Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, struck by an Amtrak train across railroad tracks owned and maintained by Illinois Central, claimed that Illinois Central failed to signalize the crossing properly. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding an expert's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court also held that Illinois Central demonstrated that the crossing at issue was not "unusually dangerous" as a matter of Mississippi law. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Illinois Central. View "Brown v. Illinois Central Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, employed as a technician by Aerotek, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Miller and Aerotek on her negligent hiring claim under Mississippi law. Plaintiff alleged that she was forcibly raped by an employee of Aerotek. The court held that Mississippi law did not impose a duty on employers to conduct criminal background checks, at least within the factual circumstances of this case; non-compliance with internal corporate hiring policies was probative of, but not dispositive of, evidence of negligence under Mississippi law; and there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Miller and Aerotek should have known of the employee's violent propensity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Keen v. Robertson, et al" on Justia Law

Freeport and Brand Energy were named defendants in a personal injury suit in Texas state court. Freeport sought defense and indemnity from ACE, its insured, in the state court proceedings under Brand Energy's insurance policy with ACE. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of ACE, holding that it had no duty to defend Freeport in the state court proceedings because Freeport was not covered as an additional insurer under Brand Energy's insurance policy with respect to the underlying state court claims. The court remanded for a determination of whether ACE had a duty to indemnify Freeport for the cost of its settlement in the state court proceedings. View "ACE American Ins. Co. v. Freeport Welding & Fabricating" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Mississippi citizen, brought suit against the driver of a rental car, her passengers, and an Enterprise Rent-A-Car for a traffic accident. Defendants who are individuals are foreign nationals, believed to be from Great Britain. Various attempts at service were made but all failed. After granting two extensions of time, the district court dismissed the suit for lack of service. At issue was the timing requirement Rule 4 placed on foreign service of process. The court adopted a flexible due-diligence standard. The court also concluded that because Mississippi's statute of limitations likely barred refiling, this suit should not have been dismissed. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Lozano v. Bosdet, et al." on Justia Law

A jury found defendant liable to plaintiff under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, La. Rev. Stat. 9:2800.54, for injuries caused by a defect that rendered one of its stucco pumps unreasonably dangerous. The central disputes on appeal were whether the theories offered by plaintiff's experts met the standards for scientific reliability under the Federal Rules of Evidence and whether the jury's imposition of liability for a defect in "construction or composition" of the pump could stand. The court held that none of the expert evidence was improperly admitted and that there was no basis to set aside the jury's finding of a defect under Section 9:2800.55. The court considered the comparative fault challenges, plaintiff's Rule 50 motion on a design defect under Section 9:2800.56, and finally, explained why the increase in the medical award was appropriate. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict as modified by the district court. View "Roman v. Western Manufacturing, Inc." on Justia Law

This case required the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether vicarious liability principles under the Jones Act allowed a seaman's wife to recover from her husband's employer for the events that led to his death. Keith Beech died after his co-worker, Michael Cosenza, accidentally shot him aboard a Hercules Drilling Company-owned vessel. The district court determined that Cosenza was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and therefore, Hercules was liable for Mr. Beech's wrongful death. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Cosenza was not acting in the course of his employment when he accidentally shot Beech, and therefore, the district court's judgment in favor of Mrs. Beech must be reversed. View "Beech v. Hercules Drilling Co., LLC" on Justia Law

The original opinion in this case was filed on June 15, 2012. Because this Texas diversity law case involved important and determinative questions of Texas law as to which there is not controlling Texas Supreme Court precedent, the panel withdrew the previous opinion and substituted the following certified questions to the Texas Supreme Court: (1) Does a general contractor that enters into a contract in which it agrees to perform its construction work in a good and workmanlike manner, assume liability for damages arising out of the contractor's defective work so as to trigger a contractual liability exclusion in a CGL insurance policy; and (2) if the exclusion is triggered, do the allegations in the underlying lawsuit alleging that the contractor violated its common law duty to perform the contract in a careful, workmanlike, and non-negligent manner fall within the exception to the contractual liability exclusion for "liability that would exist in the absence of contract." View "Ewing Constr. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After its property sustained wind damage during Hurricane Katrina, a real-estate developer sued its insurance provider for coverage, and, in the alternative, its insurance agent for professional negligence. The district court decided that the insurance policy covered wind damage, and a jury decided that there had been no "mutual mistake" between the agent and the provider concerning wind coverage. As a consequence, the district court dismissed with prejudice the developer's negligence claim against its agent. The insurance provider appealed, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, deciding that the policy did not cover wind damage. On remand, the developer moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to set aside the dismissal of its professional negligence claim against the agent in light of the reversal. The district court granted the motion and resurrected the negligence claim against the agent. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the developer Rule 60(b) relief.

The underlying personal injury case stemmed from an injury suffered by Dentist on the premises of Condominium. Condominium had general liability coverage issued by Primary Insurer and excess coverage through Excess Carrier. Dentist sued Condominium which submitted the cause to Primary Insurer to provide a defense. The jury awarded Dentist $1,654,663. Condominium demanded that Excess Carrier pay the amount in excess of the primary coverage amount. Excess Carrier contested coverage for late notice, contending it did not have notice of the personal injury action until the day of the verdict. Sister Company to Primary Insurer paid the remaining amount under its supersedeas bond after Excess Carrier denied responsibility for that amount. Sister Company allowed Primary Insurer to bring this lawsuit against Excess Carrier in Sister Company's name. At issue on appeal was whether the failure to give Excess Carrier notice prior to the jury verdict forfeited coverage it would otherwise owe. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sister Company. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that, under the facts of this case, the failure to give notice to Excess Carrier until after an adverse jury verdict constituted evidence of prejudice that forfeited coverage.

Claimant was employed by New Orleans Depot Services, Inc. (NODSI) as a mechanic from 1996 until 2002. Prior to his employment with NODSI, Claimant was employed by New Orleans Marine Contractors (NOMC) for five months. During his employment with both NODSI and NOMC, Claimant was exposed to loud noises on a continuous basis and did not use hearing protection. Claimant sought permanent partial disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act for a hearing impairment. The ALJ determined that NODSI was liable for Claimants benefits as his last maritime employer. The Benefits Review Board (BRB) affirmed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the factual findings of the ALJ.