Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Defendants. The district judge issued a memorandum decision addressing various motions for partial and full summary judgment. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking the district judge’s certification of the memorandum decision as a final judgment under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-254(b). The district judge granted the request in a journal entry, determining that “there is no just reason for delay.” Within thirty days of the filing of the court’s journal entry, Plaintiffs then filed their notice of appeal of the adverse rulings. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, ruling that Prime Lending II v. Trolley’s Real Estate Holdings controlled and that the district court had no discretion to retroactively certify the judgment as immediately appealable. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ order dismissing Plaintiff’s appeal, holding (1) a certification of “no just reason for delay” may be made after summary judgment is granted to fewer than all parties or on fewer than all claims; (2) the filing date of the district court order or journal entry memorializing that certification starts the thirty-day appeal clock; and (3) the district judge’s certification of his original decision as an appealable judgment was successful in this case. View "Ullery v. Othick" on Justia Law

Helen Keiswetter died from her injuries after a minimum-security inmate escaped from the State’s custody, entered her home, and forced her into a closet, where the inmate kicked her, causing her to fall and hit her head. Helen’s son, Ron Keiswetter, sued the State for her personal injuries and wrongful death. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State, finding that the public duty doctrine precluded Keiswetter’s claim and that the State was immune from liability under the police protection exception of the Kansas Tort Claims Act (KTCA). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State demonstrated that it was entitled to immunity from liability under the police protection exception of the KTCA. View "Keiswetter v. State" on Justia Law

In 2008, Plaintiff settled his negligence case against Defendant. The district court dismissed the litigation for lack of prosecution later that year. More than four years later, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the dismissal order, alleging that he never received payment. The district court set aside the dismissal order. Defendant then filed this interlocutory appeal arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal order because Plaintiff’s motion was untimely under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-260(c). Defendant did not seek certification for his interlocutory appeal but, instead, argued that a common-law jurisdictional exception permitted an appeal from an order setting aside a final judgment, citing Brown v. Fitzpatrick. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Brown was no longer viable in light of more recent case law from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Brown is overruled to the extent it endorsed a judicially created appeal right in a civil case outside of those created by statute; and (2) Plaintiff’s appeal in this case must be dismissed because it was not brought in accordance with the statute governing interlocutory appeals. View "Wiechman v. Huddleston" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against a hospital and its employee after Plaintiffs’ son died from a punctured bowel. The district court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction, concluding (1) the hospital was a municipality as defined by section 12-105a(a); and (2) Plaintiffs failed to comply with the notice requirements under Kan. Stat. Ann. 12-105b(d). The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, holding (1) compliance with section 12-105b(d) is not achieved when a claimant’s notice fails to provide any statement of monetary damages; (2) the provision in section 12-105b(d) giving a municipality 120 days to investigate and review a claim is a statutory condition precedent to filing a lawsuit, and a claimant’s premature filing of a lawsuit leaves a court without subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) in this case, even if Plaintiffs substantially complied with section 12-105b(d) by providing the hospital with a statement of damages, the district court properly dismissed their case because they prematurely filed it. View "Sleeth v. Sedan City Hosp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Doctor and Doctor’s employer (Employer), alleging that Doctor touched her inappropriately and made sexually charged comments during her office visits. Plaintiff settled with Doctor, and the case proceeded against Employer. The district court held that Plaintiff’s claims against Employer were barred by Kan. Stat. Ann. 40-3403(h), which past decisions of the Supreme Court interpreted to cover a covered health care provider’s vicarious liability and any other responsibility, including independent or direct liability, for claims caused by the professional services of another health care provider. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the lower courts erred in relying on the cases interpreting the statute because the cases were wrongly decided, were distinguishable, or had been effectively overruled. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 40-3403(h) barred Employer’s liability, and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment. View "Cady v. Schroll" on Justia Law

While driving a vehicle owned by her employer (Employer), Appellant was injured in an accident caused by an underinsured motorist. Appellant claimed underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under Employer’s commercial insurance package policy, which Appellant believed had been insured by Insurer, the same carrier that insured the tortfeasor. Insurer denied Appellant’s claim. A jury awarded Appellant damages, finding the tortfeasor at fault. The district court denied Insurer’s posttrial motion for judgment based upon its claim that it did not issue Employer’s insurance policy and granted Insurer’s motion for credit against the verdict in part, declining, however, to give Insurer credit for future medical expenses. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the trial court’s denial of Insurer’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on Insurer’s claim that Appellant named the wrong insurance company as the defendant; (2) reversed the district court’s decision on Insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment on future medical expenses and vacated the jury’s award of future medical expenses; and (3) reversed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for attorney fees. Remanded. View "Bussman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. " on Justia Law

City cited Defendant, which operated a grain elevator facility inside city limits, for violating municipal noise and nuisance ordinances. After a bench trial, the municipal court found Defendant guilty of violating both ordinances. The district court reversed, concluding that the ordinances were unconstitutionally vague because they did not warn potential violators of what conduct was prohibited and failed adequately to guar against the risk of arbitrary enforcement. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) the City's noise ordinance was unconstitutionally vague; but (2) the nuisance ordinance was constitutional as applied to Defendant. View "City of Lincoln Ctr. v. Farmway Coop., Inc." on Justia Law

While working for Employer, Appellant was seriously injured in a gasoline fire. Appellant filed a complaint against Employer for negligently failing to provide him with a reasonably safe workplace. The district court granted summary judgment for Employer, concluding that the common-law assumption of risk doctrine barred recovery in this case because Appellant knew of the dangerous situation and voluntarily exposed himself to that danger. The court of appeals affirmed based on existing precedent. The Supreme Court (1) overruled prior caselaw adhering to the assumption of risk as an absolute bar to recovery, holding that the state's statutory comparative fault system, in which any alleged assumption of risk is considered as just one factor when determining proportionality of fault based on the circumstances, should control; and (2) reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the district court erred when it granted Employer's motion for summary judgment on the basis that Appellant assumed the risk from which his injuries followed. Remanded for consideration of Appellant's negligence claims under the principles of comparative fault. View "Simmons v. Porter" on Justia Law

The Rineharts contracted with Morton Buildings for a preengineered building to serve as their personal residence and business location for their business, Midwest Slitting. Upon disputes regarding the structure's quality, the Rineharts and Midwest Slitting sued. A jury found for the Rineharts on several of their claims and for Midwest Slitting on its negligent misrepresentation claim. The court of appeals affirmed and granted the Rineharts appellate attorney fees. Morton appealed, arguing that the economic loss doctrine, which originated with product liability litigation to prohibit tort claims when the only damages were to the product itself, should extend to bar the negligent misrepresentation claim in this case. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment in favor of Midwest Slitting on its negligent misrepresentation claims, holding that the economic loss doctrine does not bar negligent misrepresentation claims because the duty at issue arises by operation of law, and the doctrine's purposes would not be further by extending it to such claims; and (2) reversed the appellate attorney fee award because the Court could not determine from the record whether the court of appeals included time and expenses in the award not reimbursable under the applicable statute. Remanded. View "Rinehart v. Morton Bldgs., Inc." on Justia Law

Russell Graham shot himself and his son, Zeus, with a gun Russell purchased at Baxter Springs Gun & Pawn Shop. The pawn shop's owners, Joe and Patsy George, filled out the paperwork by listing Russell's mother as the purchaser of the gun because Russell had a prior felony conviction. Russell then paid for the gun and ammunition. Zeus's mother, Elizabeth Shirley, sued the pawn shop and the Georges for negligence in selling a firearm to a party while knowing it was intended for another and without performing a background check on the intended owner. The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's rejection of Shirley's negligence per se claim but reversed the court's rejection of Shirley's negligent entrustment claim. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the portion of the court of appeals' decision allowing Shirley to proceed with a negligent entrustment claim; and (2) reversed the portion of the court's decision holding that Defendants were not held to the highest standard of reasonable care in exercising control over firearms. Remanded. View "Shirley v. Glass" on Justia Law