Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Michael Berkheimer experienced severe medical issues after a chicken bone became lodged in his throat while eating a "boneless wing" at a restaurant. He sued the restaurant, its food supplier, and a chicken farm, alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and other claims. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, stating they were not negligent as a matter of law. Berkheimer appealed, arguing that the court focused on the wrong question by determining whether the bone was natural to the boneless wing.The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court concluded that the presence of a bone in the boneless wing was something a reasonable consumer could have anticipated and guarded against. The court applied a blended analysis, considering both whether the bone was foreign to or natural to the food and whether a consumer could reasonably expect its presence.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The court reaffirmed the analysis from Allen v. Grafton, which blends the "foreign-natural" test and the "reasonable-expectation" test. The court concluded that there was no breach of duty because a reasonable consumer could have expected and guarded against the presence of a bone in the boneless wing. The court emphasized that the label "boneless wing" was a description of the cooking style, not a guarantee of the absence of bones. Therefore, the judgment of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals was affirmed. View "Berkheimer v. REKM, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a U.S. citizen residing in Beirut, Lebanon, filed a defamation lawsuit against three media companies based in Dubai. The companies broadcast a news story on their Arabic language channels, which was rebroadcast in the U.S. via DISH Network and republished on their website and YouTube channel. The plaintiff alleged that the story falsely accused him of helping a Hezbollah leader launder money. The defendants moved to quash the lawsuit, arguing that California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over them due to insufficient contacts with the state.The Los Angeles County Superior Court granted the defendants' motion to quash, finding that the defendants did not have sufficient minimum contacts with California to justify jurisdiction. The court noted that the defendants' primary audience was in the Middle East and North Africa, and their U.S. viewership, including California, was minimal. The court also found that the plaintiff's connections to California were not strong enough to establish jurisdiction.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of the California forum. The court emphasized that the defendants' broadcast was not specifically targeted at California but was part of a broader international distribution. The court also noted that the plaintiff's primary professional and personal connections were in Lebanon, not California, and thus the brunt of any harm from the alleged defamation would be felt in Lebanon. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants' conduct was expressly aimed at California, as required under the "effects test" from Calder v. Jones. The court also upheld the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery, finding that further discovery was unlikely to produce evidence establishing jurisdiction. View "Safieddine v. MBC FZ" on Justia Law

In 2020, several residents at a skilled nursing facility died from coronavirus infections. Family members of the deceased sued the facility and its alleged alter egos, asserting claims including elder abuse, negligence, and wrongful death. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on agreements signed by family members rather than the decedents. The trial court denied the motion, finding no evidence that the family members had authority to sign on behalf of the decedents, and that the agreements did not bind the family members in their individual capacities. For one agreement where a family member had power of attorney, the court exercised its discretion to deny arbitration to avoid conflicting results.The Shasta County Superior Court denied the motion to compel arbitration. It found that the defendants did not provide evidence that the family members had authority to sign the arbitration agreements on behalf of the decedents. Additionally, the court ruled that the agreements did not bind the family members in their individual capacities. For the agreement involving a power of attorney, the court denied arbitration to prevent conflicting rulings between court and arbitration proceedings.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. It affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the defendants failed to establish that the family members were authorized agents of the decedents. The court also found that the family members did not sign the agreements in their individual capacities, and thus were not bound by them. Furthermore, the court upheld the trial court's discretion to deny arbitration for the claim involving a power of attorney to avoid conflicting rulings. The order denying the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Hearden v. Windsor Redding Care Center" on Justia Law

The case involves nine lawsuits filed in Connecticut state court, each asserting state-law personal injury claims related to the use of Zantac. The plaintiffs, represented by the same firm, structured their complaints to avoid federal jurisdiction by including fewer than 100 plaintiffs per suit and ensuring that each suit included a Connecticut plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate these actions, citing Connecticut Practice Book § 9-5, which the defendants argued proposed a joint trial, thus triggering federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut remanded the cases to state court, finding that the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate was intended only for pretrial purposes, not for a joint trial. The district court noted that the plaintiffs' motion cited authority that could be used for either pretrial management or a joint trial but concluded that the context indicated a pretrial purpose, especially given the plaintiffs' efforts to avoid federal jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that CAFA requires a determination of whether the plaintiffs intended to seek a joint trial. The court found that the plaintiffs' motion, when read in context, proposed only pretrial consolidation. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs' consistent efforts to avoid federal jurisdiction supported this interpretation. Thus, the appellate court concluded that the defendants did not meet their burden to demonstrate that federal jurisdiction existed under CAFA. View "Bacher v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc." on Justia Law

Jayde Downey was on the phone with her daughter, Malyah Jane Vance, giving driving directions when Vance was severely injured in a car crash. Downey heard the collision and its immediate aftermath but could not see what caused it. She claims the crash was partly due to the condition of the roadway and sued the City of Riverside and the owners of adjacent private property for negligent infliction of emotional distress.The Riverside County Superior Court sustained the defendants' demurrers without leave to amend, agreeing that Downey could not claim emotional distress damages because she was not aware of the defendants' role in causing the crash at the time it occurred. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Downey needed to show contemporaneous awareness of the causal connection between the defendants' negligence and her daughter's injuries.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and concluded that the Court of Appeal erred. The court held that for purposes of emotional distress recovery, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to be aware of an event that is injuring the victim, not necessarily the defendant’s role in causing the injury. The court emphasized that the requirement is awareness of the injury-producing event, not the specific negligent conduct of the defendant. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Downey v. City of Riverside" on Justia Law

In July 2019, Tyler Blue, an inmate at Spring Creek Correctional Center, assaulted fellow inmate Patrick Torrence, causing abrasions, bruising, a mild concussion, and aggravation of a preexisting hip injury. Blue was criminally charged and pleaded guilty to assault in the fourth degree. In May 2022, Torrence filed a civil complaint against Blue, seeking damages for the injuries he sustained from the assault. Torrence's complaint referenced criminal statutes and sought restitution and compensation under various Alaska Statutes.The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Seward, dismissed Torrence's complaint for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the criminal statutes cited by Torrence did not support a private cause of action. Blue had argued that he could not be subjected to double jeopardy and that the court had already rendered judgment against him in the criminal case, including restitution. Torrence opposed the motion, asserting that the damages ordered in the criminal case were paid to the government, not to him, and that he had not been compensated for his injuries.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and concluded that Torrence's complaint, despite its reliance on criminal statutes, stated a claim for civil battery. The court held that the Superior Court erred in dismissing the complaint because Torrence had alleged facts consistent with a civil tort claim for battery. The court noted that the criminal conviction for assault did not preclude Torrence's civil suit for damages and that double jeopardy did not apply to civil claims. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, including providing procedural guidance to the self-represented litigants. View "Torrence v. Blue" on Justia Law

Ming Zheng, a drilling field engineer, suffered a work-related injury to her right ankle while attempting to disassemble a tool string. She reported the injury and received workers' compensation benefits. Approximately a year later, Zheng sought additional benefits for an injury to her left ankle and requested preauthorization for surgery on her right ankle. The Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division, denied these requests, finding the treatments were not related to her original work injury. The Division also discontinued her temporary total disability benefits after she received a 0% impairment rating.The Wyoming Medical Commission upheld the Division's denial of benefits and discontinuation of temporary total disability benefits after a contested case hearing. The Commission found that Zheng failed to prove the requested treatments for her left ankle were related to her compensable work injury and that the surgery on her right ankle was necessary. The district court affirmed the Medical Commission's decision.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The Court held that substantial evidence supported the Medical Commission's findings that Zheng's left ankle issues were not related to her work injury and that the requested surgery on her right ankle was not necessary. The Court also found that the Medical Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in admitting an addendum to Dr. Orth's independent medical evaluation, as Zheng had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Orth and present rebuttal evidence. The Court concluded that the Medical Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. View "Zheng v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor, was electrocuted while carrying a long-handled aluminum tool at a construction site. The tool either touched or came close to a high-voltage power line owned by the defendant utility company. The plaintiff sustained severe injuries, including amputations and a traumatic brain injury. He filed a lawsuit against the general contractor and the utility company, alleging negligence and premises liability.The Wayne Circuit Court denied the defendants' motions for summary disposition. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the general contractor was not liable under the common work area doctrine and that the utility company did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to survive summary disposition. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding three of the four elements of the common work area doctrine for the general contractor. Specifically, there were factual disputes about the height of the power lines and whether the general contractor took reasonable steps to guard against the danger. The court also found that multiple subcontractors were exposed to the risk, satisfying the requirement of a high degree of risk to a significant number of workers in a common work area.Regarding the utility company, the court found genuine issues of material fact about whether the power lines were properly maintained and whether the injury was foreseeable. The court concluded that the utility company had a duty to ensure the safety of the power lines, given the pre-injury communications and the known dangers of high-reaching conductive tools.The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "El-Jamaly V Kirco Manix Construction Llc" on Justia Law

Dr. Thomas C. Franchini, the former Chief of Podiatry at the Department of Veterans' Affairs Maine Healthcare System at Togus, sued several publishers and reporters for defamation. Franchini alleged that articles written by the defendants, which described malpractice allegations related to his treatment of veterans at VA Togus, were libelous and defamatory. He also claimed negligent infliction of emotional distress and fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation against some defendants.The United States District Court for the District of Maine granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Franchini was a voluntary public figure and had failed to plead actual malice in his Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The court determined that the issues surrounding the quality of care at VA Togus were matters of public concern and that Franchini had voluntarily injected himself into the controversy through his actions, including creating a blog and giving an interview to a reporter. The court also found that Franchini's claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress and fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation were not supported by sufficient evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that a public controversy existed regarding the quality of care at VA Togus and that Franchini had voluntarily become a limited-purpose public figure by engaging in public discussions about the controversy. The court also held that Franchini failed to show that the defendants acted with actual malice, as required for a public figure to succeed in a defamation claim. The court noted that the defendants had conducted due diligence in their reporting and included Franchini's statements in their articles. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Franchini v. Bangor Publishing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Three foreign nationals, crewmembers aboard the vessel MARGUERITA, were detained in the United States after the vessel was held in port in Maine due to alleged improper disposal of bilge water and inaccurate record-keeping. The plaintiffs were ordered to remain in the U.S. as potential material witnesses. They were later allowed to leave but returned for trial and were awarded for their contributions to the conviction of the vessel's operator.The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against various U.S. government entities and officials, alleging violations of their constitutional rights and various tort claims. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine dismissed the Bivens claim and granted summary judgment for the defendants on the FTCA claims. The court found that the plaintiffs' detention and the revocation of their landing permits were authorized and that the plaintiffs did not show that the actions taken by the government officials were unlawful or unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the requirement for ships to maintain an Oil Record Book under 33 C.F.R. § 151.25 is valid and that the plaintiffs' detention was justified under the circumstances. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to establish their claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under the FTCA. Additionally, the court concluded that the Bivens claim presented a new context and that special factors counseled hesitation in extending a Bivens remedy, particularly given the availability of alternative remedies and the implications for government policy and international relations. View "Hornof v. United States" on Justia Law