Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

These consolidated cases arose out of an accident aboard Estis Rig 23, a barge supporting a truck-mounted drilling rig. The principal issue was whether seamen could recover punitive damages for their employer's willful and wanton breach of the general maritime law duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. Like maintenance and cure, unseaworthiness was established as a general maritime claim before the passage of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 30104; punitive damages were available under general maritime law; and the Jones Act did not address unseaworthiness or limit its remedies. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, concluding that punitive damages remained available as a remedy for the general maritime law claim of unseaworthiness. View "McBride, et al. v. Estis Well Service L. L. C." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform oil spill. On appeal, BP challenged the district court's decision upholding the Claims Administrator's interpretation of the settlement agreement between it and the class of parties injured in the oil spill and the district court's dismissal of its action for breach of contract against the Administrator and denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction. The court concluded that the balance of equities favored a tailored stay where those who experienced actual injury traceable to loss from the Deepwater Horizon accident continued to receive recovery but those who did not receive their payments until this case was fully heard and decided through the judicial process weighed in favor of BP. Accordingly, the court reversed the denial of the preliminary injunction and instructed the district court to expeditiously craft a narrowly-tailored injunction that allowed the time necessary for deliberate reconsideration of significant issues on remand. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of BP's suit against the Claim Administrator. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer after he was injured in a slip and fall accident on the job. The district court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment based in part on plaintiff's subjective awareness of the risk the spill presented. The court held that the district court erred in relying on plaintiff's subjective knowledge of the spill to grant summary judgment in favor of the employer because Section 406.033(a) of the Texas Labor Code took the employee's own negligence off of the table for a non-subscriber like the employer; there was a fact issue regarding the necessity of the product at issue to clean the spill; and the district court improperly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's premises liability claim. In regards to plaintiff's ordinary negligence claim, the court remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance whether plaintiff's necessary-instrumentalities theory was sufficient to support a stand-alone ordinary negligence claim. In regards to plaintiff's gross negligence claim, the court agreed with the district court that no reasonable juror could conclude that the employer was consciously indifferent to the safety of its employees. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, members of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee for the Chinese Drywall MDL, claimed that technology counsel for Cataphora made defamatory statements that were aimed at, and caused harm in, Louisiana, thereby grounding personal jurisdiction in that state. The court concluded that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants because plaintiff failed to make a showing that the statements' focal point was Louisiana. The court vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded with instructions to transfer the matter to the United States District Court of the Northern District of California in the interest of justice. View "Herman, et al. v. Cataphora, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., against the Army after plaintiff, an employee of a private Army contractor, was injured on the job when he tripped and fell. Plaintiff sued the Government for negligence and premises liability because he found that the workers' compensation benefits he received through his employer's policy was insufficient to cover his needs. Under Texas law, general contractors who require subcontractors to provide workers' compensation insurance to their employees and who pay for that coverage were "statutory employers" protected by the exclusive-remedy provision. In this instance, the parties agreed that the Government has taken the basic steps it needed to take to avail itself to the exclusive-remedy rule as a statutory employer. The court concluded that, because plaintiff did not allege a lack of notice or prejudice from any lack of notice, the federal government was in "like circumstances" as a Texas statutory employer. Accordingly, plaintiff's workers' compensation benefits were his exclusive remedy, and his claims against the Government were properly dismissed. View "Willoughby, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

Issuer Banks appealed the district court's dismissal of their negligence claim as third party beneficiaries of Heartland's contracts with other entities. This case arose out of a group of hackers' breach of Heartland's data systems, compromising confidential information belonging to customers of Issuer Banks. Mindful that the New Jersey Supreme Court has long been a leader in expanding tort liability, and in light of the lack of a developed record illuminating any contractual remedies available to Issuer Banks, the court held that, in this instance, the economic loss doctrine did not bar Issuer Banks' negligence claim at this stage of the litigation. The court declined to decide on the remaining complex issues that Heartland raised. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In Re: Heartland Payment Sys., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), 2671-80, seeking compensatory damages for loss of property and personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence and malice of the VA. The court affirmed the district court's grant of the VA's motion to dismiss where the Veterans Judicial Review Act (VJRA), 38 U.S.C. 511, and in the alternative, the United States' sovereign immunity, barred the district court from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims. View "King v. US Dept. of Veterans Affairs, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, landowners, filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., seeking damages from the government for its role in the design, construction, and maintenance of a portion of a highway that prevented sufficient drainage periods of heavy rainfall. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the district court erred when it declined to apply Louisiana's continuing-tort doctrine to delay commencement of the running of the FTCA's two-year limitations period. The court concluded that plaintiffs have not been aggrieved by a Louisiana continuing tort and have failed to bear their burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiffs' claim was time-barred. View "Young, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others, filed suit against several governmental and private parties after her husband died in a training accident at the Texas Department of Public Safety Training Academy. Because this case involved important and determinative questions of Texas law as to which there was no controlling Texas precedent, the court certified questions to the Supreme Court of Texas regarding the receipt of benefits under Texas Labor Code 417.002. View "Carty v. Texas Dep't of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a nonsubscriber action under Texas Labor Code 406.033 against her employer, Home Depot, claiming that Home Depot's negligence caused her on-the-job-injury. On appeal, Home Depot appealed the district court's remand after Home Depot removed the case to federal court. Because the policy underlying 28 U.S.C. 1445(c) and this court's instruction that ambiguities in removal statutes should be construed against removal, the district court construed section 1445(c) in favor of remand. Accordingly, the court had no authority to review such remand orders and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. View "Ernewayn v. Home Depot USA, Inc." on Justia Law