Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff challenged the district court's denial of his motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial. Plaintiff sued defendant for the injuries he sustained during a traffic accident. After a mistrial, the jury returned a verdict for defendant. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial where a violation of an in limine order was not prejudicial; there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict; Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) precluded jurors from testifying in regards to jury deliberations for the purpose of challenging a verdict; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by not allowing plaintiff's reconstruction expert to testify as to whether either of the drivers' conduct violated South Dakota law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Warger v. Shauers" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, injured on an oil and gas rig, filed suit against various third parties - including TESCO and TESCO employee Jeffrey Anderson - after recovering workers' compensation benefits from his employer, DeSoto. SWE was the owner/operator of the oil and gas well. The court concluded that the SWE contract did not establish that the common law duty of care Anderson owed plaintiff extended to preventing unforeseen injuries caused by DeSoto's failure to follow SWE's safety rules; Anderson and TESCO had no duty to foresee that injury to a DeSoto employee would occur because other DeSoto employees not under defendants' control had failed to exercise their duty of care; ordinary care did not require Anderson to foresee that his encouraging word would cause a DeSoto driller to do something he had not already decided, indeed, been ordered to do; and the amount of encouragement Anderson gave the DeSoto driller was insubstantial. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking an expert report submitted by plaintiff and in denying the motion to amend. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Williams v. Chartis Casualty Co. et al." on Justia Law

Swift sued its lawyers alleging malpractice for failing to file a timely appeal of an adverse judgment in an Arkansas state court action. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the lawyers where there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the discovery of disputes or in instructing the jury on spoliation; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting hearsay statements and the statement of a certain witness; and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting demonstrative animation evidence. Accordingly, the Arkansas appellate courts would not have reversed the jury's verdict and, therefore, the lawyers' failure to file a timely appeal did not proximately cause harm to Swift. View "Swift Transportation Co., et al. v. Angulo, Jr., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged various causes of action against the maker of the generic drug (Pliva), brand defendants, and others after she was injured by the prescription medication metoclopramide. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of brand defendants and dismissal of her claims against Pliva. The court denied plaintiff's motion to supplement the record, finding no compelling reason to allow plaintiff to do so; the district court did not err in determining plaintiff's claims against brand defendants failed as a matter of law because she stipulated that she had not ingested a product manufactured by brand defendants; reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's non-warning design defect and breach of implied warranty claims and remanded for further consideration; and because there was no causal link between Pliva's failure to incorporate the 2004 labeling change and plaintiff's injury, the district court's dismissal of that claim was not error. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bell v. Pfizer, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued FFE, David A. Booker, Sr., and others after a semi-tractor trailer driven by Booker crashed into plaintiff's semi-tractor trailer. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that FFE and Booker waived their obligations to plaintiff's medical witnesses by failing to make these objections at the time set in the district court's discovery scheduling order; the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to reopen discovery after declaring a mistrial in the first trial; the district court properly instructed the jury on the correct use of anatomical drawings at the second trial; and because FFE and Booker did not sufficiently articulate for the district court any Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(iii) objection to the demonstrative aids, the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the anatomical drawings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bradshaw v. FFE Transportation Services, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

This case involved the interpretation of two contractual provisions under Minnesota law: an indemnification clause in a contract between PDSI and Miller and an insurance contract between Harleysville and PDSI which extended insurance coverage to PDSI's indemnification of third parties for tort liability caused, in whole or in part, by PDSI or by those acting on its behalf. The court agreed with the district court's finding that a PDSI employee's suit fell squarely within the indemnity provision of the 1989 Agreement between PDSI and Miller. The court also agreed with the district court's interpretation of the insurance agreements as requiring Harleysville to cover Miller's settlement of the employee's claims. Further, the court concluded that the undisputed facts established as a matter of law that PDSI or those acting on its behalf at least partly caused the employee's bodily injury within the terms of the Harleysville policy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Harleysville Ins. Co. v. Physical Distrib. Serv., et al" on Justia Law

American sued Mercantile, claiming it aided, abetted, and conspired with Louis J. Pearlman to perpetrate a large fraud. The jury found for American, awarding one-half of the requested damages. Mercantile and American appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not err by denying Mercantile's Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law on the aiding and abetting claim and the conspiracy claim. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in excluding other banks' reactions to Pearlman's fraud. The district court properly denied Mercantile's proposed jury instructions. Additur was not appropriate in this case because the question of damages was properly left to the jury; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying American's Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment, and because damages were a jury issue, the district court's prejudgment interest calculation was correct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "American Bank of St. Paul v. TD Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against his employer, Union Pacific, for injuries he sustained at a railyard operated by Gunderson. Union Pacific filed a third-party complaint for indemnity against Gunderson, and Union Pacific and Gunderson settled with plaintiff, each agreeing to pay half of plaintiff's settlement demand. After settling with plaintiff, Union Pacific and Gunderson proceeded to trial to determine whether Gunderson should also be liable for Union Pacific's half of the settlement. The court affirmed the district court's award to Union Pacific of half of its attorney's fees and costs incurred as of the settlement pursuant to the parties' Track Lease Agreement but denied Union Pacific's motion for additional attorney's fees arising out of the post-settlement indemnification proceedings. View "Rice v. Union Pacific RR Co." on Justia Law

Betty Lu Hughes appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment declaring Owners was not obligated to cover her claim for damages caused by an underinsured motorist. The court concluded that the Owners policy's underinsured motorist coverage did not cover Hughes's claims because the underinsured motorist's liability insurance bodily limit was not "less than" $100,000 as required by the policy's unambiguous definition of "underinsured automobile." The court need not reach the alternative argument that, even if the underinsured motorist's vehicle was "underinsured," the Owners policy set-off provision reduced the amount available under the Owners policy to zero. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Owners Ins. Co. v. Hughes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Alcoa, alleging that he contracted pulmonary fibrosis after working with aluminum for many years and that Alcoa failed to warn him of the dangers associated with the use of aluminum products. After Alcoa removed the case to federal court, plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss his action. Plaintiff stated an intention to add his Missouri employer to a new suit in state court, thereby destroying diversity jurisdiction. The court reversed the district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The overall circumstances strongly suggested that plaintiff was merely seeking a more favorable forum, and thus the district court should have considered whether plaintiff's proposed claims against his Missouri employer had any merit. View "Donner, et al v. Alcoa, Inc." on Justia Law