Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

A minor child, through his mother, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against an obstetrician, the clinic where the obstetrician was employed, and the hospital where he was born. The child suffered an obstetric brachial plexus injury during birth. The district court excluded the package insert for Pitocin used during the birth, ruling it was hearsay and lacked foundation. The child also argued that the court erred in not giving his requested jury instructions and giving other erroneous instructions, which he did not object to at trial.The District Court for Douglas County ruled in favor of the defendants. The jury found that the child had not met his burden of proof and rendered a general verdict for the defendants. The child appealed, arguing that the jury instructions were erroneous and prejudicial.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court committed plain error by instructing the jury that it could not determine the standard of care from the testimony of expert witnesses. This erroneous instruction was on a vital issue and misled the jury, prejudicially affecting a substantial right of the child. The court held that the error was of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would cause a miscarriage of justice or result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process.The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, without addressing the remaining assignments of error, as they were unnecessary to adjudicate the case and might be tried differently on remand. View "J.R.M.B. v. Alegent Creighton Health" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, Keith L. Allen, shot and killed Brett Allen Torres in May 2020. Allen was subsequently prosecuted and convicted of first-degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. Separately, Victoria A. Czech, as the personal representative of Torres' estate, sued Allen for wrongful death and conscious suffering. Czech also sought and obtained an order of prejudgment attachment on Allen’s assets, fearing he might conceal or remove them.The district court for Lincoln County, Nebraska, overruled Allen’s pretrial motions, including a motion for change of venue and a motion in limine to exclude evidence of his convictions. The court also granted Czech’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, finding no material issue of fact regarding Allen’s responsibility for Torres’ death. Allen’s subsequent objection and motion to vacate the order of prejudgment attachment were also overruled.Allen appealed these decisions during the trial (case No. S-23-1037) and after a jury awarded Czech $130,000 in damages (case No. S-24-047). The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the first appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the orders challenged were not final. In the second appeal, the court affirmed the district court’s decisions, finding no abuse of discretion or error in the rulings.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Allen’s motion for change of venue, as Allen failed to provide evidence of pervasive pretrial publicity. The court also found that Allen did not preserve his claim regarding the motion in limine because he did not object to the evidence at the summary judgment hearing. The court affirmed the partial summary judgment, noting the record was insufficient to review the decision. The court also found Allen’s claims regarding the prejudgment attachment moot due to the final judgment. Finally, the court held that the district court retained jurisdiction despite Allen’s appeal, as the appeal was not from a final order. View "Czech v. Allen" on Justia Law

A 10-year-old student at an elementary school in Lincoln, Nebraska, was injured during a game of tag in a physical education class. The student was holding a pool noodle to tag classmates when another student, K.H., grabbed the pool noodle, causing the student to fall and hit her head. The student's mother sued the school district for negligence. The school district claimed sovereign immunity under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), arguing the claim arose from a battery.The district court overruled the school district's motion for summary judgment, finding a factual dispute about whether the pool noodle was part of the student's body. The court noted that while K.H. intentionally grabbed the pool noodle without the student's consent, it was unclear if this contact constituted a battery since the pool noodle was not necessarily part of the student's person.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court noted that public school districts are political subdivisions under the PSTCA and that if a claim falls within an exemption, the political subdivision is not liable. The court examined whether the contact with the pool noodle could be considered offensive contact with the student's body, which would constitute a battery. The court found that whether an object is part of a person's body is determined on an objective reasonable person basis and that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding this question.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the factual dispute about whether the pool noodle was part of the student's body precluded summary judgment. The case was allowed to proceed to determine if the school district retained sovereign immunity. View "Scott v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001" on Justia Law

Keith L. Allen was convicted of first-degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony, resulting in a life sentence plus 20 to 30 years. After his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, Allen filed a motion in the district court for Lincoln County, Nebraska, seeking the return of over 50 items of personal property allegedly seized from him after his arrest. These items included firearms, video recordings, and bullet slugs. At the hearing, Allen claimed that many of the firearms belonged to other people and that certain items were needed for his criminal case and a wrongful death suit against him. The State argued that some items should remain as evidence.The district court partially denied Allen's motion, categorizing the items into evidence, contraband, or other items. The court ordered that evidence be retained, contraband be sold, and other items be returned to Allen, subject to a prejudgment attachment order from the wrongful death suit. Allen objected to the admission of the prejudgment attachment order and the exclusion of receipts purportedly showing third-party ownership of the firearms. He also argued that the State failed to prove a legitimate reason to retain the property.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the district court plainly erred in several respects. The court did not require Allen to make an initial showing that the items were seized from him, improperly relied on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-820, and failed to identify which firearms and ammunition were evidence. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law

Nancy Johnson and Domenico Zurini were involved in a motor vehicle accident in Omaha, Nebraska. Just before the 4-year statute of limitations expired, Johnson and her husband filed a negligence complaint against Zurini in the district court for Douglas County. After attempting to serve summons, they discovered that Zurini had died before the complaint was filed. They then had a special administrator appointed and moved to revive the action in the name of the special administrator. The district court initially granted the motion, and the Johnsons filed an amended complaint naming the special administrator as the defendant. The special administrator entered a voluntary appearance and then moved to vacate the order of revivor and dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that no viable action had been commenced within the statute of limitations. The district court agreed and dismissed the action as time barred.The Johnsons appealed, and the case was moved to the Nebraska Supreme Court's docket. The court reviewed whether the Johnsons properly commenced their negligence action within the applicable statute of limitations. The court noted that the original complaint, which named a deceased person as the sole defendant, was a legal nullity and did not validly commence an action under Nebraska law. The court also found that the amended complaint, which named the special administrator as the defendant, was filed after the limitations period expired and did not relate back to the original complaint under Nebraska's relation back statute.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the original complaint was a legal nullity and did not commence an action. The amended complaint was time barred, and the relation back statute did not apply. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to vacate the order of revivor and substitution. View "Johnson v. Antoniutti" on Justia Law

A housekeeper employed by a nursing and rehabilitation facility experienced a respiratory incident after wearing a sterilized N95 mask at work. She felt a burning sensation and had difficulty breathing, leading to hospitalization. She subsequently sought medical treatment for persistent respiratory issues and was diagnosed with moderate persistent asthma. She filed a petition in the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court, claiming her injury was work-related and seeking various benefits.The Workers’ Compensation Court held a trial where the housekeeper and her former supervisor testified. Medical evidence from her treating physicians was presented, including a report from her family care physician, who opined that her respiratory issues were associated with the mask incident. The pulmonologist, who treated her later, agreed that her symptoms began on the day of the incident but did not opine on causation. The employer denied the work-related nature of the injury and suggested a preexisting condition but did not provide contrary expert testimony.The Workers’ Compensation Court found that the housekeeper’s respiratory issues were caused by the work incident and awarded her temporary total and permanent partial disability benefits, past medical expenses, and future medical care. The court found the medical expert’s opinion credible and supported by the evidence, including the absence of preexisting respiratory issues and the timing of symptoms.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held that the Workers’ Compensation Court did not err in finding the medical expert’s opinion had sufficient foundation and was persuasive. The court also found no clear error in the determination of a 30-percent loss of earning capacity, as the compensation court had considered the relevant factors and evidence. View "Prinz v. Omaha Operations" on Justia Law

A swine producer experienced a disease outbreak in its sow facility and sued two manure management companies, alleging the outbreak was caused by their failure to follow biosecurity protocols. The swine producer sought $1.5 million in damages under breach of contract and negligence theories. The claims against one company were dismissed, and the remaining company, Frost, moved for summary judgment on both theories.The district court for Burt County granted summary judgment in favor of Frost, finding no contractual relationship between Frost and the swine producer and concluding that Frost owed no duty to the producer. The swine producer appealed, and Frost cross-appealed on the issue of causation.The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment on the breach of contract claim but reversed on the negligence claim, finding that Frost owed a duty of reasonable care. The court noted that the standard of care and whether Frost breached it were factual questions for the jury. However, it declined to address Frost’s cross-appeal on causation, as the district court had not ruled on that issue.On further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed with the district court that Frost was entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claims. It found no evidence of an industry standard prohibiting manure pumpers from pumping at a sow facility after a hog finishing facility and concluded that Frost did not breach the standard of care by failing to inform the producer of his previous pumping location. The case was remanded with directions to affirm the grant of summary judgment. View "Ronnfeldt Farms v. Arp" on Justia Law

Ron Strahan stayed at a hotel owned by McCook Hotel Group, LLC, and slipped while using the shower tub in his room. He claimed the shower floor was not slip-resistant and thus presented an unreasonably dangerous condition. Strahan sued the hotel for negligence, seeking damages for his injuries.The District Court for Red Willow County granted summary judgment in favor of the hotel. The court found that Strahan could not establish a material element of his premises liability claim. Specifically, the court concluded that there was no evidence to support a reasonable inference that the shower tub without a slip-resistant floor was an unreasonably dangerous condition. The court also applied the open and obvious doctrine, reasoning that the hotel could not have expected Strahan to fail to protect himself from the open and obvious danger of a wet shower tub.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that Strahan failed to provide evidence showing that the shower tub presented an unreasonably dangerous condition. The court noted that the mere fact of slipping in a wet shower tub does not, by itself, establish negligence. Strahan did not present any evidence of industry standards, safety codes, or expert testimony to support his claim that the shower tub was unusually slippery or unsafe. Consequently, the court concluded that Strahan could not prove an essential element of his premises liability claim, and the hotel was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. View "Strahan v. McCook Hotel Group" on Justia Law

A Catholic priest, Andrew J. Syring, sued the Archdiocese of Omaha, alleging defamation, tortious interference with prospective employment, slander per se, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. His claims stemmed from the Archdiocese publishing his name on a list of clergy with substantiated claims of sexual misconduct and a subsequent phone conversation where a church official referenced this list when discussing Syring's potential employment as a hospital chaplain.The District Court for Cuming County granted summary judgment for the Archdiocese on Syring's defamation claim, finding it barred by Nebraska’s one-year statute of limitations. The court ruled that the initial publication of the list in 2018 started the limitations period, and subsequent updates to the list did not constitute republication. The court also granted summary judgment on Syring's intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, concluding that Syring failed to provide medical evidence of severe emotional distress.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that the single publication rule applied to the Archdiocese's list, meaning the statute of limitations began with the initial publication. The court also found that the Archdiocese's conduct did not meet the high threshold for extreme and outrageous behavior required for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of Syring's claims for tortious interference, slander per se, and breach of fiduciary duty, citing the ministerial exception. This doctrine prevents courts from interfering with the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers, thus barring Syring's claims related to his employment and the Archdiocese's internal governance decisions. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, dismissing all of Syring's claims. View "Syring v. Archdiocese of Omaha" on Justia Law

The case involves a medical malpractice claim brought by Ivan J. Konsul against Juan Antonio Asensio, M.D. The claim arose from treatment Konsul received after being admitted to Creighton University Medical Center following a motor vehicle accident. Asensio, a trauma surgeon, placed an inferior vena cava filter (IVC filter) in Konsul to prevent migration of deep vein thrombosis. Konsul alleged that Asensio violated applicable standards of care in various respects, including unnecessary placement of the filter, improper location of the filter, and failing to inform Konsul of the long-term risks of the filter remaining in his body. Konsul claimed that due to Asensio's failures, the filter migrated throughout his body and became lodged behind his heart, causing physical pain, mental suffering, and additional health care costs.The case went to a jury trial. Konsul called Dr. David Dreyfuss as an expert witness to provide testimony regarding the standard of care applicable to Asensio. However, the district court ruled that Dreyfuss could not testify regarding the applicable standard of care in Omaha, as he was not familiar with the standard of care in Omaha or a similar community. Without Dreyfuss' testimony, Konsul provided no evidence of the standard of care, and the district court dismissed Konsul's case.Konsul appealed, claiming that the district court erred when it struck Dreyfuss as an expert witness and when it granted Asensio's motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the case. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the district court did not err when it struck Dreyfuss as an expert witness and when it granted Asensio's motion for a directed verdict and dismissed Konsul's case. The court also found that any error regarding the deposition issues was harmless considering the proper dismissal of the action based on Konsul's failure to provide evidence of the standard of care. View "Konsul v. Asensio" on Justia Law