Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

On September 12, 2019, the defendant drove his truck across the center line on a Logan County road, colliding head-on with another vehicle driven by Brittany Duty. The crash resulted in both vehicles catching fire, causing severe injuries to Brittany Duty and the death of her passenger, Beverly Duty. First responders noted the defendant exhibited signs of intoxication, including slurred speech, combative behavior, and the smell of alcohol. Blood samples were taken at two hospitals: one within two hours of the collision, showing a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .263 percent, and another six to seven hours later, showing a BAC of .131 percent. The defendant was indicted for causing death and serious bodily injury while driving in an impaired state.The Circuit Court of Logan County denied the defendant’s pre-trial motions to exclude the BAC test results, finding the first sample was drawn within two hours of the collision and would be admissible if analyzed according to state health standards. The court also ruled the second sample, taken pursuant to a warrant and outside the statutory two-hour window, would be admissible, with its timing affecting its weight, not its admissibility. The defendant entered conditional guilty pleas, reserving the right to appeal these evidentiary rulings.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the circuit court’s decisions de novo for legal conclusions and under a clearly erroneous standard for factual findings. The Court held that the blood test taken within two hours of the collision was admissible as presumptive evidence of impairment, and the second test, though not qualifying for statutory presumptions, was admissible under the Rules of Evidence. The Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the motions in limine and upheld the defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Conley" on Justia Law

After being rear-ended in 2018, the plaintiff claimed various injuries including concussion, neck pain, cognitive deficits, psychological issues, and TMJ dysfunction. She settled with the at-fault driver’s insurer for $45,000 but believed her damages exceeded that amount. She sought $25,000—the full underinsured motorist (UIM) policy—from her own insurer, Safeco. Safeco evaluated her claim, excluded certain medical expenses such as TMJ treatment, and initially offered $4,000, inviting further negotiation. The plaintiff rejected this and filed suit for breach of contract, enhanced damages (Hayseeds), and violations of the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act (WVUTPA).The case originated in West Virginia state court but was removed by Safeco to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. During discovery, the plaintiff produced new expert reports estimating much higher damages. Safeco then offered the full UIM policy limit of $25,000, which was memorialized in a joint motion signed by both parties, explicitly resolving the claim for policy proceeds and leaving only extracontractual and bad faith claims. The district court found the contractual claim settled, denied the plaintiff’s attempt to later seek reformation for higher policy limits, and granted summary judgment to Safeco on all claims. It found Safeco’s conduct reasonable and no evidence of a pattern of unfair trade practices.Reviewing the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment. The court held the breach of contract claim was resolved for $25,000 based on undisputed settlement evidence, rejected the plaintiff’s reformation argument, found Safeco’s conduct did not necessitate litigation for Hayseeds damages, and concluded there was no evidence of a general business practice violating WVUTPA. The judgment and orders of the district court were affirmed. View "Kreitzer v. Safeco Insurance Company of America" on Justia Law

A woman, acting as personal representative of her late husband's estate, brought a medical negligence action after her husband died following treatment at the University of South Alabama Hospital. She alleged that various doctors and U.S.A. Healthcare Management, LLC (HCM) failed to provide adequate care, leading to his death. HCM employed the hospital staff involved and was created by the University of South Alabama (USA) to manage its healthcare system. The plaintiff claimed HCM was vicariously liable for the doctors’ alleged negligence.HCM moved for dismissal or summary judgment in the Mobile Circuit Court, arguing it was entitled to State immunity based on its relationship to USA, a State institution. HCM presented affidavits and documentation showing USA was its sole member and manager, and that HCM’s finances were intertwined with USA. The plaintiff opposed, arguing HCM was a separately created LLC under Alabama law, formed to shield USA from certain liabilities, and operated as an independent entity. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of HCM, finding it was entitled to immunity, and later certified the judgment as final for appeal.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case de novo. It examined whether HCM, as an LLC created by a State agency, qualified as a State agency for purposes of immunity under Article I, § 14, of the Alabama Constitution. Applying the factors from Armory Commission of Alabama v. Staudt, the court determined HCM’s powers and functions were typical of private entities, not unique to government, and its relationship with USA did not override its separate legal status as an LLC. The court held HCM was not entitled to State immunity and reversed the circuit court’s summary judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Marsh v. U.S.A. Healthcare Management, LLC" on Justia Law

Linda Fay Campbell underwent kidney surgery at St. Dominic-Jackson Memorial Hospital, during which her colon was unintentionally perforated. Campbell subsequently required additional surgery by Dr. Jeffery Glover to address the perforation. Later, a surgical sponge was discovered in Campbell’s abdomen from the prior surgery, requiring yet another operation by Dr. Glover. Campbell initially filed a medical-negligence personal injury suit against Dr. Tanaka, Dr. Glover, and St. Dominic. She passed away while the suit was pending, and her estate and wrongful death beneficiaries sought to pursue claims related to her death and pre-death injuries.After Campbell’s death, her attorneys filed a suggestion of death and indicated an amended complaint would be filed on behalf of her estate and wrongful death beneficiaries. However, the motion to substitute parties was not timely under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 25. The parties agreed to dismiss Dr. Tanaka with prejudice and later dismissed the original suit without prejudice, preserving claims for wrongful death. Torrie Campbell Knight, as administratrix, then filed a new complaint alleging wrongful death against Dr. Glover and others. As discovery progressed, St. Dominic and Dr. Tanaka were dismissed, leaving Dr. Glover as the sole defendant. Dr. Glover moved for summary judgment, arguing that no act or omission by him proximately caused Campbell’s death and that any personal injury claims were barred.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed whether the wrongful death complaint adequately pled a separate personal-injury-survival claim. The Court held that the complaint only asserted a wrongful death claim under the wrongful death statute and did not include a distinct personal-injury-survival claim. Therefore, the Court found summary judgment for Dr. Glover was proper, reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, reinstated, and affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. View "Knight v. Glover" on Justia Law

Two separate cases were filed in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County by administrators of the estates of deceased individuals who died while incarcerated in West Virginia regional jails. The plaintiffs alleged that jail staff and medical providers failed to respond to the decedents’ serious medical needs, resulting in death or injury. Both complaints included claims against the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) for negligence, negligent training, and “deliberate indifference in violation of clearly established West Virginia law,” but explicitly disclaimed reliance on federal law or constitutional claims, instead seeking damages under state common law.DCR moved to dismiss the deliberate indifference counts, arguing that West Virginia common law does not recognize a standalone cause of action for “deliberate indifference to clearly established law.” The Circuit Court denied the motions, concluding that such a claim was recognized by prior West Virginia Supreme Court decisions and supported by decisions from the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA). DCR then filed petitions in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia seeking writs of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the circuit court orders denying dismissal.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the matter and granted the writs of prohibition. The Court held that a claim for damages for “deliberate indifference to clearly established law” is not cognizable under the common law of West Virginia. The Court determined that prior decisions, including Nobles v. Duncil, did not establish such a cause of action, but rather recognized deliberate indifference as a legal standard in constitutional claims, most often under federal law. The orders by the Circuit Court were found to be clearly erroneous as a matter of law and thus were prohibited from enforcement. View "State ex rel. Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Salango" on Justia Law

After being injured in a motorcycle accident, the plaintiff was transported to a designated trauma center and diagnosed with a thoracic vertebra fracture. Initially, a non-surgical treatment was recommended, but the defendant physician offered surgery as an alternative, which the plaintiff chose. Following surgery, the plaintiff suffered permanent paraplegia. He later experienced a stroke, and his life care plan was updated to reflect increased needs after this event. The plaintiff sued the physician for medical negligence, alleging failures in preoperative and intraoperative care, and sought compensatory damages. At trial, issues arose regarding the timeliness and scope of expert witness disclosures, as well as the connection between the surgery and later stroke.In the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, a jury found for the plaintiff, awarding substantial damages and finding the physician not only negligent but reckless. The court denied the defendant’s motions for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law, including arguments that West Virginia’s Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA) “Trauma Cap” should limit damages. The defendant appealed, challenging the court’s rulings on the Trauma Cap and procedural matters. The West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in part, but reversed on one issue: it found the trial court abused its discretion by striking a late-disclosed expert opinion on life expectancy, and remanded for a new trial solely on damages.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. It held that the physician bore the burden to invoke and prove the factual predicates for the Trauma Cap’s application, which he failed to do. The court affirmed that the MPLA Trauma Cap did not apply and upheld most trial court rulings. However, it reversed the appellate court’s order for a new trial on damages, finding no abuse of discretion in striking the late life expectancy expert opinion. The September 12, 2022, judgment was reinstated. View "Orphanos v. Rodgers" on Justia Law

A dispute arose following a 2016 chlorine gas leak at a chemical plant in West Virginia, where IPI, Inc. employees, including its president, Matthew Joseph Taylor, were injured and IPI’s equipment was damaged while performing power washing and industrial painting services for Westlake Chlor-Vinyls Corporation and Westlake Natrium LLC (collectively Westlake). The parties operated under two interrelated service agreements containing indemnity provisions. After the incident, IPI and Taylor sued Westlake for personal injury and property damage. Westlake counterclaimed, arguing that IPI breached the indemnity agreements by bringing suit and owed Westlake indemnification for Taylor’s claims.The Circuit Court of Marshall County applied Pennsylvania law, granted summary judgment to Westlake, and found the indemnity agreements clearly required IPI to indemnify Westlake, even for claims arising from Westlake’s own negligence, except in cases of Westlake’s sole negligence or willful misconduct. The court ruled that IPI’s claims fell within the scope of the agreements, including damages from the chlorine gas release, and certified its order as final under Rule 54(b). On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the application of Pennsylvania law but concluded that the circuit court erred by not analyzing the possible conflict between the two indemnity provisions and by insufficiently explaining why the claims fell within their scope. The ICA remanded for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the ICA’s decision de novo, holding that the two indemnity provisions should be read together, not in conflict, and that both unequivocally require IPI to indemnify Westlake for its own negligence. However, the court found ambiguities regarding the scope of indemnity and the application of exceptions, necessitating factual development through parol evidence. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case with directions to the circuit court. View "Westlake Chlor-Vinyls Corp. v. IPI, Inc." on Justia Law

A resident of Anderson, South Carolina alleged he suffered burns when a lithium-ion battery in his vape pen exploded in Charleston. He claimed that a South Korean corporation manufactured the battery, which he purchased from a local retailer. The complaint asserted that the manufacturer had significant contacts with South Carolina, including the distribution and sale of lithium-ion batteries and knowledge that such batteries were being sold individually for use in vape pens without adequate safety protections. The plaintiff also referenced other similar lawsuits in South Carolina and alleged that the manufacturer knew its batteries were reaching consumers in the state.The manufacturer moved to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it only sold batteries in packs to commercial customers, not individual consumers, and therefore the plaintiff’s injury did not arise out of its contacts with South Carolina. The Circuit Court granted the motion to dismiss, finding no personal jurisdiction. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, over a dissent.The Supreme Court of South Carolina reviewed the case on certiorari and reversed the lower courts’ rulings. It held that South Carolina courts may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer. The court reasoned that the manufacturer had purposefully availed itself of the South Carolina market for lithium-ion batteries, including the type at issue, and that the plaintiff’s claims arose out of or related to the manufacturer’s contacts with the state. The court found that due process permits jurisdiction under these circumstances, as it does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The Supreme Court concluded that the manufacturer must defend itself in South Carolina for conduct related to its activities in the state. View "Fleming v. LG Chem Ltd." on Justia Law

A child was injured during a gymnastics class at a facility known as The Little Gym of West Boylston. Her grandmother enrolled her in classes, and her father signed a liability waiver during both the initial and subsequent enrollments. The injury occurred while the child attempted to sit on a piece of equipment and fell, with a coach present at the time. The child, through her mother, brought a negligence claim against the facility, alleging a failure to properly supervise.The Worcester Superior Court reviewed the case on a motion for summary judgment. The facility argued that the liability waiver signed by the child's father barred the negligence claim. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the facility, determining that the waiver was not part of a "contract for health club services" under the relevant Massachusetts statute (G. L. c. 93, § 80). The child appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case from the Appeals Court on its own initiative.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the facility qualifies as a "health club" under the statute and that the liability waiver, together with the enrollment paperwork and payment, constituted a "contract for health club services." The Court further found that the negligence claim arose from the child's activities at the facility. As a result, the waiver is prohibited by the statute and is void and unenforceable. The Court vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the waiver does not bar the negligence claim. View "Cross v. BeFree Enterprises, LLC" on Justia Law

A train carrying hazardous chemicals derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, resulting in a release of dangerous substances into the environment. This incident led to a class-action lawsuit involving nearly half a million residents. After extensive environmental testing and expert analysis, both sides reached a settlement to avoid prolonged litigation. The settlement established a $600 million fund, allowing residents to receive direct payments and, if desired, additional compensation for waiving personal injury claims. Those with extraordinary losses or injuries could submit claims for further individualized consideration.Prior to this appeal, some objectors challenged the settlement, asserting that class counsel should have reviewed and disclosed more expert evidence regarding long-term risks. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, after a fairness hearing, approved the settlement and rejected these objections. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that approval, citing the adequacy and fairness of the settlement process and the sufficiency of the evidence considered.A small group of residents who had waived personal injury claims subsequently sought relief from the settlement, alleging fraud and misconduct by class counsel and Norfolk Southern. The Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of relief under Rule 60 for abuse of discretion. The court held that the movants failed to demonstrate fraud on the court, fraud by an opposing party, or extraordinary circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(3), 60(d)(3), or 60(b)(6). The court further concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing. The main holding is that the settlement approval stands and the movants are not entitled to relief from judgment. The disposition by the Sixth Circuit is affirmed. View "In re: E. Palestine Train Derailment" on Justia Law