Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

After moving out of their condominium due to mold, Brenda Lee Allen and her family stayed at the Ontario Airport Inn Hotel, owned by Anil Bhula Patel. After more than 30 days, Allen’s funds ran out, and she requested extra time to pay rent, which was refused by the hotel manager, Luis Mejia. On April 19, 2020, while Allen and her family were moving out, an altercation occurred involving Allen, Mejia, and Patel. Allen alleged that Patel forcibly entered her room, threw her belongings into the hallway, struck her, and pushed her against the wall, causing her to suffer posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other serious health issues.Allen filed suit against Patel and his company, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for battery, assault, and related claims. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County bifurcated the trial to separate liability and compensatory damages from punitive damages. The jury awarded Allen over $1 million in compensatory damages for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Before the punitive damages phase, two jurors were unavailable, leading the trial court to declare a mistrial on that issue. Patel subsequently moved for a new trial, arguing attorney misconduct and other trial irregularities.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court conducted an independent review and found substantial evidence of misconduct by Allen’s attorney, including knowingly misleading statements about medical causation, introduction of prejudicial and inflammatory evidence, improper closing arguments violating the golden rule and reptile theory, and attacks on defense counsel’s character. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order granting a new trial on liability and compensatory damages, finding no abuse of discretion and concluding that the issue of punitive damages was moot. View "Allen v. Patel" on Justia Law

Sanjeev Varghese was injured when he rode his bicycle into a steel cable stretched between two bollards on Pier 5 at Baltimore’s Inner Harbor. The barrier was located between a vehicular access road and a pedestrian promenade. The City of Baltimore had approved the design of the access road and its barriers, with changes for safety and aesthetics implemented in 2005. In 2017, a similar bicycle accident occurred, and the City received notice of that incident. In 2018, Varghese crashed into the barrier and subsequently sued the City for negligence, claiming the barrier was hazardous and that the City failed to address a known danger.The Circuit Court for Baltimore City allowed Varghese’s claims to proceed to a jury, which found the City negligent and awarded damages. The City moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing it was entitled to governmental immunity based on the discretionary nature of its design decisions. The circuit court denied this motion. On appeal, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the judgment, concluding that the City was not immune from liability for failing to fix a known hazard.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that the City’s decisions regarding the design and placement of the barrier were discretionary governmental functions. The court reaffirmed that municipalities are immune from tort liability for such discretionary design decisions unless the condition created is so obviously dangerous that no reasonable person could disagree. The court found that this exception did not apply here, as the barrier was not shown to be obviously dangerous. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court and instructed that judgment be entered in favor of the City. View "May. & City Cncl. Of Baltimore v. Varghese" on Justia Law

C.B., a 34-year-old man with developmental and psychiatric disabilities, died while residing at the Valley Ridge Center for Intensive Treatment, a secure state-run facility operated by the New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. Although C.B. was admitted voluntarily, the facility imposed substantial restrictions on his liberty, including limits on leaving the premises and accessing medical care. In the days leading up to his death from cardiomyopathy, C.B. exhibited clear symptoms of heart failure and repeatedly asked staff for help, but his pleas were allegedly ignored or inadequately addressed by his caretakers.J.M., C.B.’s mother and administrator of his estate, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging violations of C.B.’s substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law claims for negligence and medical malpractice. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the federal claim, holding that C.B., as a voluntarily admitted resident, had no constitutional right to adequate medical care, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The court also denied J.M.’s motion to amend her complaint to add a new defendant, finding lack of diligence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that C.B. was entitled to substantive due process protections regardless of his voluntary admission status. The court clarified that when the state exercises sufficient control over a resident’s life such that the individual cannot care for himself, due process guarantees apply, consistent with Youngberg v. Romeo, Society for Good Will to Retarded Children, Inc. v. Cuomo, and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. The Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "J.M. v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Jo Carol Edwards was employed as a truck driver by Peoplease, LLC. On August 14, 2020, while working, she was involved in a motor vehicle accident that caused her knees to strike the dashboard, resulting in knee pain and injuries. Ms. Edwards was subsequently diagnosed with severe, pre-existing arthritis in both knees. However, medical experts disagreed on whether her need for knee replacement surgery and resulting disability were caused by an aggravation of her pre-existing condition due to the work accident or were solely attributable to the underlying arthritis. Ms. Edwards claimed workers’ compensation benefits for her knee injuries, arguing that the accident aggravated her arthritis and led to her symptoms and need for surgery.The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims credited Ms. Edwards’ testimony that she was asymptomatic prior to the accident and found that her work-related accident aggravated her pre-existing arthritis, resulting in compensable knee injuries. The court ordered Peoplease to pay for her medical expenses, disability benefits, and related costs. On interlocutory appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board partially affirmed but ultimately reversed the award on remand, finding that Ms. Edwards failed to overcome the presumption in favor of her treating physician’s opinion that the accident was not the primary cause of her need for surgery and disability.The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the case. It clarified that factual findings in workers’ compensation cases are reviewed de novo on the record with a presumption of correctness unless the preponderance of the evidence indicates otherwise, regardless of whether the findings are based on live or deposition testimony. The court further held that an aggravation injury under Tennessee law does not require a permanent change to be compensable; it is sufficient if the aggravation primarily arises out of employment and contributes more than fifty percent to the need for medical treatment or disability. Applying this standard, the Supreme Court reversed the Appeals Board’s decision and reinstated the Trial Court’s award of benefits to Ms. Edwards. View "Edwards v. Peoplease, LLC" on Justia Law

Brian Coblentz was employed as a sales representative for Stanley National Hardware, a vendor supplying hardware products to retail stores, including Tractor Supply Company. His duties involved visiting Tractor Supply stores, checking inventory, placing orders, and maintaining the appearance of Stanley National product displays. During a visit to a Fayetteville, Tennessee Tractor Supply store, Coblentz was injured when a barn door track from a Stanley National display fell on him. Stanley National paid him workers’ compensation benefits. Coblentz and his wife then sued Tractor Supply, alleging negligence in maintaining the display and failing to warn about potential hazards.The Circuit Court for Lincoln County granted summary judgment for Tractor Supply. It found Tractor Supply to be Coblentz’s “statutory employer” under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-113(a), reasoning that Coblentz’s work was part of Tractor Supply’s regular business. This classification shielded Tractor Supply from tort liability under the exclusive remedy provision of Tennessee’s workers’ compensation statutes. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the same statutory employer analysis. However, one judge dissented, arguing that the relationship between Stanley National and Tractor Supply was purely vendor-vendee, not principal-subcontractor, and thus should not invoke workers’ compensation protections.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed the lower courts. It held that the term “subcontractor” in section 50-6-113(a) refers to entities performing labor or services, and does not encompass a pure vendor-vendee relationship involving only the sale and ancillary delivery of goods. Applying a “predominant purpose” test, the Court found the primary purpose of the arrangement was merchandise sales, with additional services being incidental. Therefore, Tractor Supply is not Coblentz’s statutory employer and is not protected by the exclusive remedy provision. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Coblentz v. Tractor Supply Company" on Justia Law

In 2017, the plaintiff was involved in a low-speed collision when the defendant, driving a car, struck the plaintiff riding a motorcycle. The plaintiff did not fall or receive immediate medical attention and reported pain only in his hip, leg, and foot the following day. He later claimed the accident caused severe and lasting neck and groin injuries. The defense contested the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries, noting his continued participation in physical activities after the accident. As trial approached, the plaintiff, who had previously designated numerous expert witnesses, visited a new doctor—Dr. Gravori—just days before trial. Dr. Gravori recommended spine surgery, introducing a new theory of injury not previously disclosed.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County allowed Dr. Gravori to testify as an expert, provided he was immediately made available for a deposition at the plaintiff’s expense. The defense objected, arguing the late disclosure of this expert was prejudicial and violated procedural rules. The deposition took place during jury selection, and the court maintained its ruling, permitting Gravori’s testimony. The jury ultimately awarded the plaintiff substantial damages, including future medical expenses and pain and suffering.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the late expert witness. The appellate court found that the plaintiff offered no reasonable justification for the delayed designation of Dr. Gravori and failed to follow statutory requirements for augmenting the expert witness list. The court held that this was an abuse of discretion and that the error was prejudicial, likely affecting the outcome. Accordingly, the judgment and costs order were vacated, and the case was remanded for a new trial. Costs were awarded to the appellants. View "Fancourt v. Zargaryan" on Justia Law

Ronald B. Panting, an independent contractor serving as a Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) for the FAA, was conducting a pilot certification checkride for Michael Trubilla in a plane rented from the LeMay Aero Club, a government-affiliated organization. Both men died when the plane crashed during the checkride. Five days prior to the accident, Ronald signed a covenant not to sue the government for injuries sustained while participating in Aero Club activities, applicable to himself and his estate. His spouse, Lynne D. Panting, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging negligent maintenance of the aircraft.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied the government’s motion for summary judgment, ruling the covenant not to sue was void as against public policy under Nebraska law. The court did not address Lynne’s alternative argument that the covenant did not apply to Ronald’s activities as a DPE on the day of the crash. Following a bench trial, the district court found the government negligent and entered judgment for Lynne, awarding damages. The government appealed, challenging the district court’s decision regarding the covenant’s validity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment because the enforceability of the covenant was a purely legal issue. Applying Nebraska law, the appellate court determined the covenant was neither clearly repugnant to public policy nor the product of disparate bargaining power, and that the Aero Club did not provide a public or essential service. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded for consideration of whether the covenant covered Ronald’s activities as a DPE, and for further proceedings as appropriate. View "Panting v. United States" on Justia Law

Ana Faiaipau, an elderly woman recovering from heart surgery, was transferred to a long-term acute care hospital operated by Kindred Healthcare. During her stay, Ana allegedly suffered neglect, including lack of dialysis, malnutrition, inadequate hygiene care, and failure to properly monitor her ventilator. The ventilator became disconnected, leading to a severe anoxic brain injury and Ana’s subsequent death. Ana’s daughters, Jennifer and Faamalieloto, acting both individually and as successors in interest, filed suit against Kindred for negligence, elder neglect, fraud, violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and wrongful death.The Alameda County Superior Court reviewed Kindred’s motion to compel arbitration based on agreements signed by Jennifer as Ana’s legal representative. The court granted arbitration for survivor claims brought on behalf of Ana, including negligence, elder neglect, fraud, and UCL claims, but denied arbitration for Jennifer and Faamalieloto’s individual claims for wrongful death, fraud, and violation of the UCL. The court also stayed litigation of the individual claims pending arbitration.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the appeal. Citing the California Supreme Court’s decision in Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc., the appellate court held that the wrongful death claim—premised on failure to monitor and reconnect Ana’s ventilator—constituted professional negligence and must be arbitrated under the arbitration agreement. However, the court affirmed the denial of arbitration for Jennifer and Faamalieloto’s individual fraud and UCL claims, finding Kindred had not shown that the agreement bound them in their individual capacities. The order was modified to compel arbitration of the wrongful death claim and affirmed as modified. View "Faiaipau v. THC-Orange County, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a plaintiff who sustained injuries after her vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle owned and operated by the defendant, whose insurer was also named as a defendant. The plaintiff filed a petition for damages on December 22, 2020. The case proceeded to a jury trial, and on November 17, 2023, the jury found the defendant 100% at fault and awarded the plaintiff both special and general damages, totaling $736,871.62. The judgment, subsequently prepared and signed, awarded judicial interest “from November 17, 2023, the date of judicial demand, until paid.” However, November 17, 2023, was actually the date of the jury verdict, not the date of judicial demand.The defendants issued payment including judicial interest calculated only from the November 2023 verdict date. The plaintiff then moved to enforce the judgment, asserting that interest should accrue from the date of judicial demand—December 22, 2020. The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans granted this motion, finding the full amount of interest had not been paid. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, affirmed, holding that judicial interest in tort cases accrues automatically from the date of judicial demand by operation of law, regardless of any drafting error in the judgment’s language.Upon certiorari, the Supreme Court of Louisiana held that the presence of the November 17, 2023 date in the judgment did not deprive the plaintiff of the statutory right to interest from the date of judicial demand. The Court concluded that enforcing the judgment to provide interest from the date the petition was filed did not constitute a substantive amendment and simply applied the mandatory provisions of Louisiana law. The rulings of both the district court and the appellate court were affirmed. View "Bilalis v. Drennan" on Justia Law

A sixteen-year-old boy and his friend were waiting for transportation under a carport near the boy’s home when they were approached by an off-duty Baltimore City police officer who had just returned from firearms training. The officer, dressed in plain clothes and carrying a loaded handgun, questioned the boys about their presence in the neighborhood. After a brief exchange, the officer brandished his gun at “low ready,” causing the boys to fear for their lives. The incident had a lasting traumatic effect on the boy, resulting in emotional distress, behavioral changes, and ultimately leading him to attend a boarding school to distance himself from the event.The boy filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Maryland state law against the officer, the Baltimore Police Department, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, and the State of Maryland. All claims against the institutional defendants were dismissed by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and some claims against the officer were dismissed at summary judgment. At trial, the district court submitted to the jury both constitutional claims and state law gross negligence claims, including gross negligence in the officer’s capacity as a private person. The jury found for the officer on constitutional claims but found him grossly negligent as a private person, awarding $250,000 in compensatory damages for emotional harm. The officer moved to alter or amend the judgment or for a new trial, arguing lack of notice on the private person claim and excessiveness of damages, but the district court denied the motion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged gross negligence as a private person and that the officer had notice of this claim. The court rejected the officer’s arguments regarding supplemental jurisdiction, plain error in jury instructions, and excessiveness of damages, finding no abuse of discretion or plain error by the district court. The judgment was affirmed. View "Nicholson v. Durant" on Justia Law