Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

When thirty-one-year-old Bill Smolinski disappeared, Defendants, Bill’s mother and sister, began to pressure Plaintiff, Bill’s former girlfriend, into cooperating with the investigation by saying disparaging things to Plaintiff’s acquaintances and posting missing person flyers depicting Bill along Plaintiff’s school bus route and near her home. Plaintiff brought this action claiming defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court entered judgment awarding Plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages on her claims. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court’s findings on Plaintiff’s claims of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress did not consider - and were not consistent with - the First Amendment limitations placed on these torts. View "Gleason v. Smolinski" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-school opened a bank account for its operating fund with Defendant-bank. One of Plaintiff’s employees later opened a bank account with Defendant that Plaintiff had not authorized and deposited into that account several hundred checks originating from, or intended to be deposited into, Plaintiff’s bank account with Defendant. Over the course of approximately four years, the employee deposited $832,776 into this bank account and withdrew funds just short of that amount. Defendant refused Plaintiff’s demand to return the funds that the employee had funneled through this account to himself. Thereafter, Plaintiff commenced this action, alleging breach of contract, violations of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), negligence, and common law conversion. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Plaintiff on each of the counts and awarded $832,776 in total compensatory damages. The Supreme Court affirmed in all respects with the exception of the damages award, holding that some of Plaintiff’s claims under the UCC were time barred and that the trial court did not otherwise err in its judgment. Remanded with direction to reduce the award by $5,156 and to proportionately reduce prejudgment interest, . View "Saint Bernard Sch. of Montville, Inc. v. Bank of Am. " on Justia Law

As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Margaret Mueller was mistakenly diagnosed with the incorrect type of cancer. Mueller and her domestic partner of twenty-one years, Charlotte Stacy, brought this medical malpractice action against Defendants, seeking damages for Mueller’s personal injuries and Stacey’s loss of consortium. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion to strike Stacey’s claims on the ground that Stacey and Mueller were not in a civil union or married before or during the dates of the negligent acts. The Appellate Court affirmed on the alternative ground that Plaintiffs failed to state a legally sufficient claim for loss of consortium because they had not alleged that they would have married or entered into a civil union before the dates of Defendants’ negligent acts if they had not been barred from doing so under state law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Appellate Court erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment on grounds distinct from those of the trial court instead of remanding the case to provide Stacey with an opportunity to amend her complaint; and (2) if, on remand, Stacey amends her complaint to allege that she and Mueller would have been married when the underlying tort occurred if they had not been barred from doing so under state law, the trial court must deny Defendants’ motion to strike Stacey’s loss of consortium claims. Remanded. View "Mueller v. Tepler " on Justia Law

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