Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves two companies, Skyline Tower Painting, Inc. (Skyline) and Television Tower, Inc. (TTI), which were sued by a group of plaintiffs for allegedly causing lead paint contamination in a Baltimore neighborhood. TTI owns a TV tower that was coated with lead-based paint, and Skyline was contracted to clean the tower using hydroblasting, a process that dislodged and dispersed the lead paint. The plaintiffs, who own property within a 4000-foot radius of the tower, claimed that the hydroblasting caused lead paint chips and dust to spread throughout their community, posing health risks and reducing property values.The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in Maryland state court, asserting claims for negligence, negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, and strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity. The defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court, invoking CAFA’s local-controversy exception. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the motion to remand, finding that the local-controversy exception applied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court first determined that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, despite the defendants also filing petitions for permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1453. The court dismissed the § 1453 petitions as unnecessary. On the merits, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the local-controversy exception to CAFA applied. The court found that more than two-thirds of the proposed class members were Maryland citizens, and that TTI, a Maryland citizen, was a significant defendant from whom significant relief was sought and whose conduct formed a significant basis for the claims. View "Skyline Tower Painting, Inc. v. Goldberg" on Justia Law

Robbie Plyler, a longtime farm worker, was injured when his leg became trapped in a running grain auger inside a grain bin on Cox Brothers Farms, resulting in the amputation of his right leg below the knee. The jury found that both Plyler and Cox Brothers Farms were negligent, but the farm had the last clear chance to avoid the injury. The jury awarded Plyler $2,000,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 for loss of consortium to his wife, Deborah. Cox Brothers Farms appealed the decision.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied Cox's pre-trial motions for summary judgment and its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on Plyler’s negligence and gross negligence claims. The court also denied Cox's motion to bifurcate the trial into separate liability and damages phases and its motion to exclude testimony from Plyler’s farm safety expert.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the jury’s verdict. The court found that the district court did not err in denying Cox's motions for summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law, as there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Cox had the last clear chance to avoid Plyler’s injury. The appellate court also upheld the district court’s decision to deny Cox's motion to bifurcate the trial and to admit the expert testimony, noting that the district court provided appropriate limiting instructions to the jury regarding the use of OSHA regulations as evidence. The court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion and that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting a new trial. View "Plyler v. Cox" on Justia Law

KeraLink International, Inc. operates a network of eyebanks and purchased surgical packs containing eyewash from Stradis Healthcare, LLC. The eyewash, supplied by Geri-Care Pharmaceuticals Corporation, was contaminated, rendering corneal tissue unusable. KeraLink sued Stradis and Geri-Care for strict products liability, and both were held jointly and severally liable for $606,415.49 plus prejudgment interest. Stradis sought indemnification from Geri-Care, claiming Geri-Care's primary culpability as the apparent manufacturer of the eyewash.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland awarded summary judgment to KeraLink on its strict products liability claim against both Stradis and Geri-Care. The court rejected the sealed container defense asserted by both defendants. Stradis then sought implied indemnification from Geri-Care, arguing that its liability was secondary. The district court agreed, granting Stradis summary judgment for indemnification but denied Stradis' request for attorneys' fees incurred in defending against KeraLink's suit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in awarding Stradis implied indemnification against Geri-Care. The court found that Geri-Care's conduct as the apparent manufacturer of the contaminated eyewash was primarily culpable, while Stradis' conduct was secondary. The court also upheld the district court's denial of Stradis' request for attorneys' fees, citing the American Rule, which generally precludes the recovery of attorneys' fees as compensatory damages unless authorized by statute, rule, or contract. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in all respects. View "Geri-Care Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Stradis Healthcare, LLC" on Justia Law

Amanda Watts received two vaccines, Pneumovax 23 and Boostrix, at a CVS Pharmacy in 2017. She claimed that both vaccines were negligently administered in the same improper location on her arm, leading to a chronic pain condition. However, CVS is immune from suit for the administration of Boostrix under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Consequently, Watts's complaint focused solely on the alleged negligence in administering Pneumovax.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment to CVS, finding that Watts presented no evidence from which a jury could determine that her injury was caused by the Pneumovax vaccine rather than the Boostrix vaccine. The court also struck an errata sheet submitted by Watts's expert, Dr. Akhil Chhatre, which attempted to amend his deposition testimony to suggest that both vaccines contributed to Watts's injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit agreed that Watts failed to provide evidence to establish that her injury was caused by the Pneumovax shot, as required to overcome CVS's immunity for the Boostrix shot. The court noted that both of Watts's experts could not definitively attribute her injury to the Pneumovax vaccine alone. The court also upheld the district court's decision to strike Dr. Chhatre's errata sheet, which materially altered his original testimony.The Fourth Circuit concluded that without evidence to separate the effects of the two vaccines, a jury could only speculate on the cause of Watts's injury. Therefore, Watts could not satisfy the causation element of her negligence claim, and the summary judgment in favor of CVS was affirmed. View "Watts v. Maryland CVS Pharmacy, LLC" on Justia Law

E.R., the appellant, filed a complaint against the Beaufort County School District, alleging that the district failed to respond appropriately to her reports of sexual abuse and harassment while she was a student. E.R. claimed she was sexually assaulted by three male students and subsequently bullied and harassed by other students. Despite reporting these incidents to school officials, she alleged that no appropriate action was taken.The case was initially filed in South Carolina state court, asserting claims under Title IX and state law for negligence and gross negligence. The school district removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss it, arguing that the claims were untimely under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), which has a two-year statute of limitations. The district court agreed, applying the SCTCA's statute of limitations to both the Title IX and state law claims, and dismissed the case as it was filed more than two years after E.R. turned 18.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the appropriate statute of limitations for Title IX claims is the state's general personal injury statute of limitations, not the SCTCA's two-year period. The court reasoned that Title IX claims should borrow the statute of limitations from the most analogous state law cause of action, which in this case is the general personal injury statute. Since South Carolina's general personal injury statute of limitations is three years, E.R.'s claims were timely.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of E.R.'s complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "E.R. v. Beaufort County School District" on Justia Law

Lois Ann Brown slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart in Lynchburg, Virginia, on January 28, 2021, following a snowstorm the previous night. The snowstorm ended by 6:15 AM, and Brown fell at approximately 8:30 AM. Brown did not see any salt or deicing chemicals on the ground or on her clothing after the fall. The store manager, Anthony Ware, confirmed that he did not see any salt or chemicals in the parking lot. Surveillance footage showed the contractor's truck driving around the parking lot but not stopping or applying any deicing measures.Brown initially filed a negligence lawsuit against Wal-Mart in state court, seeking $300,000 in damages. Wal-Mart removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, holding that Brown failed to show that Wal-Mart had actual or constructive notice of the specific patch of ice and that Brown did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that Wal-Mart breached its duty of care.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the snowstorm itself provided Wal-Mart with notice of the ice and snow in the parking lot, creating a duty to use reasonable care to remove the hazards. The court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Wal-Mart breached its duty of care. The evidence, including conflicting testimonies and surveillance footage, suggested that a reasonable jury could find for either party. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP" on Justia Law

Eugene Kritter, an experienced helicopter pilot, owned and operated Kritter Cropdusting. While crop dusting over a farm in North Carolina, his helicopter collided with a low-hanging steel wire, resulting in his death. Kritter Cropdusting and Kritter’s estate filed a negligence lawsuit against the farm owners and operators, as well as Nutrien, the pesticide company that hired Kritter Cropdusting for the job.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court concluded that the farm owners and operators owed no duty of care to Kritter to remove or warn about the wire, as the risk was not reasonably foreseeable to them. The court also found that neither Nutrien nor its employee, Elmore, owed Kritter a duty of care. Additionally, the court rejected the argument that Kritter was contributorily negligent and found that the wire was not an open and obvious condition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because material questions of fact remained regarding whether the defendants owed a duty of care to Kritter. The court noted that under North Carolina law, issues of negligence are generally for the jury to decide, especially when facts are disputed or multiple reasonable inferences can be drawn. The court also found that the district court erred in concluding that the risk posed by the wire was not foreseeable and that Kritter’s death was incident to his work. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Kritter v. Mooring" on Justia Law

The case involves Raymond Dugan, who was convicted and sentenced in the Southern District of West Virginia for accessing child pornography. Dugan raised three main issues on appeal: the denial of his motion to compel discovery related to a foreign law enforcement agency's investigation, the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant, and the restitution order requiring him to pay $22,000 to five child victims.In the lower court, Dugan was convicted by a jury of accessing child pornography. He was sentenced to 54 months in prison, followed by five years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $22,000 in restitution. Dugan filed pretrial motions to compel discovery and suppress evidence, both of which were denied by the district court. The court found that the foreign agency's tip was reliable and that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The court also ruled that the officers acted in good faith when executing the warrant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decisions, holding that the denial of the motion to compel discovery was appropriate because Dugan's request was speculative and unsupported by evidence. The court also upheld the denial of the motion to suppress, finding that the search warrant was based on probable cause, given the deliberate steps required to access the child pornography website. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the restitution order, as the district court had carefully considered the relevant factors and evidence in determining the amounts.The Fourth Circuit affirmed Dugan's conviction and sentence, including the restitution order. View "US v. Dugan" on Justia Law

Trina Cunningham, an employee of the Baltimore Department of Public Works, was responsible for monitoring water flow at the Patapsco Wastewater Treatment Plant. On June 3, 2019, while inspecting the plant's Grit Facility, Cunningham fell through a metal, grated catwalk that collapsed under her feet, causing her to drown in the wastewater chamber below. Her estate and family members filed a lawsuit against multiple defendants, including the City of Baltimore, various city officials, and several crane servicing companies, alleging negligence and other claims related to her death.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted motions to dismiss filed by most of the defendants, including Freeland Hoist & Crane, Inc., but did not address the claims against Crane 1 Services, Inc., and Overhead Crane Service, Inc., who had not filed motions to dismiss. The district court dismissed the entire complaint, despite the unresolved claims against these two defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court's order was not a final decision because it did not resolve all claims against all parties. The appellate court noted that the district court failed to address the claims against Crane 1 Services and Overhead Crane Services, and thus, the order was not appealable. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded the case to the district court to adjudicate the remaining claims. View "Estate of Cunningham v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore" on Justia Law

In June 2015, Dylann Roof shot and killed nine people at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, including M.P.'s father, Reverend Clementa Pinckney. M.P., a minor, filed a lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.) and its subsidiaries, alleging that Facebook's algorithm recommended harmful content that radicalized Roof, leading to the murders. M.P. asserted claims of strict products liability, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress under South Carolina law, as well as a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for conspiracy to deprive her of her civil rights.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina dismissed M.P.'s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), concluding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred her state law tort claims. The court also found that M.P. failed to plausibly allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that M.P.'s state law tort claims were barred by Section 230 because they sought to hold Facebook liable as a publisher of third-party content. The court also determined that M.P. failed to plausibly allege proximate causation under South Carolina law, as her complaint did not provide sufficient factual foundation linking Roof's Facebook use to his crimes. Additionally, the court found that M.P. forfeited her challenge to the dismissal of her Section 1985 claim by not adequately addressing it in her appellate brief. The court also concluded that any potential claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment granting Facebook's motion to dismiss. View "M.P. v. Meta Platforms Inc." on Justia Law