Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Budrik sued Wegman for injuries sustained in an accident on a construction site managed by Wegman and was demanding almost presented a realistic possibility of a potential loss above the policy limit, $1 million), but failed to warn Wegman of this possibility. Wegman sued Admiral for failure to act in good faith, alleging that it would promptly have sought indemnity from its excess insurer, AIG (policy limit $10 million). Budrik filed suit four years before Wegman notified AIG, which denied coverage for failure to timely notify. Budrik obtained a judgment of slightly more than $2 million. The district court dismissed Wegman’s suit against Admiral, and, on remand, granted a stay, pending state court resolution of Wegman’s suit against AIG. The Seventh Circuit dismissed appeal of the stay. Although Wegman’s suit against Admiral in federal court and against AIG in state court, are related, they do not satisfy the conditions for abstention.; the district court is not finished with the case. The stay really is a stay, and not a dismissal.

While working as a flight attendant, LeGrande was injured when the aircraft encountered severe turbulence. She sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2674, alleging that air traffic controllers employed by the FAA negligently had failed to warn the flight’s captain that turbulence had been forecast along the flight path. The district court concluded that FAA employees did not breach any duty owed LeGrande and granted summary judgment for the government. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. LeGrande argued, for the first time, that her injuries resulted from the negligence of a National Weather Service meteorologist. The court concluded that the FAA breached no duty owed to LeGrande and that LeGrande failed to give the NWS the notice that the FTCA requires.

In 2008, Sojka was working on the upper floors of the Chicago Trump Tower construction project, trying to repair a steel cable that held safety netting around the upper floors of the project when the wind knocked him back and a piece of metal struck his eye, causing severe injuries. Although Sojka was wearing safety glasses at the time, they apparently did not fit his face properly. He sued the construction manager, which moved for summary judgment on the ground that it did not owe Sojka any duty of care to provide a safe workplace, and that even if it did it had not breached such a duty because it had no knowledge that the safety glasses were inadequate to prevent the injury. Sojka failed to address this argument in his response and the court granted the motion. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Although the court was correct that Sojka conceded the eyewear point by failing to respond, it took too narrow a view of Sojka’s case. His response addressed several other ways in which defendant’s negligence allegedly caused his injuries. A dispute of material fact remains on those theories.

TAMS, a medical device manufacturer, hired Comtrans to coordinate shipment of equipment to a trade show in Chicago. Comtrans is not a carrier. It used its affiliate, ACS, which retained Atlas to perform the actual shipment. The Atlas truck was involved in a serious accident, leaving TAMS with more than $1 million in losses. TAMS’s insurance company sued on behalf of TAMS. Atlas is an interstate motor carrier authorized by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to transport goods in interstate commerce. Claims are subject to the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. 14706, which provides that a carrier of property in interstate commerce is liable for the actual loss or injury to the property caused b” the carrier, which may be limited “to a value established by written or electronic declaration of the shipper or by written agreement between the carrier and shipper if that value would be reasonable under the circumstances.” Atlas relied on the contract it had in place with ACS and the bill of lading delivered signed by a Comtrans warehouse manager when Atlas picked up TAMS’s shipment, as limiting liability to $0.60 per pound. The district court entered summary judgment for Atlas. The Seventh Circuit remanded for further development of the facts.

A former inmate sued under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.794–94e, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12111–213, and the Eighth Amendment, claiming that prison officials ignored his need for placement in an ADA-compliant facility, and refused to consider him for a work-release program solely because he walks with a cane. Imprisoned for driving on a suspended license, the inmate had advanced osteoarthritis and vascular necrosis in his hip. The prison declined his request for installation of grab bars or for a transfer. The district court screened the complaint before service and dismissed. The Seventh Circuit vacated. While the court correctly dismissed the Eighth Amendment count, the inmate adequately alleged that refusal to accommodate his disability kept him from accessing meals and showers on the same basis as other inmates.

Siblings of decedent, a 22-year-old inmate who committed suicide while incarcerated, sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that staff members acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition involving a long history of suicide attempts, self-harm, and mental illness. The district court granted qualified immunity to the management level defendants, the Wisconsin Resource Center defendants, and the nurse who was called after the suicide, but denied qualified immunity to staff members. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting the different levels of knowledge available to the defendants and that there is a clearly established right to be free from deliberate indifference to suicide

Eilman, a college student, was arrested outside an airport after behaving so badly that agents had called police. Eilman had developed bipolar disorder following an auto accident the previous year. She had not taken her medication and did not tell the police about her mental-health condition. By phone, her mother and stepfather told officers about her disorder. They did not believe the stepfather and the officer who talked to her mother did not share the information. Officers thought that Eilman was being difficult or was on drugs. In custody, Eilman alternated between calm and manic. Officers released her into a neighborhood she did not know, near a public-housing project with an exceptionally high crime rate without returning her cell phone. She was raped and either jumped or was thrown out a seventh-story window. She suffered permanent, serious brain damage. In a suit by her guardian under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court denied some of defendants’ claims of qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part, noting that whether police should have understood Eilman’s need for medical care is a factual issue and that police may have made her situation worse by releasing her far from where she was arrested.Easterbrook

Defendant attempted to murder his ex-wife by beating her with a baseball bat, sealing her in a garbage can filled with snow, and leaving her in an unheated storage facility. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. The victim suffered severe injuries that resulted in her suffering a miscarriage and the amputation of all her toes. A Wisconsin state court awarded her $3.4 million for battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and her husband and daughters $300,000 for loss of consortium. Defendant filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. The bankruptcy judge ruled that his debts were nondischargeable as debts "for willful and malicious injury," 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6). The district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the purpose of bankruptcy law is to provide a fresh start for the honest, but unfortunate, debtor.

Plaintiffs were involved in a physical altercation with employees of a nightclub. Plaintiffs sustained visible injuries. Club employees took them outside, handcuffed them and called the police. The officers were apparently unwilling to listen to plaintiffs' side of the story; they were taken to a squad car and placed in the rear seat, though they were never told they were under arrest. Both were charged with assault and battery. Although there were surveillance cameras, tapes were never requested and were destroyed before plaintiffs filed their suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the city, officers, the club, and its owner. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, holding that the club and owner were not functioning as state actors; that plaintiffs failed to show a conspiracy between the city and the club; that there was probable cause to arrest plaintiffs; and that probable cause defeats a claim of malicious prosecution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Plaintiff suffered an on-the-job injury. The following day, managers decided to terminate her position as part of a national reduction in force. Informed of this decision upon her return from medical leave, plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation claim and, later, sued the company for terminating her in retaliation for exercising workers’ compensation rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the company established nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision. Plaintiff did not show a causal link between her decision to seek medical attention and the termination.