Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Lorenza Maksimow slipped and fell on an ice patch in a public parking lot in the City of South Lake Tahoe. She sued the City, alleging the ice patch constituted a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code sections 830 and 835. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that Maksimow could not establish the existence of a dangerous condition or that the City had actual or constructive notice of such a condition. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of the City.The Superior Court of El Dorado County found that Maksimow failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the City’s actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. The court sustained the City’s objections to certain evidence presented by Maksimow, including climatological data and expert testimony, and concluded that there was no evidence to support the claim that the City had notice of the ice patch.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Maksimow did not present sufficient evidence to establish that the City had actual or constructive notice of the ice patch. The court noted that while City employees may have been aware of snowfall and the presence of an abandoned vehicle in the parking lot, there was no evidence that they had actual knowledge of the specific ice patch that caused Maksimow’s fall. Additionally, the court found that the evidence did not support an inference that the ice patch existed for a sufficient period of time to impute constructive notice to the City. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the City. View "Maksimow v. City of South Lake Tahoe" on Justia Law

The case involves Alexander Raheb, who slipped and fell on April 13, 2019, at TD Garden in Boston, owned and operated by Delaware North Companies, Inc. Raheb purchased a hotdog and a beer at a concession stand and, while walking to his seat, slipped on a liquid on the concourse floor, rupturing his left quadricep tendon. The liquid had been spilled seconds earlier by another patron. Raheb sued Delaware North under the special mode-of-operation notice theory, claiming negligence.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of Delaware North, concluding that the courts of Massachusetts would not apply the mode-of-operation theory under the circumstances presented. The court found that Raheb did not provide sufficient evidence to show that Delaware North's mode of operation created a foreseeable risk of harm.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the mode-of-operation theory did not apply. The court emphasized that the mode-of-operation theory, as established in Massachusetts, applies primarily to self-service contexts where the business's method of operation creates foreseeable risks. The court found that Raheb's situation, where patrons carry drinks from a concession stand to their seats at a sporting event, did not meet the criteria for this theory. The court noted that Raheb's evidence did not distinguish TD Garden's operations from any other similar establishment and did not show that the mode of operation created a recurring hazard. Therefore, the court held that Raheb could not proceed to a jury on the mode-of-operation notice theory. View "Raheb v. Delaware North Companies, Inc. - Boston" on Justia Law

In March 2020, Eva Osborne sued Pleasanton Automotive Company, LOP Automotive Company LP, HAG Automotive Investments LP, and Bob Slap, alleging workplace misconduct including discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and wage violations. Osborne, who worked as Slap’s executive assistant, claimed Slap required her to perform personal tasks without proper compensation. In response, Slap filed a cross-complaint against Osborne in August 2022, alleging libel, slander, and other claims based on statements Osborne made in a letter to HAG’s HR director.The Alameda Superior Court granted Osborne’s special motion to strike Slap’s cross-complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that Osborne’s statements were protected activity made in anticipation of litigation and were privileged under Civil Code section 47. The court found that Slap could not show his claims had minimal merit because the statements were privileged and he failed to demonstrate malice.The California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that Osborne’s statements were protected under the anti-SLAPP statute and that the litigation privilege barred Slap’s claims. The court found that Osborne’s HR letter was sent in good faith contemplation of litigation, supported by her retention of counsel and subsequent legal actions. The court did not need to address Osborne’s alternative arguments regarding conditional privilege and malice, as the litigation privilege alone was sufficient to affirm the trial court’s ruling. View "Osborne v. Pleasanton Automotive Co., LP" on Justia Law

The case involves a plaintiff, representing the estate of a deceased individual, who sued the owners of a golf club. The plaintiff alleged that the deceased was served alcohol while visibly intoxicated, leading to a fall from a golf cart and serious injuries. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claim was barred by ORS 471.565(1), which limits the liability of alcohol servers in certain circumstances.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon reviewed the case and certified a question to the Oregon Supreme Court, asking whether ORS 471.565(1) violates the remedy clause of Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution. The district court noted that the Oregon Court of Appeals had previously held that the statute violated the remedy clause, but the Oregon Supreme Court had affirmed that decision on different grounds, leaving the constitutional question unresolved.The Oregon Supreme Court examined the text and context of ORS 471.565(1), which bars claims by individuals who voluntarily consume alcohol, even if served while visibly intoxicated. The court also reviewed the legislative history, noting that the statute was enacted in response to the court's decision in Fulmer v. Timber Inn Restaurant and Lounge, Inc., which recognized a common-law negligence claim for individuals injured due to being served alcohol while visibly intoxicated.The court concluded that ORS 471.565(1) does not violate the remedy clause of the Oregon Constitution when applied to individuals who voluntarily consume alcohol. However, the court clarified that the statute does not bar claims by individuals who involuntarily consume alcohol, meaning after losing the sense of reason and volition. The court held that the statute is constitutional as long as it is interpreted to allow claims for involuntary consumption of alcohol.The Oregon Supreme Court answered the certified question, holding that ORS 471.565(1) does not violate the remedy clause of Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution, provided it is interpreted to allow claims for involuntary consumption of alcohol. View "Bonner v. American Golf Corp. of California" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, co-personal representatives of the estate of Sara Schleider, filed a lawsuit in Florida state court against GVDB Operations, LLC, and JSMGV Management Company, LLC. They alleged that the defendants failed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at their assisted living facility, resulting in Sara Schleider contracting the virus and subsequently dying. The plaintiffs asserted state-law claims for survival and wrongful death under Florida Statute § 429.28, alleging negligence and, alternatively, willful misconduct or gross negligence.The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, claiming federal subject matter jurisdiction on three grounds: acting under a federal officer, complete preemption by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, and an embedded federal question concerning the PREP Act. The district court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and remanded the case to state court, finding that the defendants' arguments did not establish federal jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The appellate court affirmed the remand, holding that the defendants did not act under a federal officer, as their compliance with federal guidelines did not equate to acting under federal authority. The court also determined that the PREP Act did not completely preempt the plaintiffs' state-law claims, as the Act's willful misconduct provision did not wholly displace state-law causes of action for negligence. Lastly, the court found that the plaintiffs' claims did not raise a substantial federal question under the Grable doctrine, as the federal issues were not necessarily raised by the plaintiffs' well-pleaded complaint. Thus, the district court's remand to state court was affirmed. View "Howard Schleider v. GVDB Operations, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellant Yvonne Gant sued The Lynne Experience LTD (TLE) and Giant Foods, LLC (Giant) for negligence after allegedly being struck and injured by a golf cart operated by a TLE employee. Gant claimed that TLE and Giant failed to properly train and supervise their employees, leading to her injuries. TLE moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the District of Columbia’s Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) provided Gant’s exclusive remedy, thus removing the court’s jurisdiction over the matter. The Superior Court agreed, dismissing Gant’s claims against TLE with prejudice, and later granted summary judgment in favor of Giant, finding no employer-employee relationship that could support Gant’s negligence claim.The Superior Court determined that the WCA provided Gant’s exclusive remedy and that the District of Columbia Department of Employee Services (DOES) had primary jurisdiction over her claims. The court dismissed Gant’s claims against TLE with prejudice, reasoning that any claim under the WCA would be time-barred. Subsequently, the court granted summary judgment for Giant, based on undisputed evidence that Giant was merely a sponsor of the event and had no role in managing or supervising the staff involved.On appeal, Gant argued that TLE failed to secure payment of compensation as required by the WCA and that she should be allowed to maintain her civil action. Alternatively, she requested a stay to present her claim to DOES. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed that the WCA appeared to provide Gant’s exclusive remedy but held that the Superior Court should have dismissed her claim without prejudice. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Giant, noting that Gant failed to present any arguments against it on appeal.The main holding by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals was that the Superior Court should have dismissed Gant’s claim against TLE without prejudice, allowing her the opportunity to pursue her claim with DOES. The court affirmed the summary judgment for Giant, as there was no evidence to support an employer-employee relationship necessary for Gant’s negligence claim. View "Gant v. The Lynne Experience, LTD" on Justia Law

Sisters Nikki Mazzocchio and Angela Kraus filed a federal "public liability action" under the Price-Anderson Act (PAA) against several defendants, alleging that exposure to radioactive waste caused them to develop cancer. The waste had been handled by various entities over the years, including Mallinckrodt, Cotter Corporation, and Commonwealth Edison Company. The plaintiffs claimed negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, and civil conspiracy. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that federal law preempted the state-law claims because federal nuclear dosage regulations provide the exclusive standard of care in a public liability action. The district court denied the motions to dismiss, and the defendants appealed.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs' state-law claims were not preempted by federal law. The court found that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded their case under state tort law standards. The defendants then sought and were granted permission to appeal the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that state tort law standards of care are not preempted by federal nuclear dosage regulations in a public liability action under the PAA. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., which established that state tort law applies in cases involving nuclear incidents, despite the federal government's exclusive control over nuclear safety regulation. The court also noted that Congress, through the PAA's 1988 amendments, did not repudiate the role of state tort law in such cases. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court correctly denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiffs' state-law claims to proceed. View "Mazzocchio v. Cotter Corporation" on Justia Law

Steven Watts, an automotive repair shop owner, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2019, a disease linked to asbestos exposure. He and his wife, Cindy Watts, filed a lawsuit against 28 defendants, later adding eight more. By the time of trial, only one defendant, Pneumo Abex, LLC (Abex), remained. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $2,943,653 in economic damages, $6.75 million in noneconomic damages, and $1 million for loss of consortium, attributing 60% fault to Abex, 25% to other brake manufacturers, and 15% to Watts.The trial court had granted a directed verdict against Abex on its sophisticated user defense, which argued that Watts, as a trained mechanic and business owner, should have known about the dangers of asbestos. The court also made several rulings affecting the allocation of fault, including refusing to include joint compound manufacturers on the verdict form and precluding Abex from using Watts’s interrogatory responses.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred in directing the verdict against Abex on the sophisticated user defense, as there was substantial evidence that Watts should have known about the asbestos risks. The court also found errors in the trial court’s rulings on the allocation of fault, including the exclusion of joint compound manufacturers from the verdict form and the preclusion of Watts’s interrogatory responses.The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, allowing Abex to present its sophisticated user defense and addressing the allocation of fault issues. The court also upheld the trial court’s discretion in allocating pretrial settlements but found that the overall handling of the case warranted a new trial. View "Watts v. Pneumo Abex" on Justia Law

In 2019, Jesse Hubbell was hired to film a scuba-diving campaign advertisement. He and John Mues rented scuba gear from Gull Scuba Center. Gull’s instructor, Chris Hanson, asked for their diving certification cards. Mues provided his “Advanced Diver” certification, but Jesse did not have his card. Jesse claimed he was PADI certified, and Hanson either did not verify this or did not recall doing so. Jesse drowned three days later while using the rented gear.Ellen Hubbell, Jesse’s widow, sued several defendants, including Gull, alleging negligence for renting the equipment without verifying Jesse’s certification. The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, granted summary judgment in favor of Gull, finding no dispute of material fact regarding Gull’s liability.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by relying on the PRA Membership Standards to establish Gull’s duty to Jesse, as both parties’ experts indicated these standards were generally accepted in the scuba rental industry. The court also upheld the exclusion of Ellen’s expert, Thomas Maddox’s, opinion on industry standards, as it differed substantively from the prior expert’s report, which was beyond the scope allowed by the District Court’s amended scheduling order.Finally, the court agreed with the District Court’s determination that Hanson’s failure to check Jesse’s certification did not cause his death. The court found that even if Hanson had checked Jesse’s certification, Mues, who was of legal age and held an Advanced Diver certification, could have rented the equipment for Jesse. Therefore, the failure to check the certification was not the cause-in-fact of Jesse’s death. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of Gull. View "Hubbell v Gull Scuba Center" on Justia Law

The case involves Rhonda Mengert, who was subjected to a private inspection by Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) at Tulsa International Airport. After an initial screening and pat-down revealed an unidentified object in her groin area, Mengert was taken to a private room and directed to lower her pants and remove the object, which turned out to be a feminine hygiene product. Mengert claimed the incident caused her to experience panic attack symptoms, which recur when she travels by plane. She filed claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and false imprisonment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma denied the government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity but granted the government's motion to dismiss the IIED claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court also denied Mengert's motion for leave to amend her complaint and granted the government's motion for summary judgment on the false imprisonment claim. Mengert appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit first affirmed the district court's jurisdiction, concluding that TSOs are "investigative or law enforcement officers" under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), thus waiving sovereign immunity for Mengert’s claims. However, the court found that Mengert failed to allege sufficiently severe emotional distress to sustain an IIED claim under Oklahoma law. The court also held that Mengert's false imprisonment claim, treated as a false arrest claim, failed because she did not challenge the lawfulness of her detention but rather the conduct during the detention, which is not sufficient under Oklahoma law.Finally, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Mengert's motion for leave to amend her complaint, finding no "good cause" for the delay in filing the motion. Consequently, the court affirmed all the district court's decisions. View "Mengert v. United States" on Justia Law