Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Susan Edwards slipped on a piece of watermelon while shopping at a grocery store operated by Hy-Vee, Inc. and fell. Approximately six feet from where Edwards fell a man was handing out watermelon samples to customers. Plaintiff sued Hy-Vee for her injuries. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Hy-Vee, concluding that Hy-Vee did not create the hazardous condition or have constructive knowledge of the watermelon on the floor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that summary judgment was appropriate where there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hy-Vee created or had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition. View "Edwards v. Hy-Vee, Inc." on Justia Law

Hilda Graham (Hilda), the owner of a certificate of deposit (CD), changed the payable-on-death beneficiary to Elaine Cisneros (Cisneros) in 2013. That same year, Hilda appointed Gregory Graham (Graham) as her power of attorney. Graham used the power of attorney to cash the CD and deposit the proceeds into a checking account with right of survivorship that he co-owned with Hilda. When Hilda died, the balance in the checking account became Graham’s by operation of law. Cisneros filed a complaint against Graham. The district court entered summary judgment for Cisneros, concluding that Graham’s actions were fraudulent under a theory of constructive fraud. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) when it determined that Graham lacked authority under the power of attorney to cash the CD and deposit the proceeds into a checking account; (2) when it granted summary judgment for Cisneros’ because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hilda ratified Graham’s actions; and (3) when it denied an award of attorney fees to Cisneros. View "Cisneros v. Graham" on Justia Law

Pittman filed a negligence action for injuries he sustained when he was struck by a vehicle while standing in or near a parking lot owned and maintained by 2nd Street. The driver of the vehicle was Rivera, another patron who had been forcibly removed from 2nd Street earlier that evening by an employee of 2nd Street. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Rivera’s conduct in striking Pittman with his vehicle was not reasonably foreseeable and that therefore, 2nd Street did not breach its duty of reasonable care. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, agreeing that 2nd Street owed a general duty based on premises liability and that when Rivera returned to the premises, driving a vehicle, it was not reasonably foreseeable that Rivera would use his vehicle to assault Pittman. View "Pittman v. Rivera" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff brought this personal injury action against the City of Gering and Scotts Bluff County under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act. The City and the County admitted liability, leaving Plaintiff’s claim for damages the only matter at issue in the ensuing bench trial. After the trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $575,203. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) issues related to Defendants’ motion to compel discovery were reviewable in this appeal; (2) the district court did not err when it sustained hearsay objections to evidence offered in support of the motion to compel; (3) the district court did not err when it overruled the motion to continue the trial in order to allow discovery; (4) the district court was not clearly wrong in its findings that Plaintiff’s condition was caused by the accident and that a surgery performed on Plaintiff was necessary; and (5) the district court did not err when it awarded damages related to the challenged surgery. View "Moreno v. City of Gering" on Justia Law

Kevin Pearce (Appellant) worked as an agent of Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company. Appellant used his personal computers to conduct work for Mutual and stored both personal and client information on the computers. After Appellant’s agency relationship was terminated, Mutual retained Pearce’s personal computers and files, allegedly to protect confidential client information. Pearce refused to give Mutual the passwords to his computers, and Mutual refused to return the computers until the confidential information was removed. Mutual turned Pearce’s computers and files over to Continuum Worldwide Corporation, a security firm, for safekeeping. Appellant then filed a replevin action against Mutual and Continuum (Appellees). Appellees filed a motion to stay and compel arbitration asking the district court to order Appellant to participate in an already-filed arbitration with another entity related to the same issues. Appellant filed his own motion to compel arbitration in the replevin action seeking an order requiring Appellees to participate in the pending arbitration underway between Appellant and the third party. The district court denied Appellant’s motion to compel arbitration. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the interlocutory appeal, holding that the order denying Appellant’s motion to compel arbitration was not a final, appealable order for the Court to review. View "Pearce v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Kim Magana was a parent of a student in the Scottsbluff Public School District (School District) and a member of the School District’s school board (Board). On Magana’s advice, a student authored a letter critical of the curriculum of Patricia Sulu, a teacher at Scottsbluff Senior High School, and mailed it to the School District and the Board. Sulu subsequently resigned. Thereafter, Sulu sued Magana on the theory of tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Magana. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Magana’s actions were “not unjustified” within the meaning of the elements of tortious interference with a business expectancy because Magana provided truthful information and honest advice. View "Sulu v. Magana" on Justia Law

Kim Magana was a parent of a student in the Scottsbluff Public School District (School District) and a member of the School District’s school board (Board). On Magana’s advice, a student authored a letter critical of the curriculum of Patricia Sulu, a teacher at Scottsbluff Senior High School, and mailed it to the School District and the Board. Sulu subsequently resigned. Thereafter, Sulu sued Magana on the theory of tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Magana. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Magana’s actions were “not unjustified” within the meaning of the elements of tortious interference with a business expectancy because Magana provided truthful information and honest advice. View "Sulu v. Magana" on Justia Law

Appellant was a bystander in an incident where two deputies of the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department took a minor student into custody. Appellant alleged that the deputies injured her by negligently knocking her into a wall and to the ground during the incident. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants - Douglas County and the elected sheriff of the County. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County and sheriff. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on different grounds, holding that there was no issue of material fact in this negligence action that Defendants did not breach their duty, and Defendants were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. View "Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Shortly after his release from prison, Nikko Jenkins shot Shamecka Holloway. Holloway sued the State, Correct Care Solutions (CCS), and certain State employees, claiming that the State and CCS, which contracted with the State to provide medical services for inmates, were negligent in failing to provide Jenkins with adequate mental health treatment and failing to seek mental health commitment prior to Jenkins’ release. The district court dismissed Holloway’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State and its employees were entitled to immunity from suit because whether to seek commitment falls under the discretionary function exception to the State Tort Claims Act; and (2) Holloway failed to plead sufficient facts to show that CCS was liable. View "Holloway v. State" on Justia Law

Kristina Scheele was injured in an automobile accident with a semi-trailer truck driven by Frank Lukach. Darrell Rains was burning vegetation off of a field along the highway when the accident occurred. Scheele sued Rains, Lukach, Delles Carrier Inc., and Sentry Insurance and the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, which were included for workers’ compensation subrogation purposes, alleging negligence. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Scheele had not met her burden of proof as to the negligence of either Rains or Delles and Lukach. Scheele appealed, arguing that the district court erred in not entering a directed verdict for her and in giving a corrected version of an instruction that was first given incorrectly. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Scheele’s assignments of error were without merit. View "Scheele v. Rains" on Justia Law