Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Janine Cannizzaro (Plaintiff) was involved in an automobile accident with Stephan Marinyak that caused catastrophic injuries to Plaintiff. Shortly before the accident, Marinyak, who was working for Diane Mayo (Defendant) during the restoration of Defendant's home, had consumed alcohol on the work site before leaving the premises in his car. Plaintiff sued Defendant, alleging negligent supervision, negligent service of alcohol, and reckless service of alcohol. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care where Defendant never served alcohol to Marinyak, had no knowledge that Marinyak was drinking while on her property, had instructed a supervisor that she did not want Marinyak drinking while on her property, and was not present on the day of the accident. View "Cannizzaro v. Marinyak" on Justia Law

The City of Hartford police responded to a report of domestic violence at the apartment where Decedent resided. After the officers left the scene, Decedent was shot and killed. Plaintiff, the administrator of the estate of Decedent, brought a wrongful death action against the City, alleging that the police officers were negligent in failing to remain at the scene of the domestic violence for a reasonable amount of time until the likelihood of imminent violence had been eliminated. The trial court entered summary judgment for the City, concluding that the City was entitled to immunity. The Appellate Court affirmed, determining that any duty for the officers to remain at the scene was discretionary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that any such duty was discretionary, and therefore, Defendant was entitled to immunity from liability. View "Coley v. Hartford" on Justia Law

While intoxicated, Plaintiff stumbled and fell into a bonfire and suffered serious burns. Plaintiff brought an action for negligence and recklessness against Defendant, alleging that Defendant was negligent and reckless in allowing Plaintiff, who was underage, to drink alcohol at Defendant’s home to the point of intoxication and to attend the bonfire while intoxicated. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on contributory negligence because the doctrine was not a legally recognized defense for a claim involving service of alcohol to minors. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly instructed the jury to consider whether the negligence of Plaintiff materially contributed to cause his injuries. View "Stafford v. Roadway" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, as conservator of the person of her daughter, filed a complaint against Defendant, claiming that Defendant committed sexual battery, civil assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury returned a verdict for Defendant, and the trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict. Plaintiff appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in denying her motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial because an exhibit that was not admitted into evidence at trial was mistakenly given to the jury during its deliberations and had the potential to have a prejudicial impact on the jury. The Supreme Court agreed with Plaintiff and reversed, holding (1) the exhibit was not properly admitted into evidence and, therefore, was not properly before the jury; and (2) the submission of that document to the jury constituted reversible error. Remanded for a new trial. View "Kortner v. Martise" on Justia Law

Plaintiff's newborn son died shortly after Plaintiff gave birth. Plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of her son, later brought a medical malpractice action against her obstetrician and nurse midwife and their employer ("Hospital"). Because Hospital was sold to Defendants nine months after the events leading to the present action, Plaintiff also sued Defendants under a theory of successor liability. After reaching a settlement and executing two covenants not to sue, Plaintiff withdrew her claims against Hospital and its employees. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that the covenant not to sue Hospital prevented Plaintiff from seeking to recover from Defendants. The Appellate Court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court, holding that Plaintiff’s execution of the covenant not to sue Hospital in perpetuity foreclosed, as a matter of law, her right of action against Hospital and against any subsequent purchaser of Hospital’s assets under the mere continuation theory of successor liability. View "Robbins v. Physicians for Women's Health, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a professional negligence action against Defendant, a licensed clinical social worker, alleging that Defendant negligently failed to treat Plaintiff after Plaintiff disclosed to Defendant that he had viewed child pornography. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s failure to treat him caused him to be subjected to a police task force raid, which allegedly caused Plaintiff mental distress and other injuries due to potential criminal prosecution. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s amended complaint on the ground that it would violate public policy to allow Plaintiff to profit from his own criminal acts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it would clearly violate public policy to impose a duty on Defendant to protect Plaintiff from injuries arising from his potential criminal prosecution for the illegal downloading, viewing, and/or possession of child pornography. View "Greenwald v. Van Handel" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a father and his son (minor plaintiff), filed a personal injury action when a horse, which was kept at a facility owned by Defendants, bit the minor plaintiff. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendants had actual or constructive notice that the horse had mischievous propensities. The appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the appellate court properly concluded as a matter of law that the keeper of a domestic animal has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent injuries that are foreseeable because the animal belongs to a class of animals that has a propensity to cause such injuries regardless of whether the animal had previously caused an injury; and (2) the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the minor plaintiff's injury was foreseeable because horses have a natural propensity to bite. Remanded. View "Vendrella v. Astriab Family Ltd. P'ship" on Justia Law

Plaintiff retained Defendant, a law firm, to represent Plaintiff in an action against other parties. After Plaintiff settled the underlying suit, Plaintiff filed a breach of contract action against Defendant, alleging that Defendant breached its duty of undivided loyalty and failed to follow Plaintiff’s instructions in the underlying lawsuit. The trial court characterized the allegations against Defendant as sounding in legal malpractice and granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations applicable to legal malpractice claims. At issue on appeal was whether Plaintiff’s cause of action was one for malpractice, to which a three-year statute of limitation applied, or contract, to which a six-year statute of limitations applied. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court correctly characterized Plaintiff’s claim as sounding in legal malpractice. View "Meyers v. Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly, P.C." on Justia Law

Walter Hopkins was severely injured as a result of the second of two vehicle collisions. Hopkins was the passenger in an Infiniti, which struck the side of a vehicle driven by Matthew Vincent, a volunteer firefighter. Vincent pursued the Infiniti at high speeds in his vehicle, at which time he relayed information via cell phone regarding the Infiniti and its location to Ellen Vece, a 911 dispatcher employed by the Town of Clinton. The Infiniti eventually crashed into a tree. Hopkins required permanent care as a result of his injuries. An action was filed on Hopkins' behalf against the Town, among others. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, finding (1) the Town was liable under the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity; and (2) Vece’s failure to act was a proximate cause of Hopkins’ injuries. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the doctrine of governmental immunity did not apply in this case because the circumstances would not have made it apparent to Vece that her failure to instruct Vincent to stop following the Infiniti likely would have subjected Hopkins to imminent harm. View "Edgerton v. Town of Clinton" on Justia Law

In 2003, multiple residents of Greenwood Health Center, a nursing home, died or were injured when another resident set fire to the facility. Thirteen negligence actions seeking damages for wrongful death or serious bodily injury were filed against Greenwood, the lessee of the property housing Greenwood, the owner and lessor of the property, and the operator of Greenwood. Lexington Insurance Company (Plaintiff) brought this declaratory judgment action against the lessor of the Greenwood property, which was the insured party under a policy issued by Plaintiff, the other Greenwood entities, and the victims’ personal representatives. Following the filing of cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court determined the amount of coverage available under the policy and rendered judgment accordingly. Plaintiff appealed the judgment of the trial court determining available coverage, and four of the individual defendants cross appealed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court improperly interpreted the endorsement relating to the aggregate policy limit, thereby providing more coverage for the individual defendants’ claims than that to which they were entitled; and (2) the trial court improperly applied the self-insured retention endorsement to reduce the available coverage. Remanded. View "Lexington Ins. Co. v. Lexington Healthcare Group, Inc." on Justia Law