Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Timothy Parks died from asphyxiation after the Gravely Promaster 152Z riding mower he was operating on his property fell off the edge of an embankment and rolled over on top of him. Plaintiff, Timothy's wife, filed suit alleging that the manufacturer of the 152Z, Ariens, was negligent for failing to equip the machine with a rollover protection system (ROPS). The district court granted summary judgment against plaintiff. The optional equipment doctrine holds that a manufacturer is, under certain circumstances, not negligent if a purchaser fails to buy optional safety equipment that would have prevented the accident. Although the Iowa Supreme Court has not yet considered the optional equipment doctrine, policy reasons and the popularity of the optional equipment doctrine lead the court to conclude that the Iowa court would adopt it. Therefore, in this case, the court concluded that Ariens fulfilled any duty it had to Timothy when it provided the ROPS as an optional feature for the 152Z mower and ensured that he had the information necessary to make an informed choice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Parks v. Ariens Co." on Justia Law

Blake filed suit against CarVal and Lux, alleging tortious interference with Blake's contract to lease a barge and crane to a third party. The district court dismissed the complaint as time-barred. To determine the applicable limitations period the court looked to the choice of law rules of the forum state, which in this case is Minnesota. The court concluded that Alabama's interest in compensating Blake, a resident of that state, outweighs Minnesota's interest and favors the application of Alabama law. Therefore, the court concluded that the fourth choice of law factor favors the application of Alabama law. Since this is the only factor which favors either state's law, the district court did not err by applying Alabama law and dismissing Blake's claim as time barred. The court also concluded that Blake waived its argument that the district court should apply the "fairness exception" to Minnesota's borrowing statute; Blake has not satisfied the first requirement for invoking federal admiralty jurisdiction - the alleged tort occurred on navigable waters - and that laches does not apply; and there was no fraudulent concealment of facts and thus no basis to toll the two year limitations period. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Blake Marine Grp. v. CarVal Investors LLC" on Justia Law

Compart, a producer of breeding swine, filed a negligence suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq. Compart intended to export over three hundred pigs to China but China suspended all imports from Compart after it was notified by the United States government that the test results from a small set of the blood samples were "inconclusive" for Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome virus (PRRSv). The district court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed, concluding that the discretionary function exemption precludes jurisdiction over Compart's negligence claims because the testing and reporting of Compart's swine was governed by discretionary governmental procedures and susceptible to policy analysis. View "Compart's Boar Store, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Others First filed suit against the BBB, alleging tort claims for injurious falsehood based on alleged falsehoods contained in a news release, and for interference with business expectancy. The district court granted summary judgment for BBB. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on the tortious interference claim where Others First failed to submit sufficient evidence to show that the BBB employed improper means to further its own interests; Others First failed to plead alleged defamatory statements with the particularity required by Missouri law; and the district court properly granted summary judgment dismissing Others First’s claim of injurious falsehood because all of the challenged statements were either true statements of fact or protected opinion, and properly granted summary judgment dismissing the tortious interference claim given the absence of wrongful defamation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Others First, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of D.S., a minor student with intellectual disabilities, filed suit against the school district and others, in state court, seeking damages for premises liability and negligent supervision because D.S. was raped by another student in an unsupervised area of Southwest during the school day, and because D.S. was repeatedly bullied and sexually harassed by her classmates and peers. Defendants removed to federal court, claiming that plaintiff's causes of action arose under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., and then moved to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1) and (6). The district court denied plaintiff's motion to remand and dismissed the suit for failure to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies. The court concluded that plaintiff’s theories of liability arise out of Missouri statutory and common law, and the disposition of claims for premises liability and negligent supervision is not dependent on resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Even if the relief plaintiff requested were available under both state law and the IDEA, the well-pled complaint rule protects plaintiff's right to choose a state law cause of action. The court agreed with the Ninth Circuit that non-IDEA claims that do not seek relief available under the IDEA are not subject to the exhaustion requirement, even if they allege injuries that could conceivably have been redressed by the IDEA. Finally, the court denied plaintiff's request for attorney fees because defendants had a reasonable basis for their removal request. The court reversed and remanded to state court. View "Moore v. Kansas City Public Sch." on Justia Law

After plaintiffs' 23-month-old son, Jacob, drowned in a pond after climbing out of his crib and leaving their home in the middle of the night, plaintiffs filed a products liability and negligence suit against Dorel. Dorel denied that the doorknob cover it designed and manufactured was defective or unreasonably dangerous when used properly. The jury unanimously found Dorel was not liable for Jacob’s death and rendered a general verdict in Dorel’s favor. The court concluded that the district court did not err in admitting evidence that mother failed to secure the chain lock the night of Jacob’s death and father knew before that night that Jacob could defeat the doorknob cover. Even if the court accepted plaintiffs' alleged evidentiary errors for the purpose of argument, plaintiffs failed to establish how those errors prejudicially influenced the outcome of the trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Coterel v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc." on Justia Law

After a truck driven by a Werner employee struck a train operated by Canadian Pacific, causing a tanker car to spill the chemical it was carrying, Canadian Pacific filed suit against Werner for the clean-up costs under theories of trespass, nuisance, and negligence. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Werner on the trespass claim where Canadian Pacific did not argue that the employee entered the intersection intentionally, and its theory that the employee intentionally hid a fatigue diagnosis, even if true, was insufficient to make out a trespass claim. Because negligence was the only potential basis of wrongful conduct that was presented to the jury, its finding that the employee was not negligent is fatal to Canadian Pacific’s nuisance claim. The court further concluded that federal regulations do not foreclose state law defenses to negligence claims. In this case, when viewed in the light most favorable to Werner, the evidence was sufficient to enable a reasonable jury to find that the employee was incapacitated due to an acute cardiac event, and therefore not negligent in operating his truck. Finally, the court concluded that the district court’s instructions adequately submitted the issues to the jury and that it did not abuse its discretion in denying the requested instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Soo Line RR. Co. v. Werner Enter." on Justia Law

A.H. and Renna Yi, both minors, were passengers on a school bus that collided with a pickup truck, causing them serious injuries. A.H. and Yi's parents, on behalf of the minors, filed suit in Missouri state court alleging, among other things, that the brakes were defective. Midwest Bus, the retail seller of the bus, originally was a party to each action, but was omitted from subsequent amended complaints. The jury found in favor of all remaining defendants and the state trial court entered judgment. The minors also each filed suit against Midwest Bus in federal court in diversity actions under Missouri law. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal on the alternative ground that their claims are barred by collateral estoppel, as oppose to res judicata, because the jury unambiguously decided that their injuries were not caused by improper installation of automatic slack adjusters (ASAs) on the bus, and that the ASAs were not the cause or a contributing cause of the crash. View "A. H. v. Midwest Bus Sales, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Kozlov and Tchikobava, employees of Albatross, were injured in a tractor-trailer driven by an employee of AWG. The employee, Michael Scott, was killed in the crash. Kozlov and Tchikobava both filed personal injury lawsuits against AWG and Scott's estate. Because both Kozlov's and Tchikobava's negligence was equal to or greater than AWG's negligence, plaintiffs were barred from recovery. Because the jury found Kozlov 84% at fault, he was barred from recovery. Kozlov's contributory negligence in the accident, according to the jury's sole discretion, was greater than AWG's negligence (8%). Similarly, Tchikobava's contributory negligence (8%) was equal to AWG's negligence, and thus, he was also barred from recovery. The court concluded that the jury's assessment of each party's negligence and the resulting damages are not clearly against the weight and reasonableness of the evidence; the district court properly instructed the jury on proximate cause and the instructions Tchikobava offered were inapposite; Tchikobava's argument regarding the noneconomic damage calculation was waived; even if the issue were properly preserved, the damages were adequate; Kozlov was not prejudiced by misleading jury instructions; the district court did not abuse its discretion in submitting factual issues regarding Kozlov's negligence regarding lights on the trailer, qualifications as a truck driver, and Tchikobava's negligence in failing to train or supervise; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting defendant's expert to testify, denying Kozlov's motion for leave to amend, and excluding evidence of Scott's prior accident and his questionable health. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kozlov v. Associated Wholesale Grocers" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and his father's estate, filed a wrongful death action alleging that Amtrak negligently caused his father's death. Plaintiff claimed that the moving train from which his father fell had inadequate safety features and instructions for the crew. The district court granted summary judgment to Amtrak. The court concluded that the district court did not err by granting Amtrak summary judgment on plaintiff’s negligence claim where circumstantial evidence in the record supports the inference that plaintiff's father accidentally fell out of a right side exit door on the train which he or someone else had opened. In this case, the record does not support plaintiff's contention that Amtrak proximately caused the death of plaintiff's father. The court concluded that Amtrak's failure to install door status indicators was not the cause of death. Plaintiff has also failed to present a genuine issue of fact showing that Amtrak proximately caused the death by failing to instruct its crew adequately on hazards for confused passengers. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's challenge to two of the district court's discovery rulings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Haukereid v. National Railroad Passenger Co." on Justia Law