Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma years after his exposure to asbestos while replacing asbestos-containing parts on Ford tractors and passenger vehicles. Plaintiff and his wife commenced this action against Ford Motor Company (Ford USA), Ford Motor Company, Ltd., and Henry Ford & Son, Ltd., alleging strict products liability under theories of failure to warn and defective design. Supreme Court denied Ford USA’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that factual issues existed concerning whether Ford USA could be found directly liable for Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Appellate Division erred in concluding that Ford USA could be subject to strict liability in this case. View "Finerty v. Abex Corp." on Justia Law

In 1982, New York City adopted lead abatement legislation that imposes a duty on landlords to remove lead-based pain in any dwelling in which a child aged six years old or younger “resides.” Plaintiff commenced this action individually and on behalf of her daughter, alleging that because her daughter “spent a significant amount of time” in her grandmother’s apartment, Defendants owed her a duty to abate the apartment of hazardous lead conditions and that their failure to do so caused her daughter’s injuries. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that Plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to the child’s residence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the child did not “reside” in her grandmother’s apartment because the child did not live in the apartment but spent approximately fifty hours per week there with a caregiver. View "Yaniveth R. v. LTD Realty Co." on Justia Law

While the decedent in this case was being treated in the emergency room of The New York and Presbyterian Hospital (Hospital), employees of ABC News, a division of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (ABC), filmed the decedent’s medical treatment and death without consent. ABC later broadcast a portion of the footage as part of a documentary series about medical trauma. Plaintiffs, the decedent’s family, commenced this action against ABC, the Hospital, and the decedent’s treating physician, alleging breach of physician-patient confidentiality and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Supreme Court partially granted the motions. The Appellate Division modified Supreme Court’s order by reversing the portions of the order that were appealed, granted the motions in their entirety, and dismissed the entire complaint. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division order to reinstate the cause of action against the Hospital and treating physician for breach of physician-patient confidentiality, holding (1) Plaintiffs stated a cause of action against these defendants for breach of physician-patient confidentiality; but (2) Defendants’ conduct was not so atrocious and intolerable as to support a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. View "Chanko v. American Broadcasting Cos." on Justia Law

In 2003, Plaintiff was charged with two counts of murder in the second degree. In 2007, Supreme Court dismissed the charges. Plaintiff subsequently commenced two civil rights actions by filing complaints against the City of New York, the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and several police officers involved in the investigation of the murder. After discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaints in both actions. Supreme Court granted summary judgment to (1) the individual defendants on Plaintiff’s false arrest and malicious prosecution claims under New York common law and 42 U.S.C. 1983, and (2) the City and NYPD on Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding (1) the lower courts improperly granted summary judgment to the individual defendants on Plaintiff’s false arrest and malicious prosecution claims; and (2) although Plaintiff maintained triable state law claims against the City and NYPD, the courts below properly granted summary judgment to those governmental entities on Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. View "Torres v. Jones" on Justia Law

Plaintiff claimed that he fell and was injured while walking on a New York City public sidewalk. Plaintiff brought this negligence action against West River Associates, LLC and Sandy and Rhina Mercado. Plaintiff specifically alleged that West River violated section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which establishes a duty on the part of the owner of real property abutting a sidewalk to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. West River moved for summary judgment, asserting that the area of the sidewalk upon which Plaintiff tripped was located entirely in front of the Mercado property, therefore, the defect did not abut the West River premises. Supreme Court granted West River’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that because West River did not own the property that abutted the sidewalk where Plaintiff tripped it fell, it was not responsible for maintaining the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that factual questions existed as to whether West River breached its duty to maintain its sidewalk and, if so, whether that breach was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. View "Sangaray v. West River Assocs., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was born in 1992 with severe mental and physical difficulties. In 2008, Plaintiff commenced this personal injury action against BMW of North America, LLC and related BMW entities (collectively, Defendants), alleging that his disabilities were caused by in utero exposure to unleaded gasoline vapor caused by a defective fuel hose in his mother’s BMW. Defendants moved to preclude Plaintiff’s causation experts from testifying at trial, arguing that their opinion reached novel conclusions and did not use generally accepted principles and methodologies. Supreme Court granted Defendants’ motion to the extent that it precluded the testimony of two of Plaintiff’s causation experts. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the courts below properly precluded the two expert witnesses from testifying at trial as to causation because the experts did not rely on generally accepted methodologies in concluding that Plaintiff was exposed to a sufficient concentration of gasoline vapor to cause his injuries. View "Sean R. v. BMW of N. Am., LLC" on Justia Law

While being treated at South Nassau Communities Hospital by medical professionals employed by Island Medical Physicians, P.C. (collectively, Defendants), Lorraine Walsh was treated with medication that impaired her ability to safely operate an automobile. Afterwards, Walsh drove herself from the Hospital and was involved in an accident that injured Edwin Davis. Davis and his wife (together, Plaintiffs) brought this action against Defendants. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that Defendants did not owe a duty to Plaintiffs to warn Walsh that the medication Defendants gave to Walsh either impaired or could have impaired her ability to safely operate a motor vehicle following her departure from the Hospital. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified by denying Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, holding that where a medical provider has administered to a patient medication that impairs or could impair the patient’s ability operate an automobile safely, the medical provider has a duty to third parties to warn the patient of that danger. View "Davis v. S. Nassau Communities Hosp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs (collectively, “Pegasus”) sued one defendant (“VarigLog”) for breach of contract and conversion and sought to hold other defendants (“MP defendants”) liable for VarigLog’s conduct on an alter ego theory. Pegasus served a notice to produce documents seeking electronically stores information (ESI) concerning Pegasus’s claims and VarigLog’s relationship with the MP defendants. VarigLog’s production was unsatisfactory to Pegasus. Supreme Court appointed a discovery referee to assist Pegasus and VarigLog in resolving the dispute. During the conferences it was established that computer crashes resulted in the loss of much of the ESI, and that data recovery efforts had proven unsuccessful. Pegasus moved for the imposition of spoliation sanctions against VarigLog and the MP defendants. Supreme Court granted the motion, concluding that the evidence was negligently destroyed. The Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Appellate Division erred in determining that Pegasus had not attempted to make a showing that the destroyed documents were relevant to its claim. Remanded to the trial court for a determination as to whether the evidence was relevant to the claims asserted against Defendants and for the imposition of an appropriate sanction should the trial court decide that a sanction is warranted. View "Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v Varig Logistica S.A." on Justia Law

The common thread among these three appeals was that an individual tripped on a defect in a sidewalk or stairway and was injured but was prevented from going to trial on the ground that the defect was characterized as too trivial to be actionable. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division in two of the three cases, holding (1) a defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses; (2) in the first case, the Appellate Division properly ruled that the defect was not actionable; (3) in the second case, the Appellate Division erred in concluding that the defect was nonactionable, as a material triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the defect was trivial; and (4) in the third case, the Appellate Division erred in holding that the alleged defect was trivial, as the defendant failed to meet its initial burden of making a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as matter of law, and therefore, the burden did not shift to the plaintiff to establish the existence of a material triable issue of fact. View "Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought an action against Volvo Cars of North America, alleging defective design of a product. The case proceeded to trial. At Plaintiff’s request, the trial court included a pattern jury instruction to charge the jury that was the same standard jury charge in malpractice actions. The instruction tells the jury that a defendant who has special skills in a trade or profession is required to use the same degree of skill and care that others in the same trade or profession would reasonably use in the same situation. A jury rendered a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because this was not a malpractice case but a design defect case, the charge should not have been given, and the error required reversal and a new trial. View "Reis v. Volvo Cars of N. Am." on Justia Law