Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiffs were injured when their car was struck by a vehicle driven by a deputy sheriff responding to an emergency call. The accident occurred at an intersection where the deputy, traveling westbound, proceeded against a red light while the plaintiffs, traveling southbound, had the green light. Although the deputy activated her emergency lights and slowed down, coming to a complete stop at least once and waiting for northbound traffic to yield, it was disputed whether she used her air horn or siren, and whether she looked for or could see southbound traffic due to possible obstructions. It was also undisputed that she did not notify dispatch as required by departmental policy.The Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the defendants had established entitlement to summary judgment by showing Deputy Fong had not acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others, and that the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The appellate court observed that the deputy took several safety precautions before entering the intersection. Two justices dissented, reasoning that a jury could find recklessness based on the evidence.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It held that, even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the evidence did not support a finding that the deputy acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104. The court emphasized that police vehicles are statutorily exempt from the requirement to use audible signals when exercising emergency driving privileges and that violations of internal policies exceeding statutory requirements do not establish liability. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, dismissing the complaint. View "Granath v Monroe County" on Justia Law

A police officer suffered severe injuries during a protest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, when a demonstrator threw a heavy object that struck him in the face. The protest was organized in response to police conduct and was led by a prominent activist who had previously participated in similar events that sometimes turned violent. On the day of the incident, the leader was observed directing protestors, including leading them onto a highway and not discouraging violent behavior as the situation escalated. The officer’s injuries were significant, resulting in lasting physical and psychological harm and the end of his law enforcement career.The officer sued the activist, Black Lives Matter, and related entities in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, alleging negligence and other tort claims. The district court dismissed most of the claims with prejudice, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed as to the negligence claim against the activist. The Supreme Court of the United States vacated that decision, remanding for clarification of Louisiana negligence law. The Supreme Court of Louisiana confirmed that state law recognizes a duty not to negligently precipitate third-party crimes under the circumstances alleged. After further proceedings, the district court again granted summary judgment for the activist, finding no duty, lack of causation, and First Amendment protection.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment. The court held that there is sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether the activist’s leadership and actions breached a duty of care and were a cause-in-fact of the officer’s injuries, and that such a claim is not foreclosed by the First Amendment. The case was remanded for trial. View "Ford v. Mckesson" on Justia Law

A certified nursing assistant employed by a home health provider sustained injuries to her right shoulder and lower back during the course of her employment. She received medical treatment from several providers and was paid mileage reimbursements for traveling between patient homes. Following her injuries, the employer’s insurance carrier denied further payment of temporary disability and medical benefits, including an outstanding medical bill, and ultimately terminated her employment. The worker secured new employment at a higher wage and subsequently filed for workers’ compensation benefits, claiming entitlement to disability benefits and payment of the disputed medical bill. The employer denied liability.The Administrative Law Judge found that the worker had a compensable lower back injury with a 12% impairment rating, entitling her to temporary total and permanent partial disability benefits, but excluded mileage reimbursements from her average weekly wage and denied payment for the outstanding medical bill based on the provider’s failure to submit it within the statutory 45-day deadline. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the ALJ’s findings. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion of mileage reimbursements and dismissed the issue of the unpaid medical bill as moot after the employer voluntarily paid it during the appeal. The Court of Appeals also rejected a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, deeming it unauthorized.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the exclusion of mileage reimbursements from the wage calculation, holding such payments were reimbursements for actual expenses and not “wages.” The Court reversed the dismissal of the medical bill claim as moot, applying the “voluntary cessation” exception, and held that denial of compensability constitutes reasonable grounds to excuse noncompliance with the 45-day rule for submitting medical bills. The Court also found the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting the amicus motion. The decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "HARRIS V. MERCY HOME HEALTH" on Justia Law

A woman with dementia was admitted to a memory care facility, where her family warned staff about her tendency to wander and need for supervision. Three days after admission, she was found unattended in a courtyard on a 102-degree day, suffering from severe burns and heatstroke, ultimately dying days later. Her family, acting as successors in interest and individually, sued the facility for elder neglect, negligence, fraud, wrongful death, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Upon admission, her niece had signed an arbitration agreement on her behalf, which the family argued should not bind their individual claims or override their right to a jury trial.The Superior Court of Sacramento County considered the facility’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. The court found a valid arbitration agreement existed for the decedent’s survivor claims but ruled that the agreement did not bind the family members' individual claims, as they were not parties to the agreement. The court also declined to compel arbitration of the survivor claims under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c), citing the risk of conflicting rulings if the family’s claims proceeded in court while survivor claims were arbitrated. The court further held that the agreement’s reference to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not expressly incorporate the FAA’s procedural provisions to preempt California law.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. It held that the arbitration agreement did not clearly and unmistakably delegate threshold issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and that the FAA’s procedural provisions were not expressly adopted by the agreement. Therefore, California law applied, and the trial court properly exercised its discretion to deny arbitration to avoid inconsistent rulings. The judgment was affirmed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs. View "Wright v. WellQuest Elk Grove" on Justia Law

The case involved a claimant who was awarded workers’ compensation benefits for a work-related injury. The claimant’s attorney successfully secured the compensation award, and the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) granted an attorney’s fee as a lien on the award. After the insurance carrier failed to pay the compensation within required timelines, the WCLJ imposed statutory penalties and additional amounts against the carrier, which were payable to the claimant. The attorney then sought additional legal fees based on these penalty charges assessed against the carrier for late payment.The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld the WCLJ’s denial of the attorney’s claim for additional fees based on the late payment penalties, relying on Workers’ Compensation Law § 24 (2). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the statutory fee schedule under § 24 (2) did not authorize legal fees based on penalty charges under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It held that Workers’ Compensation Law § 24 (2), as amended, authorizes the Board to approve legal fees only in accordance with its detailed statutory fee schedule, which does not include penalty charges assessed for late payments under § 25. The Court found the text of § 24 (2) clear and unambiguous, limiting attorney fees to specific types of compensation awards, and not extending to penalties or additional payments assessed for untimely compensation. The Court concluded that the Board properly denied the attorney’s request for fees based on late payment charges, and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order. View "Gonzalez v Northeast Parent & Child Society" on Justia Law

A group of former student-athletes filed suit against a university, alleging that between 2012 and 2015, they sustained serious hip injuries while participating on the university's women's rowing team. They claimed that the injuries were caused by deficient coaching, athletic training, and medical care, which they argued were influenced by systemic gender-based disparities. The athletes pursued claims under Title IX for gender discrimination and under Texas law for negligence. The university moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed with the university as to eight plaintiffs, granting summary judgment and finding their claims time-barred. For a ninth plaintiff, the district court partially granted and partially denied summary judgment, allowing some claims for compensatory damages to proceed. The plaintiffs appealed the ruling for the eight time-barred claims, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the claims were indeed barred by the statute of limitations.Following summary judgment, the university sought to recover litigation costs as the prevailing party under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The district court found the university to be a prevailing party and awarded the majority of the costs requested, after reducing the amount. The plaintiffs appealed the cost award. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the university was properly designated the prevailing party, that none of the factors in Pacheco v. Mineta weighed against awarding costs, and that the university had met its burden to show the necessity and amount of costs sought. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of costs. View "Clouse v. Southern Methodist University" on Justia Law

Susan Cox, a resident of Albion, Washington, died from an alleged overdose of medications prescribed by her primary care physician, Dr. Patricia Marciano. Susan’s husband, Mark Cox, and her estate initiated a wrongful-death and survivor action against Dr. Marciano and Gritman Medical Center after Susan’s death. The Coxes had lived in Washington, while Dr. Marciano and Gritman are based in Idaho, with all medical treatment having taken place in Idaho. However, at Susan’s request, her prescriptions were regularly transmitted by Dr. Marciano and Gritman to pharmacies in Washington, and Gritman engaged in marketing and accepted patients from the Washington area.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Idaho-based defendants, holding that Washington’s long-arm statute did not reach them and the exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process. The district court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery relating to general personal jurisdiction over Gritman, and did not address the issue of venue.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Dr. Marciano and Gritman Medical Center was proper under both Washington’s long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause. The court found that the defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with Washington, as they cultivated relationships with Washington residents and regularly transmitted prescriptions to Washington pharmacies in compliance with Washington law. The court also held that venue was proper in the Eastern District of Washington because a substantial part of the events underlying the claims occurred there. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings and affirmed the dismissal only as to one defendant who was conceded to be properly dismissed. View "COX V. GRITMAN MEDICAL CENTER" on Justia Law

A college student was killed in a single-car accident when his vehicle left a city street, traveled over sixty feet off the paved road, and struck a large concrete planter situated more than six feet from the road in the City of Milton. The student’s parents brought a suit against the city, alleging negligence in failing to remove the planter, which they contended was a “defect” in the public road, and also claimed the planter constituted a nuisance.After a jury found the city liable under both negligence and nuisance theories, awarding damages reduced for comparative fault, the City of Milton appealed. The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the judgment, concluding that the city’s sovereign immunity had been waived under OCGA § 36-33-1(b) because the city has a ministerial duty to maintain streets in a reasonably safe condition. The appellate court analyzed the claim under OCGA § 32-4-93(a), reasoning that the planter was “in the public road” as it was on the city’s right-of-way, and found there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine it was a defect of which the city had notice.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to clarify the relationship between OCGA § 36-33-1(b) (waiving immunity for ministerial duties) and OCGA § 32-4-93(a) (limiting municipal liability for road defects). The Court held that OCGA § 32-4-93(a) does not itself waive municipal immunity. While OCGA § 36-33-1(b) can waive immunity for negligence in performing ministerial duties, the ministerial duty to keep streets safe applies only to ordinary travel on parts of the street intended for such use—not to areas outside travel lanes, even if within the right-of-way. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "Milton v. Chang" on Justia Law

A woman with a long history of lupus, a chronic autoimmune disease, was under the care of a rheumatologist who managed her symptoms with medications over several years. In early 2018, the patient experienced severe joint pain and other symptoms, and her physician adjusted treatments accordingly. In February, she visited a walk-in clinic with fever and chills; tests were negative for infection, but a chest X-ray showed a possible abnormality. As a precaution, antibiotics were prescribed, and her symptoms improved. In March, she again presented with a fever and minor symptoms. The rheumatologist ordered new tests and increased her medication but did not urgently refer her to an infectious disease specialist or order new chest imaging. Over the following weeks, her symptoms worsened, leading to hospitalization, emergency surgery, and ultimately her death from intestinal tuberculosis.Her spouse, representing her estate, filed a medical malpractice suit against the treating physician and clinic, alleging a failure to meet the standard of care by not acting more urgently on March 1 and 2. Both sides presented expert testimony about the standard of care. The plaintiff objected to a jury instruction allowing the jury to consider whether the physician’s exercise of judgment in choosing among alternative treatments was reasonable, arguing it was unwarranted and prejudicial. The Snohomish County Superior Court gave the instruction, and the jury found for the defense.The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that evidence supported the instruction because the physician made choices among treatments and exercised clinical judgment. The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed whether the record contained sufficient evidence to justify the "exercise of judgment" instruction. The court held that such an instruction is proper when the record contains evidence that the physician’s decision-making process and treatment choices complied with the applicable standard of care. The court affirmed, concluding the trial court acted within its discretion. View "Beard v. Everett Clinic, PLLC" on Justia Law

An individual, after experiencing ongoing conflicts with employees of a residential bunker community, confronted one employee about reckless driving near his home. Later that day, another community employee, upset by the earlier confrontation, decided to confront the resident directly. The employee sent text messages expressing his intent to physically confront and “educate” the resident. After being warned by a mutual acquaintance of the employee’s intentions, the resident armed himself. When the employee arrived, he shouted threats and claimed to have killed someone with his bare hands. As the employee advanced toward the resident, the resident shot him once in the chest, resulting in non-fatal injuries. The resident then provided medical aid until emergency responders arrived.A grand jury was convened to consider the resident’s conduct. It declined to indict him for the shooting but did charge him with simple assault for his earlier physical contact with the first employee. The injured employee then filed a civil lawsuit for assault and battery. The resident moved to dismiss, asserting self-defense immunity under South Dakota statutes and requesting a stay of discovery. The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit held an evidentiary hearing limited to the immunity issue. The court excluded a grand jury transcript from evidence, denied the plaintiff’s motion for a continuance, and found the resident’s testimony credible.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the continuance and whether it erred in finding civil immunity. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion regarding the continuance, and that the resident was justified in using deadly force in self-defense under SDCL 22-18-4.1, making him immune from civil liability under SDCL 22-18-4.8. The decision of the circuit court was affirmed. View "Anderson v. Streeter" on Justia Law