Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Lois Ann Brown slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart in Lynchburg, Virginia, on January 28, 2021, following a snowstorm the previous night. The snowstorm ended by 6:15 AM, and Brown fell at approximately 8:30 AM. Brown did not see any salt or deicing chemicals on the ground or on her clothing after the fall. The store manager, Anthony Ware, confirmed that he did not see any salt or chemicals in the parking lot. Surveillance footage showed the contractor's truck driving around the parking lot but not stopping or applying any deicing measures.Brown initially filed a negligence lawsuit against Wal-Mart in state court, seeking $300,000 in damages. Wal-Mart removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, holding that Brown failed to show that Wal-Mart had actual or constructive notice of the specific patch of ice and that Brown did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that Wal-Mart breached its duty of care.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the snowstorm itself provided Wal-Mart with notice of the ice and snow in the parking lot, creating a duty to use reasonable care to remove the hazards. The court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Wal-Mart breached its duty of care. The evidence, including conflicting testimonies and surveillance footage, suggested that a reasonable jury could find for either party. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP" on Justia Law

Julie Sprafka underwent knee replacement surgery in August 2016 using the ATTUNE knee replacement system designed by DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. Four years later, she required revision surgery due to the debonding of the tibial baseplate. Sprafka filed a lawsuit against DePuy, claiming strict liability, negligent products liability, and breach of warranties. She later withdrew the warranty claims and proceeded with the products liability claims, alleging defective design and failure to warn.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota reviewed the case. DePuy moved to exclude the opinions of Sprafka’s design defect expert, Dr. Mari S. Truman, and for summary judgment. The district court granted DePuy’s motions, excluding Dr. Truman’s opinions for failing to meet the requirements of Rule 702 and Daubert standards. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of DePuy, as Sprafka could not prove her design defect claim without expert testimony.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that Dr. Truman’s opinions were unreliable and speculative. The appellate court noted that Dr. Truman’s opinions were not based on independent research and lacked scientific scrutiny. The court also found that Sprafka did not preserve the argument that Dr. Kristoffer Breien’s expert opinion alone could support her design defect claim. Additionally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment, as Sprafka failed to provide sufficient expert testimony to support her claims. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Sprafka v. Medical Device Bus. Services" on Justia Law

Mark Mullee, an expert-level skier, was injured at Whitefish Mountain Resort (WMR) after losing control on a beginner-level ski trail and falling down an embankment into a streambed. Mullee had skied this trail over 100 times before the accident. On January 16, 2019, he lost control after exiting a skier’s tunnel and fell, seriously injuring his hip. Mullee claimed that Winter Sports, Inc. (WSI), the operator of WMR, was negligent for not maintaining a fence that would have prevented his fall.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, granted summary judgment in favor of WSI, determining that WSI had no duty to maintain a fence capable of catching Mullee and preventing his fall. The court found that Mullee’s accident was an inherent risk of skiing, for which WSI was not liable under the Montana Skier Responsibility Act (MSRA). The court also granted summary judgment on Mullee’s premises liability claim.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that WSI did not owe a duty of reasonable care to install and maintain fencing to catch Mullee after he lost control. The court emphasized that skiing involves inherent risks, including collisions with natural objects and variations in terrain, which skiers must accept. The court also noted that imposing such a duty on ski area operators would be contrary to public policy and the economic viability of the ski industry. Therefore, the court concluded that WSI was not negligent and upheld the summary judgment in favor of WSI. View "Mullee v. Winter Sports" on Justia Law

Karen Orr tripped on a soft drink display at a Dollar General store in Ackerman, Mississippi, and subsequently fell. After Orr's death, Sandie Keister, on behalf of Orr's estate, sued Dolgencorp for premises-liability negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. During discovery, Dolgencorp failed to produce security camera footage, data from the store’s daily planner, and safety-check data. The district court found that Dolgencorp lost or could not access this evidence. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and Keister also filed a motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granted summary judgment for Dolgencorp on all claims and denied Keister’s motions for summary judgment and sanctions. Keister appealed, arguing that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Dolgencorp on her premises liability claim and in denying her motion for sanctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and affirmed the decision. The court held that Keister failed to provide evidence that Dolgencorp breached its duty to warn Orr of the dangerous condition. Keister's arguments, including the mode-of-operation theory and the duration of the dangerous condition, were insufficient to establish Dolgencorp's liability. The court also affirmed the denial of Keister’s motion for sanctions, finding no evidence that Dolgencorp intended to deprive her of the missing evidence and noting that the request for a jury instruction became moot after summary judgment was granted.The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Keister v. Dolgencorp" on Justia Law

Fire-Dex, a manufacturer of personal protective equipment for firefighters, faced lawsuits from firefighters and their spouses alleging exposure to carcinogens from Fire-Dex's products. These lawsuits were consolidated in multidistrict litigation in South Carolina. Fire-Dex had general commercial liability insurance policies with Admiral Insurance Company and requested Admiral to defend and indemnify it against the lawsuits. Admiral refused, leading to a declaratory judgment action in federal court in Ohio, where the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio initially had diversity jurisdiction over Admiral's declaratory judgment action but chose to abstain from exercising it, a decision affirmed by the Sixth Circuit. Subsequently, Fire-Dex filed a lawsuit in Ohio state court seeking a declaration that Admiral must defend and indemnify it, along with compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract and bad faith. Admiral removed the case to federal court and filed counterclaims for declaratory judgment. Fire-Dex moved to remand the case to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision to remand the declaratory claims and stay the damages claims. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred in abstaining from the declaratory claims under Thibodaux abstention, as the case did not involve unsettled questions of state law intimately involved with state sovereignty. The court also found that abstaining from the declaratory claims was an abuse of discretion because the declaratory and damages claims were closely intertwined, and no traditional abstention doctrine applied to the damages claims. The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Fire-Dex, LLC v. Admiral Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Fatima Belhak experienced complications during childbirth, leading Dr. Denice Smith to perform an episiotomy. Post-delivery, Belhak suffered from pain and infection due to a misdiagnosed fourth-degree laceration, which required delayed reconstructive surgery. Belhak and her husband sued Smith and her employer, Women’s Care Specialists, P.C., for negligence.The Iowa District Court for Scott County held a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict favoring Belhak, awarding her $3.25 million in damages. Smith moved for a new trial, citing insufficient evidence and misconduct by Belhak’s lawyer during closing arguments. The district court denied the motion. Smith appealed, and the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the jury verdict, finding insufficient evidence to support one of the negligence claims.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and vacated the Court of Appeals decision, affirming the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on alleged misconduct by Belhak’s lawyer. The court also held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Smith’s use of 4-0 sutures, which were too weak, caused the wound to break down, leading to infection and delayed surgery. The court concluded that the jury could reasonably infer causation from the expert testimony provided. View "Belhak v. Smith" on Justia Law

A private fencing coach alleged that during a flight, a university’s assistant fencing coach sexually harassed and assaulted her. She reported the incident to the university’s head coach, who discouraged her from reporting it further and, along with the assistant coach, allegedly retaliated against her within the fencing community. The university later investigated and confirmed the harassment but found no policy violation. The coach sued the university, the two coaches, and the Title IX coordinator, claiming violations of Title IX and state-law torts.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina transferred the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania due to improper venue and judicial efficiency. After the transfer, the plaintiff amended her complaint, and the defendants moved to dismiss. The transferee court dismissed the entire suit, holding that the plaintiff, as neither a student nor an employee, was outside the zone of interests protected by Title IX. It also dismissed the state-law tort claims as untimely or implausible.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that the zone-of-interests test applies to Title IX claims and that the plaintiff’s claims related to her exclusion from university-hosted fencing events and retaliation manifesting on campus were within that zone. The court affirmed the dismissal of the state-law tort claims against the university and its employees, except for the claims against the assistant coach, which were not time-barred under North Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations. The case was vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Oldham v. Penn State University" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Cockrum developed mesothelioma after working for Alcoa Inc. for several decades, where he was exposed to asbestos without adequate protective measures. Alcoa was aware of the dangers of asbestos and the potential for long-term health issues, but did not provide sufficient warnings or protections. Cockrum was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2022 and subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against Howmet Aerospace, Inc., the corporate successor to Alcoa, claiming deliberate intent to injure by exposing him to asbestos.The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Howmet, concluding that Cockrum could not meet the deliberate injury exception under Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act (IIA), which requires actual knowledge that injury was certain to occur. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, citing the precedent set in Walston v. Boeing Co., which held that employees could not sue for latent diseases like mesothelioma because they could not meet the required level of certainty.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and overruled the Walston decision, recognizing it as incorrect and harmful. The court held that in cases of latent diseases, virtual certainty is sufficient to prove an employer’s actual knowledge that injury was certain to occur. This new standard does not alter the general requirement for immediate and visible injuries but is limited to latent disease cases. The court remanded the case to the trial court to determine summary judgment under the virtual certainty standard. View "Cockrum v. C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman, Inc." on Justia Law

Respondent George Zeber filed a workers' compensation claim for cumulative injury sustained during his employment with the New York Yankees from 1968 to 1978. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found Zeber had a compensable injury but deferred any award pending further proceedings, including mandatory arbitration of the insurance coverage dispute. Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers) disputed the applicability of mandatory arbitration, arguing it only applies to injuries occurring on or after January 1, 1994, while Zeber's injury occurred no later than 1978.The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found Zeber sustained an injury during his employment but deferred findings on permanent disability and other issues. The WCJ also found the statute of limitations did not bar Zeber’s claim, as he only became aware of his right to file a claim in 2017 or 2018. The WCJ determined the New York Yankees had insurance coverage provided by Travelers and noted that disputes involving the right of contribution must be sent to arbitration. Travelers filed for reconsideration, which the WCAB partially granted, amending the WCJ’s decision to defer the insurance coverage issue to mandatory arbitration.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that section 5275, subdivision (a)(1) applies only to injuries occurring on or after January 1, 1990. The WCJ had not made a finding on the date of injury for purposes of section 5275. The court annulled the WCAB’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, including a determination of the date of injury for the purposes of mandatory arbitration. The court emphasized that the "date of injury" for cumulative injuries should be determined under section 5412, which considers when the employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was work-related. View "Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

Giorgio Webster sued Dr. Jeffrey Osguthorpe and Summit Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, PC, for dental malpractice related to a biopsy. On December 8, 2020, a mandatory case evaluation resulted in an award for Webster, which he accepted, but the defendants rejected. The case proceeded to trial after multiple settlement conferences and facilitations. The jury awarded Webster $68,000 in past economic damages and $2.682 million in noneconomic damages, which was later adjusted to $565,000 due to statutory caps. Webster sought costs, statutory interest, and attorney fees as case-evaluation sanctions under the former MCR 2.403(O), which allowed such sanctions before its amendment on January 1, 2022.The Macomb Circuit Court granted Webster's request for sanctions, applying the former rule, and the parties agreed on reasonable attorney fees. The trial court entered an amended judgment reflecting these fees, statutory interest, and costs. The defendants appealed, and the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the sanctions award, stating that the trial court should not have applied the former rule since the verdict was substantially higher than the case-evaluation award, causing no injustice to Webster.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the trial court had the discretion to apply the former MCR 2.403(O) under MCR 1.102, which allows a court to apply former rules if applying the current rules would work an injustice. The Supreme Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, as Webster had relied on the former rule when making strategic decisions, and all relevant actions occurred before the rule change. The Court of Appeals' judgment was reversed in part, and the trial court's award of case-evaluation sanctions was reinstated. View "Webster v. Osguthorpe" on Justia Law