Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Opal Lowman was injured in an automobile accident. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company provided underinsured motorist coverage to Opal and her husband. The Lowmans sued State Farm, seeking damages. The jury returned a verdict for the Lowmans in the amount of $0. The Lowmans filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it entered judgment on the jury’s verdict where the jury awarded the Lowmans no money damages; and (2) the district court did not err in denying the Lowmans’ motion for new trial. View "Lowman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were walking in the direction of Defendants’ home when Defendants’ dogs ran in Plaintiffs’ direction, barking and growling. One of the plaintiffs stumbled and fell when backing away from the dogs, but neither of the dogs touched Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed this action under Neb. Rev. Stat. 54-601(1), which imposes liability upon dog owners for damages caused by their dogs “chasing” or “injuring” any person or persons, among other things. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment without considering every relevant definition of the terms “chase” and “injure.” Remanded. View "Grammer v. Lucking" on Justia Law

Thirteen-year-old Efrain Ramos-Domingo was struck and killed by a Union Pacific Railroad Company train in Schuyler. Plaintiff, Efrain’s mother, as personal representative of Efrain’s estate, filed a wrongful death action against Union Pacific. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific, concluding that Union Pacific did not breach its standard of care and that Efrain violated his duty to look and listen for the approaching train and to obey the crossing gate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that Union Pacific was not negligent and that Efrain was contributorily negligent sufficient to bar his recovery. Remanded. View "Gonzalez v. Union Pacific R.R. Co." on Justia Law

After Eric Zornes won a lottery, Eric and his wife, Julia, commenced a gifting plan to Andy Wolfe, Jason Wolfe, and Jason Reed. These gifts were structured as loans, and each borrower made a promissory note for his loan, payable to Julia’s and Eric’s revocable trusts jointly. Andy’s note was secured by a deed of trust for real property. Julia and Eric later divorced pursuant to a settlement agreement. When Eric found that Andy’s house had been sold and that Julia had retained the proceeds of the sale, Eric filed this complaint alleging that Julia had converted the proceeds of Andy’s note. Julia counterclaimed for partition of the Jason Wolfe and Jason Reed notes. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Julia, concluding that even if Julia had converted the proceeds, the settlement agreement operated as an accord and satisfaction. The court also ordered partition of the promissory notes for Jason Wolfe’s and Jason Reed’s loans. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Eric was not entitled to summary judgment on his conversion claim; (2) the settlement agreement did not constitute an accord and satisfaction; and (3) the lower court erred in the method by which it partitioned the Jason Wolfe and Jason Reed notes. View "Zornes v. Zornes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a commercial dairy operation, sued Defendants, the manufacturer of a microprocessor-based milking control unit and the dealer of the unit, alleging breach of express and implied warranties and negligence and seeking damages for the allegedly negligent and defective installation and programming of its unit. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that improper settings caused the milking units to detach while under significant vacuum, thereby harming the teats of the dairy cows and lowering milk production. The district court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiff did not rebut Defendants’ prima facie case that mechanic components of the milking system maintained by Plaintiff and not part of the microprocessor-based control unit were the proximate cause of the alleged damages. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, as Plaintiff failed to present evidence from which a jury could determine that the unit was the proximate cause of the alleged injury to Plaintiff’s cows; but (2) reversed the district court’s order granting prejudgment interest on the dealer’s counterclaim, as there was a reasonable controversy over Plaintiff’s right to recover. View "Roskop Dairy, LLC v. GEA Farm Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

Virginia Jacobson died from complications after choking on a piece of meat. Jacobson was under the care of Dr. Sherry Shresta and Dr. Gaston Cornu-Labat before she died. Virginia’s husband and the special administrator of Virginia’s estate (collectively, the Jacobsons) filed a wrongful death action against the doctors (Defendants). Defendants filed a motion to bifurcate on the issue of whether Defendants were employees of the hospital, a political subdivision. If Defendants were hospital employees, the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) barred the Jacobsons’ action. Before hearing the bifurcated employment issue, the trial court rejected the Jacobsons’ claim that they were entitled to a jury trial on the employment issue. The district court then dismissed the complaint, finding that Defendants were employees. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the Jacobsons had waived their right to a jury trial because they failed to make a timely objection to the bench trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Jacobsons, by their silence, could not have waived their right to a jury trial; but (2) the Jacobsons did not have a right to have a jury decide whether Defendants were political subdivision employees. View "Jacobson v. Shresta" on Justia Law

Gloria Correa was involved in a motor vehicle accident with E. Dean Hascall (Hascall). Hascall later died of causes unrelated to the accident. After Hascall’s estate was closed, Correa filed a negligence action against the estate and the estate’s personal representative, Neomi D. Hascall (Neomi). The estate and Neomi moved for summary judgment, arguing that dismissal would be appropriate because Correa filed suit against a closed estate and a discharged personal representative. Correa, however, filed an emergency motion to reopen the estate and assign a special administrator for purposes of service, which was granted. The district court granted summary judgment for the estate and Neomi and denied Correa’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The Supreme Court dismissed Correa’s appeal, holding that, because the special administrator was not served within six months of the commencement of this action, the district court lacked jurisdiction over Correa’s claims, and likewise, this Court lacked jurisdiction over Correa’s appeal. View "Correa v. Estate of Hascall" on Justia Law

Appellant suffered a legal injury when she fell while using a wooden plank walkway at a cabin owned by Lee Simmons, doing business as Niobrara River Ranch, LLC (Niobrara Ranch). Appellant filed an amended complaint against Simmons and Niobrara Ranch (together, Defendants), alleging negligence for failure to inspect the premises, to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe manner, or to warn Appellant of the dangerous condition on the premises. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. On appeal, Appellant contended that the Nebraska jury instruction on burden of proof in premises condition liability cases is not compatible with Nebraska’s comparative fault statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in giving the contested jury instruction, as it was a correct statement of the law regarding a plaintiff’s burden of proof in premises condition liability cases. View "Warner v. Simmons" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued Madison County under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, alleging that the County was negligent for failing to maintain a vacated county road, causing injuries to some of Plaintiffs. The district court entered judgment against the County, concluding that the County breached its duty to maintain the vacated road. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. On remand, the district court entered judgment in favor of the County, determining that the County retained its sovereign immunity because Plaintiffs’ claims fell within exemptions to the Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the County retained sovereign immunity with respect to its discretionary functions and therefore could not be held legally liable for its inaction. View "Blaser v. County of Madison" on Justia Law

Ryan Zimmerman drove onto ConAgra Foods, Inc.’s Omaha campus and fired a gun five times at window washers working on ConAgra property. ConAgra filed a complaint seeking a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction enjoining Zimmerman from having any contact with ConAgra. The district court entered a temporary restraining order. After a hearing, the court dissolved the temporary injunction and denied ConAgra’s request for a permanent injunction, concluding that a single trespass does not give rise to injunctive relief. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions to enter a one-year permanent injunction against Zimmerman, holding that, because the uncontroverted facts demonstrated that Zimmerman would trespass in the future in flagrant violation of criminal law upon ConAgra’s property, justice required a permanent injunction. View "ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Zimmerman" on Justia Law