Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc. appealed a Superior Court judgment on a jury verdict of $2,864,583.33 plus interest to Plaintiff-appellees-cross-appellant Darcel Galliher, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Michael Galliher. The decedent, Michael Galliher, contracted and died from mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos or asbestiform material while employed by Borg Warner at a bathroom fixtures facility. Vanderbilt provided industrial talc to Borg Warner, which was alleged to be the source of the substance that caused Michael's illness. At trial, Vanderbilt denied causation and claimed that Borg Warner was responsible because it did not operate the facility in a manner that was safe for employees like Michael. Vanderbilt argued: (1) the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on the duty of care required of Borg Warner, as Michael's employer; and (2) the trial court erred when it failed to grant a new trial based on the admission of unreliable and inflammatory evidence that previously was ruled inadmissible. Galliher argued on cross-appeal that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it disallowed post-judgment interest for a certain period of months. The Supreme Court found that the trial court erred when it failed to provide any instruction to the jury on Borg Warner's duty of care to Michael, despite Vanderbilt's request that it do so. The trial court also abused its discretion when it denied Vanderbilt's motion for a new trial based upon the substantial prejudice resulting from the admission of evidence, not subject to cross-examination, that it had engaged in criminal conduct. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial. View "R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc., v. Galliher, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Thomas Baird appealed on a number of grounds after a jury found in favor of defendants-appellees, Frank R. Owczarek, M.D., Eye Care of Delaware, LLC, and Cataract and Laser Center, LLC. The litigation stemmed from a LASIK procedure plaintiff received, in which he alleged that as a result of the surgery, he developed ectasia, a vision-threatening corneal disease through the medical negligence of the doctor and centers. Upon review of the issues plaintiff raised on appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the Superior Court’s failure to conduct any investigation into alleged egregious juror misconduct (internet research), which violated the Superior Court’s direct instruction to refrain from consulting outside sources of information, constituted reversible error. In addition, the Superior Court’s failure to exclude evidence of informed consent in this medical negligence action also constituted reversible error. Accordingly, the judgments of the Superior Court were reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. View "Baird v. Owczarek, M.D., et al." on Justia Law

Barbara Mammarella sued her radiologist, Alan Evantash, M.D., her OB/GYN, Christine Maynard, M.D., and All About Women of Christiana Care, Inc. for medical malpractice. To establish her claim, Mammarella needed to present expert testimony that could support a jury verdict that the alleged negligence, which was a six-month delay in her breast cancer diagnosis, was the proximate cause of her injury, which was an alleged change in treatment that required Mammarella to undergo chemotherapy. Upon review of this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the testimony of Mammarella's sole medical expert on causation could not support a jury verdict because the expert did not testify to a reasonable degree of medical probability that Mammarella's treatment options had changed as a result of the alleged negligence. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of the health care providers. View "Mammarella v. Evantash, M.D., et al." on Justia Law

This case was one of thirty-two cases filed against defendant-appellee E.I. DuPont de Demours and Company, Inc. (DuPont) by Argentine nationals who claimed they were exposed to asbestos while working in textile plants in Argentina. Plaintiff-appellant Maria Elena Martinez, widow of an Argentine plant worker, alleged her husband suffered injuries from the asbestos exposure. The Superior Court dismissed plaintiff's complaint for inadequate pleading, failing to state a claim, failing to join necessary parties, and for forum non conveniens. Plaintiff appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, arguing the Superior Court erred in its ruling. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court. View "Martinez, et al. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-appellants Marlene and Paul Dabaldo, Jr. filed a complaint against nineteen defendants, including defendant-appellee, URS Energy & Construction, f/k/a/ Washington Group International, as successor to Raytheon Constructors, f/k/a/ Catalytic, Inc. and Crane Co. Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. DaBaldo developed pulmonary asbestosis as a result of exposure to asbestos from defendants' companies and sought recovery for those alleged injuries. After the completion of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that the DaBaldos' claims were barred under the two-year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims. The Superior Court ruled from the bench that the DaBaldos' claims were time-barred. Plaintiffs argued on appeal that their 2009 complaint was timely filed. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court record supported plaintiffs' assertion. Therefore, the judgment of the Superior Court was reversed. View "Dabaldo v. URS Energy & Construction, et al." on Justia Law

Claimant-appellee and cross-appellant-appellant Amanda Wyatt appealed a Superior Court judgment reversing an Industrial Accident Board finding that she had a compensable, work-related injury. The employer-appellant and cross-appellee-appellee is Wyatt’s former employer, Rescare Home Care. On appeal, Wyatt argued: (1) the Superior Court erred in reversing the Board’s decision that her injury was a compensable industrial accident, since the Board’s decision was based upon substantial evidence; and (2) the Board erred in denying the medical expenses for her emergency back surgery. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court concluded the Superior Court erred in reversing the Board’s decision that the Claimant had a compensable work related injury. Furthermore, the Court concluded the Board properly determined that her back surgery was not compensable. View "Wyatt v. Rescare Home Care" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether Delaware’s personal injury protection (PIP) statute requires insurers to reserve PIP benefits for lost wages when requested. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a passenger in a car accident. While he was in a coma, his mother signed an assignment of insurance benefits in favor of the hospital. Plaintiff did not challenge the validity of the assignment. The hospital was promptly paid by the insurance company. When plaintiff later requested the insurers to reserve his PIP benefits for his past and future lost wages, he was informed that the benefits had been exhausted by the payment to the hospital. The Superior Court held sua sponte that the unchallenged assignment to the healthcare provider was invalid. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the Superior Court erred as a matter of law in deciding that uncontested issue. Because the assignment on behalf of the plaintiff resulted in the exhaustion of his PIP benefits before the plaintiff requested the reservation of PIP benefits for his lost wages, the legal issue of whether the insurer was required to reserve PIP benefits for lost wages is moot. View "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Davis" on Justia Law

Robert McKinley and Michele Casson were involved in a motor vehicle accident McKinley’s motorcycle collided with the back of Casson’s SUV. McKinley, who was not wearing a motorcycle helmet, sustained serious injuries. The issue before the Supreme Court centered on several evidentiary rulings made by the trial court. Among other things, appellant contended the trial court erred in denying him access to the appellee’s medical records, and that the jury should not have been allowed to learn that he was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. The Supreme Court agreed, and reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "McKinley v. Casson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Kylie and Michael D. Shuba appealed the Superior Court's denial of their cross-motion for summary judgment and its grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant United Services Automobile Association's ("USAA") motion for summary judgment. The Shuba's sought to be covered persons for the wrongful death of their mother under an insurance policy issued by USAA and held by the Shubas' step-mother. It was undisputed that their mother was not a named insured under the policy or a resident of the stepmother's household as the Shubas were. The Shubas claimed the trial court erred in finding the Shubas could not recover uninsured motorist benefits under the USAA policy. In making their claim, the Shubas asked the Supreme Court to overrule two Superior Court cases, "Temple v. Travelers Indemnity Co" and "Adams-Baez v. General Accident Co.," the latter of which the Supreme Court affirmed based on the trial court opinion. The Supreme Court declined to overrule those cases as precedent, and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. View "Shuba v. United Services Automobile Association" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the State of Delaware could be held liable for tortious conduct by an on-duty Delaware State Police Officer. The officer was supposed to take a woman accused of shop-lifting to court. Instead, the officer allegedly coerced her to engage in oral sex in the front seat of the police car. The trial court granted summary judgment to the State based on its conclusion that no reasonable jury could find that the officer was acting within the scope of his employment. The trial court focused only on the officer's tortious conduct, which was not within his job description. But the nature of the tortious conduct was not dispositive. There were other factors used to determine whether one is acting within the scope of employment, and the jury must make that decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Delaware" on Justia Law