarce reasoning for their decision. The high court simply affirmed the District Court’s expansion of the holding in Martin and that the employer’s reliance on the Western District’s Ferguson holding was a misapplication of Louisiana law. The Supreme Court also cited the decision in Tardo v. Farrell.[4] where the Fifth Circuit held that even if an employer and employee stipulate to course and scope and fault, those admissions do not eliminate direct-negligence claims because those claims remain separate issues for the trier of fact. The Fifth Circuit notably stated, “the societal decisions as to who actually pays does not change the manner of assessing fault to all parties as required by law.” This statement raises concern, as plaintiffs may now attempt to challenge employer stipulations that historically narrowed trials. The Supreme Court did not explain its reliance on Tardo, so future litigation will likely clarify the decision’s full impact. Under Magill, plaintiffs are permitted to pursue direct negligence claims against the employer despite the employer admitting that their employee was acting in course and scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. The full effect of the Supreme Court’s decision remains to be seen. In praxis, Magill will permit plaintiffs to put on evidence of direct negligence by an employer in front of a jury who cannot assign fault—as fault has already been stipulated to by the defendants. Employers now face the practical risk that plaintiffs will encourage juries to increase damages as a form of punishment against an employer that admits fault but contests the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Employers should use this moment to rigorously review and strengthen policies and procedures related to hiring and training in order to limit exposure when plaintiffs assert direct-negligence claims.  [1] Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska, 2025-00892 (La. 11/12/25) [2] Martin v. Thomas, 21-01490 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238 [3] Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, 17-1570, 2023 WL 173413 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023) [4] Tardo v. Ferrell, 25-123 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/25), 2025 WL 1516837 (unpublished).
  • Experience

    Burnell Joseph v. Atalco Gramercy, LLC et al., No. 3:23-cv-505, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

    Bob Kerrigan and Jose Ruiz successfully secured summary judgment dismissal for their client, Velan, Inc., in a complex intentional tort and products liability act involving catastrophic injury. The plaintiff, a precipitation batch tank operator working at the Atalco alumina refinery in Gramercy, Louisiana, suffered severe and debilitating chemical burn injuries to his face, eyes, and body when he was sprayed with caustic liquor while working underneath a tank at the refinery. He claimed that the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank was leaking, which allowed the tank to become filled with liquor after it had been previously verified as empty. He filed suit against Velan, Inc., the manufacturer of the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank, alleging that the valve was unreasonable dangerous in accordance with the Louisiana Products Liability Act. He also filed an intentional tort claim against his employer, Atalco Gramercy, LLC, alleging that Atalco knew the valve was leaking and continued to force employees to work underneath the tank. He claimed that under these conditions, an incident such as his was substantially certain to occur. Following the close of discovery, Velan moved for summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims was appropriate because: (1) the plaintiff’s injuries were a result of Atalco’s misuse of the valve; (2) the plaintiff lacked the expert testimony needed to prove his theory of liability under the Louisiana Product’s Liability Act; (3) the Velan valve at issue was not unreasonably dangerous as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; and (4) the plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation needed to establish his case of liability against Velan. The Hon. Brian Jackson found that under the undisputed facts presented by Velan, summary judgment was appropriate and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against it, with prejudice.