Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

A railroad employee sued his employer, DM&E, after he was injured while working as the employee-in-charge of a construction site. DM&E then brought a third-party complaint against Corman, contending that Corman was required to indemnify and defend it against the employee's Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. 51-60, claim pursuant to a contract between the parties. Nothing in the Contract Work Agreement (CWA) indicated that it extended to claims which were unrelated to Corman's common-law negligence. The indemnity clause in the CWA did not mention the FELA. Therefore, the court held that DM&E had not shown any issues of material fact existed and therefore no negligence could be attributed to Corman. The court also held that the indemnification provision in the CWA did not trigger the insured contract exception to the general exclusion provision contained in the Lexington Insurance policy, and, as a result, no obligation existed based on the terms of the policy. View "Dakota, MN & Eastern R. R. v. R. J. Corman R. R. Construction" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued OMJP and others for failing to warn adequately of the risk of tendon rupture in patients who, like plaintiff, were elderly and taking concomitant corticosteroids. A jury found OMJP primarily liable, awarding plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages. OMJP appealed the district court's denial of its motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and a new trial. The court held that the district court did not err in denying OMJP's motions for JMOL or a new trial based on the jury's award of compensatory damages where the district court found sufficient evidence of causation, reasoning that the jury finding was not against the preponderance of the evidence. The evidence was neither clear nor convincing, as a matter of law, that OMJP deliberately disregarded the safety of the users of Levaquin. Accordingly, the district court erred in denying JMOL for OMJP on punitive damages. View "Schedin v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, thirty-five children living near a smelting facility in Peru, alleged that environmental contamination injured them. Plaintiffs claimed that contamination was caused by the owners and operators of the facility. Defendants' associate, Renco, is currently arbitrating related claims with Peru. Defendants moved to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. The court held that the issues in the arbitration could conceivably affect the outcome of this case and the case was properly removed under 9 U.S.C. 205 and that the court did not have pendant appellate jurisdiction over defendants' discretionary-stay claim. The court also held that the issues in this case relate to the arbitration but were not referable to arbitration. Accordingly, the district court properly denied a mandatory stay under 9 U.S.C. 3. View "Sr. Kate Reid, et al v. Doe Run Resources Corp., et al" on Justia Law

West commenced this diversity action to recover expenses incurred in defending Miller in a garnishment action, asserting tort claims under Missouri law against RLI for vexatious refusal to pay, bad faith refusal to pay, and prima facie tort, and claims of negligence and negligent misrepresentations against RLI's independent claims agent, ASCK. West also sought a declaration that it owed no duty to protect RLI in the underlying arbitration. RLI counter claimed, alleging that, prior to the arbitration, West negligently and in bad faith refused to settle the underlying claims for less than its policy limits. West's response added claims for indemnification and contribution against ASCK. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment dismissing RLI's refusal-to-settle counterclaim and remanded for further proceedings. The court declined to review the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing West's affirmative defenses to the counterclaim. In all other respects, the court affirmed the district court's orders and judgment. View "West American Ins. Co. v. RLI Ins. Co., et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Goding was a beneficiary of an Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., Plan administered by Drury. Goding sustained injuries in a slip and fall accident and received benefits from the Drury-administered Plan, as well as compensation through the settlement of a civil suit related to those injuries. Pursuant to a subrogation provision in the ERISA Plan, Drury attempted to secure reimbursement from Goding for the benefits it paid but was unable to do so after Goding declared bankruptcy. Drury then attempted to obtain that reimbursement from the firm that represented Goding. The court affirmed the district court's finding that Drury could not obtain such reimbursement because the firm had not agreed to the Plan's subrogation provision and consequently was not contractually bound by it; Drury could not maintain a suit against the firm in equity and could not bring a state cause of action for conversion against the firm; and the firm should be awarded attorneys' fees for successful defense of a subsequent motion. View "Treasurer, Trustees of Drury Ind. v. Goding, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sustained injuries while riding in a locomotive operated by his employer, BNSF. Plaintiff brought suit seeking compensation under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. 51 et seq. The district court concluded that relevant regulations promulgated under the Federal Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq., provided the sole duty of care owed to plaintiff in relation to his claim. The district court ruled that plaintiff had not demonstrated a failure to comply with the relevant regulations and that plaintiff had therefore failed to establish a breach in BNSF's duty of care under the FELA, and therefore granted summary judgment for BNSF. Because the district court granted summary judgment on an issue not raised or discussed by either party, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The court also reversed in part the district court's order excluding expert testimony, because BNSF had not met its burden of showing that FRSA regulations substantially subsumed plaintiff's claim. The court affirmed that order in part because the district court correctly excluded other portions of the expert's testimony as prohibited by Rule 47 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. View "Cowden v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

In this uninsured motorist case, plaintiff appealed the district court's ruling that the uninsured motorist (UIM) provisions in his insurance policies with defendant could not be stacked beyond the statutory minimum per insurance policy. Plaintiff also argued that the district court erred in applying a settlement that arose from the same accident at issue in this case as a credit against what he could recover from defendant. Defendant cross-appealed, arguing that plaintiff's counsel's misconduct before the jury warranted a new trial. In addition, defendant argued that plaintiffs failed to make a submissible negligence case to the jury. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court as to all issues save its determination that UIM provisions could not be stacked beyond the statutory minimum. As to that issue, the court reversed and remanded. View "Burroughs, et al. v. Mackie Moving Systems Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a jury verdict finding him liable for battery, outrage, and conspiracy. Defendant was the leader of a religious group, Tony Alamo Christian Ministries (TACM), where he controlled members' finances, prohibited them from traveling or speaking to outsiders unless it was to witness, and prohibited children from attending public schools, watching television, or listening to the radio. Plaintiffs were raised in TACM. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all regards except that the punitive damages award was reversed and remanded to the district court for entry of a verdict imposing $12 million in punitive damages for each plaintiff. View "Ondirsek, et al. v. Hoffman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that a city police officer employed excessive force when he shot plaintiff eight times. The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the officer on plaintiff's 1983 claim where the officer acted objectively reasonable under the circumstances. The district court ruled that if plaintiff sought to hold the city liable for the officer's alleged state-law torts, then the officer was entitled to official immunity, and the city was thus entitled to vicarious official immunity. The court agreed with this conclusion and affirmed the judgment. View "Loch, et al. v. City of Litchfield, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of Redwood Toxicology Laboratory's motion to dismiss with prejudice his Minnesota state law claims raised in federal court under the court's diversity jurisdiction. Because plaintiff lacked Article III standing to raise the state statutory claims in federal court where he failed to allege a causal connection between Redwood's actions and any presumed injury suffered by him, and because his negligence claim likewise failed under Rule 12(b)(6), the court affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "Miller v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc." on Justia Law