Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs brought a class action on behalf of themselves and others who purchased houses from a builder, Ryland, in the Newport subdivision of Vista Lakes, a residential development in Orlando, Florida. The Newport subdivision was adjacent to land known as "Pinecastle." Pinecastle was used as a bombing range during World War II and remained laden with, among other things, unexploded bombs. When plaintiffs bought houses from Ryland, they were unaware of Pinecastle. Later, after Pinecastle's existence became public, plaintiffs' houses lost considerable market value and plaintiffs brought this lawsuit to compensate for the loss. Counts 1, 3, and 4 sought compensation for the loss of value plaintiffs' houses sustained due to their close proximity to Pinecastle. Count 2 sought recovery of 1.5 percent of the purchase price of every home Ryland sold in the Newport subdivision. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Counts 1 and 2 with prejudice and Count 3 without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on Count 4, pursuant to Rule 56.

IWC appealed the district court's judgment as a matter of law in favor of IDH. Hawaiian, a Florida condominium, contracted with IDH for roof repair. While IDH was conducting the repairs, a large stone veneer wall fell, causing damage to the condominium. Hawaiian's insurer, ICW, sued IDH for negligence. IDH alleged that the wall fell because it was structurally unsound. During trial, at the close of ICW's case, the district court granted IDH's motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that no reasonable jury could find that IDH was negligent because ICW failed to present any evidence on the standard of care in the roofing industry. Without reaching the issue of whether roofers were "professionals" under Florida law, the court held that ICW was required to put forth some evidence of the standard of care in the roofing industry in order to meet its burden. Because ICW failed to do so, judgment as a matter of law was appropriate. Further, the specificity requirement in Rule 50(a)(2) did not bar the granting of judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and their child, appealed the dismissal of their complaint against the United States and the denial of their motions for relief from judgment and to reopen the case. The primary issue on appeal was whether the United States was amendable to suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2401(b), 2671-80, for the negligence of medical professionals employed by a federally supported health center when like private professionals would be immune from suit under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Act, Fla. Stat. 766.301-16. The United States claimed that the Compensation Act could not expand the liability of the United States under the FTCA beyond that to which an analogous private party would be amenable and that plaintiffs have waived any right to have the district court abate their action pending the determination by the ALJ. Because the court agreed with the United States, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint and the denial of their motions for relief from judgment and to reopen the case.

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's order dismissing his complaint against Target and Virginia Winn. Plaintiff, a Hispanic male, alleged that Winn, a white Target cashier, refused to serve him based on his race and publicly humiliated him when she turned him away from her register. Plaintiff brought suit against Winn for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); against Target for vicarious liability and for negligent training, supervision, and retention; and against both defendants for violating his right to make contracts under 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court dismissed the case, explaining that plaintiff could not maintain a section 1981 claim because he was ultimately able to complete his purchase, and that Winn's alleged actions did not rise to the level of outrageousness required to state an IIED claim under controlling Florida law. After thorough review and having had the benefit of oral argument, the court agreed and affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Plaintiffs, parents and the personal representative of the deceased's estate, sued defendant, a police officer, for use of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Florida's wrongful death statute. Defendant used lethal force against the deceased after the deceased failed to follow defendant's commands and attempted to flee in a vehicle that struck defendant in the process. Defendant subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The court held that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity where the use of deadly force was reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case and there was no clearly established law at the time of the incident that would have given defendant fair notice that his actions violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

This case stemmed from plaintiff's allegations that, while she was employed with defendant on one of its cruise ships, she was drugged by other employees, raped, and physically injured while she was unconscious, and when she reported to officials of the cruise line what had happened to her, they treated her with indifference and even hostility, failed to provide her with proper medical treatment on board, and interfered with her attempts to obtain medical treatment and counseling ashore. Plaintiff subsequently asserted five claims against defendant involving violations of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 30104, or the general maritime law applicable to the Seaman's Wage Act, 46 U.S.C. 10313. Plaintiff's remaining five claims involved common law tort claims. At issue was whether plaintiff's claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause in the crew agreement. The court held that the district court did not err in holding that Counts VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X of plaintiff's complaint did not fall within the scope of the arbitration provision where all five of these claims involved factual allegations about how the cruise line and its officials treated plaintiff after learning that she had been raped, including allegations that she was kept on the ship against her will, that she was prevented from getting medical attention off the ship, that her rape kit was destroyed in the incinerator, and that her confidentiality as a rape victim was intentionally violated. The court held, however, that the remaining five counts arose directly from her undisputed status as a "seaman" employed by defendant and fell within the scope of the arbitration provision. Therefore, the district court erred in denying defendant's motion to compel arbitration for Counts I, II, III, IV, and V.

Appellants appealed the district court's order denying their Rule 60(b) motion for the district court to reconsider its previous order remanding the case to state court. In support of their motion, appellants claimed that, in light of a recent opinion issued by this court clarifying the method for calculating the amount-in-controversy requirement for subject matter jurisdiction, the district court had jurisdiction over the case. The district court denied the motion to reconsider because the case had been remanded to state court and was no longer pending in federal court. The court agreed and affirmed the denial of appellants' Rule 60(b) motion.

Plaintiff brought a diversity action against the operator of a vessel to recover for her injuries from a slip and fall on the vessel, claiming, inter alia, that defendant negligently caused the accident by failing to provide an adequate flooring surface for the area where she fell. Plaintiff subsequently appealed from the district court's orders granting defendant's motion to preclude plaintiff's expert testimony and denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The court held that because the jury was not allowed to consider evidence about whether the slip resistance of the flooring posed a danger to passengers aboard the vessel, it could not have found in plaintiff's favor with regard to her main negligence theory; matters of slip resistance and surface friction were "beyond the understanding and experience of the average lay citizen." Therefore, the court held that the district court erred by granting defendant's motion to preclude the expert proposed testimony. Accordingly, the court held that the new trial was warranted and plaintiff was entitled to submit expert testimony regarding the adequacy of defendant's choice of flooring surface.

Plaintiffs, citizens and residents of Bolivia, brought suit under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350, against the former President and Defense Minister of Bolivia (defendants) for decisions these leaders allegedly made while in high office. Plaintiffs asserted that defendants violated international law by committing extrajudicial killings; by perpetrating crimes against humanity; and by violating rights to life, liberty, security of person, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association. The court held that because the pertinent international law was not already clear, definite, or universal enough to reach the alleged conduct (especially after the pleadings were stripped of conclusory statements), the court declined to expand the kinds of circumstances that could be actionable under the ATS to cover the facts alleged in this case. Accordingly, the court held that the denial of the motion to dismiss these claims was reversed.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's enforcement of the arbitration agreement in his employment contract with defendant. Plaintiff sued defendant on a single count of Jones Act negligence, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 30104, claiming that defendant breached its duty to supply him with a safe place to work. The court held that, given the United Nations Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) and governing Supreme Court and Circuit Court precedent, the court must enforce the arbitration clause in plaintiff's employment contract, at least at this initial arbitration-enforcement stage. Therefore, after review and oral argument, the court affirmed the district court's order compelling arbitration of plaintiff's Jones Act negligence claim.