Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Paul Grosz was injured while helping his friend Gregory Kisling hang a crucifix in Kisling’s home. Grosz fell from a homemade scaffolding when the wire holding the crucifix broke, resulting in significant injuries including broken ribs, a spinal fracture, and a traumatic brain injury. Grosz sued Kisling for negligence, and the jury awarded Grosz $1.2 million in noneconomic damages but found Kisling only 25% at fault, attributing 75% of the fault to Grosz.The Superior Court of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, presided over by Judge Josie Garton, handled the case. After the jury's verdict, Grosz requested the court to determine if his injuries qualified for a higher statutory cap on noneconomic damages due to severe permanent physical impairment or severe disfigurement. The court denied this request, stating it was a jury issue that Grosz had not properly raised during the trial. The court then applied the comparative fault percentages, reducing the $1.2 million award to $300,000 (25% of $1.2 million). The court found this amount was below the $400,000 statutory cap on noneconomic damages and did not reduce it further.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. The main issue on appeal was whether the superior court should have first applied the statutory cap on noneconomic damages before apportioning fault. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision, holding that the correct sequence is to first allocate fault and then apply the statutory cap if necessary. The court reasoned that this approach respects the jury’s role in determining the actual loss and aligns with legislative intent to cap a defendant’s exposure without further reducing an already capped amount. Thus, Grosz’s recovery of $300,000 was upheld, as it was below the statutory cap. View "Kisling v. Grosz" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Alexandria Kazarian, filed a negligence lawsuit against New London County Mutual Insurance Company after a trip-and-fall accident near property owned by the defendant’s insured, Irene Swiney. Kazarian alleged that Swiney allowed a vehicle to be parked in a manner that obstructed the sidewalk, causing her to walk into the street and trip over an unsecured gas cap, resulting in injury. After Swiney passed away, New London was substituted as the defendant.In the Superior Court, a jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of New London. Kazarian’s motion for a new trial was denied. She argued that Swiney was negligent for allowing the vehicle to obstruct the sidewalk and that a master-servant relationship existed between Swiney and the vehicle owner, making Swiney liable. The trial justice denied the motion, stating it was within the jury’s purview to evaluate the evidence and witness credibility.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case. Kazarian contended that the trial justice erred in denying her motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial. She also argued that the trial justice’s use of the word “redacted” in response to a jury question was prejudicial. The Supreme Court found that reasonable minds could differ on whether the vehicle obstructed the sidewalk and whether it was a reasonable and necessary use of the sidewalk. The Court also noted that Kazarian failed to object contemporaneously to the alleged golden rule violation and the grass-growth argument during the trial, thus waiving those issues.The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, concluding that the trial justice conducted an appropriate analysis and did not err in his decisions. The case was remanded to the Superior Court. View "Kazarian v. New London County Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Bradley Dobbs filed a complaint against Dollar General Corporation on November 21, 2022, alleging that on November 13, 2020, he was falsely accused of shoplifting by the store manager, Devan Callahan, in front of other customers and his granddaughter. Dobbs claimed that this false accusation caused him embarrassment, humiliation, and emotional distress, leading to medical treatment for anxiety, stress, and depression. He sought $74,000 in damages for the wrongful, negligent, and malicious infliction of emotional and mental distress by Dollar General's employee.The Pike County County Court initially granted Dollar General's motion to dismiss due to Dobbs's failure to timely respond. However, the court set aside this judgment after Dobbs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and for an extension of time to respond. After a hearing, the trial court found that the three-year statute of limitations for negligence applied and denied Dollar General's motion to dismiss. Dollar General then petitioned for an interlocutory appeal, which was granted, along with a motion to stay the trial court proceedings.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and determined that Dobbs's claim was essentially one of defamation, specifically slander, rather than negligence. The court held that the one-year statute of limitations for defamation applied, as the substance of Dobbs's claim was that Dollar General falsely accused him of shoplifting in the presence of others. Since Dobbs filed his complaint more than one year after the incident, the court found the claim to be time-barred. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the trial court's order and rendered judgment in favor of Dollar General, dismissing Dobbs's complaint. View "Dollar General Corporation v. Dobbs" on Justia Law

Denise Evans was diagnosed with a ureteral injury shortly after undergoing a hysterectomy on August 14, 2019. She filed a negligence lawsuit in state court against the surgeon and associated medical entities. The surgeon was employed by a federally-funded health center, and the Attorney General certified that he was acting within the scope of his employment, allowing the United States to substitute itself as the defendant under the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). The government removed the case to federal court and requested dismissal due to Evans's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court dismissed the claims against the government without prejudice and remanded the claims against the non-governmental defendants to state court.Evans then exhausted her administrative remedies by filing a claim with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which was received on September 23, 2021. After HHS failed to render a final disposition within six months, Evans filed a lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), asserting medical negligence. The government moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the claim was barred by the FTCA’s two-year statute of limitations. Evans contended that the Westfall Act’s savings provision and the doctrine of equitable tolling should apply. The district court disagreed and dismissed the suit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Westfall Act’s savings provision does not apply when the United States substitutes itself as a party under § 233(c) of the PHSA. The court also found that equitable tolling was inapplicable, as Evans did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances preventing her from timely filing her claim. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Evans's lawsuit. View "Evans v United States" on Justia Law

Edward Burrell, an inmate at Clarke County Jail, suffered a heart attack while serving a sentence. Chief Deputy Sheriff and Jail Administrator Tyler Norris drove Burrell to the hospital instead of calling an ambulance and released him from jail to avoid medical costs. Burrell died shortly after arriving at the hospital. Barbara Donald, administratrix of Burrell's estate, claimed that Norris's actions delayed medical care and caused Burrell's death, bringing a federal constitutional claim and an Alabama wrongful-death claim.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama denied Norris's motion for summary judgment on both claims. The court held that Norris was not entitled to qualified immunity because he acted outside his discretionary authority by releasing Burrell early. The court also found that a reasonable jury could determine Norris's actions violated Burrell's constitutional rights. The court did not address whether Norris's actions violated clearly established law. For the wrongful-death claim, the court denied summary judgment under Alabama’s jailer immunity statute, concluding Norris was not acting within the scope of his duties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Norris acted within his discretionary authority when he decided to drive Burrell to the hospital. The court emphasized that the discretionary-authority inquiry focuses on the general nature of the action, not whether the officer made the correct decision. The court found that Norris's actions did not violate any clearly established constitutional right and concluded that Norris was entitled to qualified immunity for the federal claim, reversing the district court's denial of summary judgment.Regarding the state wrongful-death claim, the court noted that the district court conflated state immunity with statutory jailer immunity. The court vacated the district court's denial of summary judgment on the state claim and remanded for the district court to determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and, if so, to decide the issue of state immunity. View "Donald v. Norris" on Justia Law

A constable, Deborah Martinez-Garibay, was fatally shot while attempting to serve a writ of restitution to a tenant who had threatened a resident with a gun. The tenant also killed Angela Fox, who was accompanying Garibay, and another individual before taking his own life. Angela's surviving spouse, William Fox, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Garibay's spouse, Pima County, and the Arizona Constable Ethics, Standards and Training Board, alleging negligence and gross negligence on Garibay's part.The Superior Court of Pima County denied Garibay's spouse's motion for judgment on the pleadings, which argued that Garibay was entitled to judicial immunity and owed no duty to Angela. The Court of Appeals accepted special action jurisdiction and reversed the Superior Court's decision, holding that Garibay was judicially immune from liability as her actions did not constitute "misconduct" under A.R.S. § 11-449.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case to determine whether the common law doctrine of judicial immunity shields constables from liability under A.R.S. § 11-449. The court held that § 11-449 limits, rather than abrogates, judicial immunity. It concluded that a constable who engages in "misconduct" in the service or execution of a writ is subject to liability. The court defined "misconduct" as an intentional violation of an applicable rule, standard, or norm, rather than mere negligence or gross negligence.The court found that Fox's complaint did not allege that Garibay engaged in "misconduct" as defined by the statute, but rather that she was negligent or grossly negligent. Therefore, the court concluded that Garibay was entitled to judicial immunity and reversed the lower court's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "GARIBAY v FOX" on Justia Law

Catherine Kuo was killed while volunteering at a food distribution event organized by the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). Her family and estate sued DUSD for negligence and premises liability, alleging failure to implement and communicate safety protocols. DUSD moved for summary judgment, arguing that Labor Code section 3364.5, which deems school volunteers as employees entitled to workers' compensation benefits, barred the plaintiffs' claims.The Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, granted DUSD’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that section 3364.5 applied, providing that workers' compensation was the sole remedy for any injury, including death, sustained by volunteers while performing their duties. The court found that the statute's plain language and legislative history supported this interpretation, and thus, it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the term "any injury" in section 3364.5 unambiguously includes fatal injuries. The court also determined that DUSD’s resolution, which declared volunteers entitled to workers' compensation benefits, satisfied the statutory requirement, even though it did not explicitly use the word "deemed." The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the statute did not apply because DUSD did not treat its volunteers as employees in practice, noting that the statute did not require such conduct.The appellate court concluded that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of DUSD, affirming that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy for the plaintiffs' claims. View "Kuo v. Dublin Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

Roxanne Perez was shopping at a Circle K convenience store when she tripped over a store display of bottled water and injured herself. She sued Circle K for negligence and premises liability, claiming that the store had notice of the dangerous condition and failed to remedy it or warn her. Perez argued that Circle K owed her a duty of care as a business invitee to keep the store in a reasonably safe condition.The Superior Court in Maricopa County granted summary judgment in favor of Circle K, finding that the store did not owe Perez a duty because the water display was an open and obvious condition. The court reasoned that Perez would have seen the display had she looked down, and therefore, it did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm. The Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the Superior Court's decision in a divided opinion.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case and concluded that whether the store display was an unreasonably dangerous condition is not relevant to the issue of duty. The court held that Circle K owed Perez a duty of care as a business invitee to keep the store in a reasonably safe condition. The determination of whether the display was unreasonably dangerous pertains to whether Circle K breached its duty, not whether a duty existed. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' opinion in part, reversed the Superior Court's summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Perez v. Circle K" on Justia Law

Judy Brown, a biracial woman, was hired by Conagra Brands, Inc. in October 1997. After a workplace injury in 2015, she became disabled and filed a workers' compensation claim in 2017. Conagra temporarily transferred her to a different position as an accommodation and continued paying her at the higher rate until July 2020, when her work restrictions became permanent, and her pay was reduced. Following the death of a colleague, Conagra posted job openings, and Brown applied for a position but was not selected. She was assigned to less favorable shifts and subsequently filed discrimination charges. Brown was fired in December 2021 and sued Conagra, alleging race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and violation of Nebraska common law.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted Conagra’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Brown did not challenge the district court’s finding that her race and disability discrimination claims based on the July 2020 pay reduction were time-barred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Brown failed to plead sufficient facts to support her claims. Specifically, she did not provide enough details to infer race discrimination, did not plausibly allege a disability under the ADA or NFEPA, and did not establish a causal connection for her retaliation claims. Additionally, the court found that Brown did not state a plausible claim for common law unlawful retaliation, as she did not allege any immediate precipitating events or facts that could infer a causal nexus between her workers' compensation claim and the adverse employment actions. View "Brown v. Conagra Brands, Inc." on Justia Law

Cedric Galette initiated a negligence action against Julie McCrey and New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit) in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Galette alleged that he was injured when a vehicle operated by McCrey, in which he was a passenger, was struck by an NJ Transit vehicle. NJ Transit, an instrumentality of the State of New Jersey, filed a motion to dismiss the suit, invoking interstate sovereign immunity. The trial court denied the motion.NJ Transit appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the trial court's decision. The Superior Court held that NJ Transit is not an instrumentality or arm of the State of New Jersey and, therefore, is not entitled to sovereign immunity protections. The court applied a six-factor test from Goldman v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority to determine NJ Transit's status and concluded that the factors did not support NJ Transit's claim to sovereign immunity.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case to determine whether the United States Supreme Court's decision in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (Hyatt III) compels a conclusion that interstate sovereign immunity bars Galette’s suit against NJ Transit. The court held that NJ Transit is indeed an arm of the State of New Jersey, emphasizing the statutory classification of NJ Transit as an instrumentality of the state, the degree of control the state exercises over it, and its core function of providing public transportation, which is a governmental function. Consequently, the court reversed the Superior Court's judgment, resulting in the dismissal of Galette’s suit against NJ Transit. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings regarding Galette’s claims against McCrey. View "Galette v. New Jersey Transit" on Justia Law