Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Gerald Lorbiecki, a steamfitter, was diagnosed with and later died from mesothelioma, a disease caused by asbestos exposure. He alleged that part of his exposure occurred while working at Pabst Brewing Company’s brewery in the mid-1970s, where he was employed by an independent contractor. The facility contained extensive asbestos-insulated piping, and Lorbiecki and other workers removed and replaced this insulation using methods that generated airborne asbestos dust. Evidence showed that Pabst was aware of the presence and dangers of asbestos during this period but did not undertake abatement or enforce protective measures.The Milwaukee County Circuit Court, after dismissing Lorbiecki’s common-law negligence claim, allowed his claim under Wisconsin’s safe-place statute to proceed. At trial, a jury found Pabst liable under the statute for failing to provide a safe workplace, awarded compensatory and punitive damages, and apportioned liability among Pabst and several non-party companies. The court entered judgment for Lorbiecki against Pabst, applying statutory caps to certain damages and including a portion of liability attributed to another company based on the non-delegable duty under the safe-place statute.On appeal, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals largely affirmed the trial court’s rulings. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed the case and held that Pabst could be liable under the safe-place statute to an employee of an independent contractor, as the statute imposes a heightened, non-delegable duty of care that supersedes common-law limitations. The Court also found sufficient evidence to allow the jury to consider punitive damages. However, it ruled that the statutory cap on punitive damages applies only to the compensatory damages recoverable from the sole remaining defendant, Pabst, and not to the total compensatory damages found by the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals. View "Estate of Lorbiecki v. Pabst Brewing Company" on Justia Law

Wayne and Kristin Betts brought a products liability lawsuit against Toyota after Wayne Betts was injured and paralyzed in a single-vehicle rollover accident while driving a 2002 Toyota Sequoia. The accident occurred in Oklahoma while Wayne was traveling for work, but both he and his wife were Texas residents. The vehicle had been designed in Japan, manufactured in Indiana, sold new in Georgia, resold to Wayne’s grandmother in Texas in 2015, and then retitled in Wayne’s name in Texas in 2016. At the time of the accident, the Sequoia was registered, titled, tagged, and garaged in Texas, and Wayne primarily lived and worked in Texas, though he traveled to Oklahoma for short-term work assignments.Toyota moved for summary judgment in the District Court, arguing that Texas’s 15-year statute of repose barred the Betts’ claims, as the vehicle had been originally sold more than 15 years before the accident. The Betts contended that Oklahoma law should apply because the accident and injury occurred there and Wayne had significant work contacts with Oklahoma. The District Court, using the “most significant relationship” test from Brickner v. Gooden, granted summary judgment to Toyota, holding that Texas law applied and barred the claim. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, concluding that Oklahoma law should govern and the claim was not barred.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and held that Texas had the most significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence for purposes of applying the statute of repose. The Court concluded that Texas’s statute of repose barred the Betts’ products liability claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals and affirmed the judgment of the District Court. View "BETTS V. TOYOTA" on Justia Law

On Christmas Eve, Bruce Bunting slipped and fell outside a CVS store in the District of Columbia on a walkway covered with a mix of water and salt or de-icing material, resulting in a serious ankle injury. Photographs taken soon after showed a wet but not icy surface. Bunting and his wife sued CVS in D.C. Superior Court, alleging negligence, negligence per se, and loss of consortium under D.C. law. They argued CVS failed to maintain a safe walkway and did not adequately warn of the hazard. Both sides retained expert witnesses to address whether the walkway met the standard of care, focusing on its static coefficient of friction (COF); the parties agreed a COF below 0.50 indicated a dangerously slippery surface.After CVS removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, that court granted summary judgment to CVS. The district court concluded the plaintiffs were required to present expert testimony showing the walkway was below the COF standard, and found the plaintiffs’ expert testing insufficient because it did not replicate the precise mix of salt and water present at the time of the fall. The court also granted CVS summary judgment on the negligence per se claim, holding that the cited municipal safety regulation did not establish a duty different from the common law standard of care.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court held that the parties’ expert evidence created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the walkway was unreasonably slippery, making summary judgment inappropriate on the negligence claim. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for CVS on the negligence per se claim, finding that the municipal regulation at issue merely repeated the common law duty of reasonable care. The court vacated the district court’s judgment in part and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bunting v. District of Columbia CVS Pharmacy, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff brought a suit under Puerto Rico law after her mother died while residing in an assisted living facility. The plaintiff alleged that the facility's staff, including a licensed practical nurse, incorrectly informed treating physicians that her mother was a Jehovah's Witness. As a result, necessary blood transfusions were not administered, and the mother died from heart failure. The facility’s insurer had denied coverage for the incident under its general liability policy, claiming that the alleged wrongful acts were excluded as “professional services.”The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico first granted partial summary judgment for the insurer, finding that certain actions—such as failing to call 911—were excluded as “professional services,” but allowed the case to proceed on claims related to record-keeping and miscommunication, concluding those were not “professional services” under existing precedent. After the case was reassigned, the new district judge reaffirmed that ruling, and a damages trial resulted in a verdict against the facility. Subsequent to a decision by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court in Rivera-Matos v. Commonwealth, which clarified the scope of “professional services” exclusions, the district judge permitted the insurer to relitigate the coverage issue, ultimately finding that the exclusion did apply to the acts in question and entering judgment for the insurer.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the plaintiff had forfeited her argument that the Puerto Rico Supreme Court’s decision should not be applied retroactively, as she had not raised it below. The court further found no plain error in the application of the new precedent. The judgment of the district court in favor of the insurer was affirmed. View "Garcia-Navarro v. Universal Insurance Company" on Justia Law

After Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana in August 2021, Terrebonne Parish, which operates Houma’s electric system, requested help from Lafayette Utilities Systems (LUS) to restore power. LUS, in turn, sought assistance from the City of Wilson, North Carolina, leading to mutual aid agreements signed by Terrebonne Parish, LUS, and the City of Wilson. As a result, thirteen City of Wilson employees, including Kevin Ray Worrell, traveled to Louisiana to assist with power restoration. These workers stayed in Lafayette and commuted daily to Houma. On September 10, 2021, while driving a City of Wilson vehicle back to the hotel after work, Worrell was involved in an accident, injuring the plaintiffs.The plaintiffs initially filed tort actions in the St. Mary Parish district court, which were consolidated and removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana based on diversity jurisdiction. The defendants moved for dismissal or summary judgment, arguing that Mr. Worrell was entitled to immunity under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act (LHSEADA). The district court agreed, finding that Worrell acted as a “representative” of Terrebonne Parish under the statute and thus was immune from liability. The district court also determined that commuting from the work site fell within emergency preparedness activities covered by the Act.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified questions to the Supreme Court of Louisiana regarding the definition of “representative” under the LHSEADA. The Supreme Court of Louisiana held that Worrell, as an employee of the City of Wilson, North Carolina, working pursuant to mutual aid agreements that explicitly preserved his status as a City of Wilson employee and independent contractor, was not a “representative” of the State of Louisiana or its subdivisions for purposes of LHSEADA immunity. Therefore, he was not entitled to statutory immunity. The Court found it unnecessary to reach the second certified question. View "BREAUX VS. WORRELL" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Wisconsin legislature enacted a statute granting immunity to health care providers from civil liability for certain acts or omissions occurring between March 12, 2020, and July 11, 2020. Savannah Wren, whose pregnancy was considered high risk, experienced the stillbirth of her child after multiple visits to Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital. She alleged negligent care and subsequently filed suit for medical malpractice, wrongful death, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the hospital and associated medical professionals.The Milwaukee County Circuit Court considered the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the immunity provided by WIS. STAT. § 895.4801. Wren challenged the statute’s constitutionality on several grounds, including vagueness, overbreadth, and violations of her rights to redress, jury trial, due process, and equal protection. The circuit court struck her supplemental equal protection claim and ultimately dismissed her complaint with prejudice, finding the statute constitutional.Upon appeal, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal. It held that § 895.4801 was facially unconstitutional because it deprived litigants of their right to a jury trial under Article I, Section 5 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and concluded that the statute was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed only whether § 895.4801 facially violates the state constitutional right to a jury trial. The court held that because the legislature has the authority to abrogate or suspend common law causes of action under Article XIV, Section 13, and because the statute eliminated Wren’s causes of action during the specified period, her right to a jury trial did not attach. The court concluded that § 895.4801 does not implicate the constitutional jury trial right, reversed the court of appeals’ decision, and remanded for further proceedings on other unresolved issues. View "Wren v. Columbia St. Mary's Hospital Milwaukee, Inc." on Justia Law

A man suffered a serious injury to his right index finger in a bandsaw accident and was treated by a plastic surgeon who recommended amputation. The patient refused amputation, and the doctor attempted to salvage the finger through surgery and follow-up care. Another surgeon later treated the patient and ultimately performed a “ray amputation,” removing the entire finger and a portion of the hand. The patient sued the original doctor, alleging that negligent treatment led to an infection and necessitated the more extensive amputation. Medical experts for both sides testified that the initial injury left a very low chance of saving the finger.The case was tried to a jury in a Texas district court, which rendered an 11–1 defense verdict, finding neither the doctor nor the patient proximately caused the injury. The charge included a “loss of chance” instruction, requiring the jury to find the finger had more than a 50% chance of survival with proper care. The patient objected to this instruction before and after the verdict, arguing it was not appropriate under Texas law. After trial, the patient moved for a new trial, attaching a letter from the dissenting juror describing deliberations and alleged confusion about the charge. The district court granted a new trial, later amending its order to provide seven reasons, mainly contesting the “loss of chance” instruction. The doctor sought mandamus relief from the Texas Court of Appeals, which denied relief.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and conditionally granted mandamus relief. The Court held that the district court abused its discretion by ordering a new trial on legally incorrect grounds, including its misunderstanding of the “loss of chance” doctrine, which is recognized under Texas law in both death and injury cases. The Court directed the district court to vacate its new trial order and render judgment on the jury’s verdict. View "IN RE LAPUERTA" on Justia Law

A shopper at a grocery store slipped and fell in a puddle of clear liquid in the toy aisle. She noticed water around her and observed water dripping from a ceiling rafter above the puddle. Her companion, who was nearby, initially thought the water came from the ceiling but later stated he did not actually see a drip. The store manager, responding to the incident, saw water on the floor but no evidence of a leak, and attributed the source to rain, which had ended two hours earlier. The store had experienced multiple roof leaks in the past year due to renovations, but no leaks were reported in the toy aisle before or after the incident. Surveillance footage showed no employee had walked down the aisle in the two hours prior to the fall.The trial court excluded the plaintiff’s expert report and granted summary judgment for the grocery store, finding no evidence of the store’s actual or constructive knowledge of the puddle. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the store’s knowledge of previous leaks elsewhere in the building could raise a fact issue about its constructive knowledge regarding the puddle in the toy aisle. The appellate court also partially reinstated some expert testimony.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that to survive a no-evidence summary judgment in a premises liability slip-and-fall case, a plaintiff must present evidence of how long the dangerous condition existed. The Court concluded there was no evidence addressing the duration of the puddle’s presence. Prior leaks elsewhere in the store, the size of the puddle, or evidence about inspections were insufficient to show constructive knowledge of the puddle at the relevant time and place. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the appellate court’s judgment and reinstated summary judgment for the grocery store. View "H-E-B, L.P. v. PETERSON" on Justia Law

An employee of a plumbing subcontractor was injured when a trench collapsed at a residential construction site, resulting in serious physical and emotional harm. The employee had been directed by his supervisor to enter a trench that did not comply with OSHA safety regulations. The general contractor for the project was not present at the site and only learned of the accident months later, after an OSHA investigation. The subcontractor, not the general contractor, was responsible for the trenching work and the day-to-day safety of its employees.After receiving workers’ compensation and settling gross negligence claims against his co-employees, the injured worker proceeded to trial solely on a negligence claim against the general contractor. The Iowa District Court for Polk County denied the general contractor’s motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, allowing the case to go to a jury, which found the general contractor liable and awarded substantial compensatory and punitive damages.The Supreme Court of Iowa reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The court held that, as a general rule, a general contractor does not owe a duty of care to the employees of an independent contractor. The court found that neither the “retained control” nor “peculiar risk” exceptions to this rule applied. The general contractor did not retain operative control over the subcontractor’s work, either by contract or by conduct, and residential trenching work is not inherently or peculiarly dangerous as a matter of law under Iowa precedent. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Iowa held that the general contractor was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict and reversed the lower court’s ruling. View "Kono v. D.R. Horton, Inc." on Justia Law

Charles Bunning was injured in a motor vehicle collision with Ernest Romero at an intersection in Cheyenne, Wyoming. At the time of the accident, Bunning was driving south on a through highway, exceeding the speed limit and weaving through heavy traffic. Romero, who had stopped at a stop sign on a cross street, waited for what he thought was a safe opportunity, then entered the intersection to turn left. Bunning, changing lanes and accelerating, collided with Romero’s truck as Romero crossed the highway. Both vehicles were damaged, and both drivers suffered injuries.After the incident, Bunning sued Romero for negligence. Romero counterclaimed, alleging Bunning’s negligence caused the crash, but Romero’s counterclaim was settled before trial. The District Court of Laramie County held a bench trial, concluded that both drivers breached their respective duties to operate their vehicles reasonably, and found that their negligence proximately caused Bunning’s injuries and damages. The district court found Bunning was more than fifty percent at fault, due to his speeding and unsafe driving, and under Wyoming’s comparative fault statute (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-109(b)), barred him from recovering damages.On appeal, Bunning argued that as the preferred driver on a through highway, Romero’s failure to yield should make Romero strictly liable, and comparative fault principles should not apply. The Supreme Court of Wyoming rejected this argument, holding that the comparative fault statute applies to all negligence actions, including those involving violations of right-of-way statutes, unless the legislature has expressly provided otherwise. The Supreme Court found the district court’s application of the statute, its findings of fault, and the bar to recovery were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the judgment. View "Bunning v. Romero" on Justia Law