Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

A time-chartered vessel allided with a barge and a dock in the Houston Ship Channel. The owner of the barge and the lessee of the dock sued both the vessel’s owner and her then-time charterer, seeking damages for negligence. The district court granted summary judgment in the time-charterer’s favor. It held that the time charterer did not function as the vessel’s de facto owner, nor did it negligently discharge its duties as her time charterer. The lessee of the dock, on behalf of itself and certain other interested parties, timely appealed.The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The two relevant question son appeal are whether there are two questions on appeal. The first is confined to the facts of this case: Did China Navigation exercise sufficient operational control over the Yochow such that it should be considered her de facto owner? The second is more general and, if resolved in TPC’s favor, would have potentially far-reaching consequences for the shipping industry: Does a time charterer have a duty to vet a vessel owner prior to executing a charter party?The court explained that the facts do not demonstrate that China Navigation retained contractual control over the Yochow. Nor do they suggest that it exercised operational control over the Yochow to such an extent that it should be considered her de facto owner. Further, the court wrote that China Navigation did not owe a duty to vet Grand Famous’ finances or the Yochow’s safety management protocols prior to executing the time charter. View "TPC Group v. China Navigation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendant in a Texas federal court to recover unpaid legal fees. The federal rules allow service under the law of the state “where service is made,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1), so Plaintiff tried serving Defendant by publication under Florida law. But that publication notice was defective. Noting that defect, Defendant moved to vacate his default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). But the district court declined and soon entered a default judgment.The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s judgment. The court held that it was an error for the district court to decline to consider Defendant’s objection to improper service. The court explained that because Defendant was never properly served, he showed good cause to set aside his default and the default judgment that followed. View "Espinoza v. Humphries" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs seek to hold Bodum USA, Inc., responsible for an alleged manufacturing defect in one of its French press coffee makers (“the Press”) that they claim caused it to malfunction and injure their young child. The district court granted summary judgment for Bodum, concluding that no reasonable jury could find that the Press deviated from its intended design.The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded. The court explained that a manufacturing defect may be established exclusively through circumstantial evidence and plaintiffs must allege a specific deviation from the product’s intended design that allegedly caused the injury. Here, Plaintiffs show the alleged defect was present when the Press left Bodum’s control, Plaintiffs point to French press coil assemblies advertised on Bodum’s website that also contain an outwardly protruding coil. Moreover, the court wrote that the following evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Press contained a manufacturing defect: (1) testimony from Plaintiffs that they purchased their Press in brand-new condition; (2) a specific alleged defect consisting of a metal coil protruding beyond its mesh enclosure; (3) the district court’s finding that “the metal mesh was intended to completely engulf the metal coil,” which is corroborated by expert testimony; (4) an expert witness who examined the Press, tested it, compared it with two exemplars, and opined that the protruding metal coil deviated from the Press’s intended design, and caused the glass to fracture and ultimately shatter; and (5) the shattering of the Press’s glass carafe allegedly during ordinary use, albeit by a five-year-old child. View "Norman v. Bodum USA" on Justia Law

Appellee brought a retaliatory arrest claim against the Mayor and Chief of Police of Castle Hills, claiming that she was arrested for engaging in protected speech. However, Appellee acknowledges that there was probable cause for her arrest. Appellants asserted a qualified immunity defense. The district court denied Appellants' motion to dismiss.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying Appellant's motion to dismiss, finding Appellee failed to establish a violation of her constitutional rights in her retaliatory arrest claim because the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest. While probable cause to arrest does not necessarily preclude a retaliatory arrest claim, Appellee failed to establish any of these exceptions. View "Gonzalez v. Trevino" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued a nursing home and its insurer in state court after their mother contracted COVID-19 at the facility and died. The home, Woodlawn Manor, removed the action to federal court. After dismissing Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the district court remanded to state court, declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims that remained.Woodlawn contested that remand arguing that the state-law claims pose federal questions that the district court could and should have heard. Further, Woodlawn argued that even if those claims did not pose federal questions the court should have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over them despite having dismissed all federal claims.The Fifth Circuit affirmed holding the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (“PREP” or “Act”) does not preempt state-law negligence claims. Second, Plaintiffs did not plead willful-misconduct claims. But even if they had, they could not have brought them under the Act. Further, Plaintiffs asserted state-law claims for negligence. Under Mitchell, the PREP Act does not preempt those claims, so they cannot support original federal jurisdiction. Thus, because Plaintiffs’ factual allegations, taken as true, do not state and could not support a willful-misconduct claim under the Act, there is no federal question here. View "Manyweather v. Woodlawn Manor" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that they contracted COVID-19 while working at two Tyson Foods, Inc (“Tyson”) facilities in Texas during the first few months of 2020. Some of them died as a result. They alleged that Tyson failed to follow applicable COVID-19 guidance by directing employees to work in close quarters without proper protective equipment. They also alleged that Tyson knew some of its employees were coming to work sick with COVID-19 but ignored the problem and that Tyson implemented a “work while sick” policy to keep the plant open.   Tyson argued that it was “acting under” direction from the federal government when it chose to keep its poultry processing plants open during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic and that the district courts erred in remanding these cases back to state court.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders. The court explained that Tyson received, at most, strong encouragement from the federal government. But Tyson was never told that it must keep its facilities open. The court wrote that from the earliest days of the pandemic all the way through the issuance of Executive Order 13917, the federal government’s actions followed the same playbook: encouragement to meat and poultry processors to continue operating, careful monitoring of the food supply, and support for state and local governments. Tyson was exhorted, but it was not directed. Thus, Tyson has not shown that it was “acting under” a federal officer’s directions” and so the court need not consider whether it meets the remaining elements of the federal officer removal statute. View "Glenn v. Tyson Foods" on Justia Law

Joanna Guijarro rented a Jeep from Enterprise Rent-A-Car in Brownsville Texas, which is owned and operated by EAN, a Delaware LLC, whose sole member is a Missouri corporation, Enterprise Holdings. The Guijarros were driving in heavy rain when Joanna lost control of the Jeep. The vehicle slammed into a concrete culvert. All three family members were injured. The Guijarros believed that a defect in the Jeep’s braking system caused the accident. They sued Enterprise Holdings and EAN in Texas state court, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, claiming that the defendants knew or should have known that the Jeep’s brakes “were in a defective and/or unsafe condition” and failed to disclose or correct the problem. The defendants removed the suit to federal court.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' remand motions, finding it apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and that the Guijarros only sought to join Texas parties to escape federal court. Enterprise Holdings was properly dismissed as a defendant. Summary judgment for EAN was appropriate because Guijarro failed to produce competent evidence that the Jeep’s brakes were defective. Texas law required expert opinions that identified a “specific defect” in the vehicle and “ruled out other possible causes” for the crash. The only proof of a defect was Joanna’s lay testimony “that she applied the brakes” and the car “would not stop.” View "Guijarro v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jennifer Leonard alleged Tyler Martin rear-ended her when she stopped in traffic. She sued Martin and his insurer, Wadena Insurance Company, in Louisiana state court seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained during the accident. Martin removed the lawsuit to federal court based on the existence of diversity jurisdiction. This appeal related to a Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 45 subpoena issued to third party Dr. Joseph Turnipseed requiring him to perform patient record audits and generate data about how frequently he recommends a particular course of treatment. Turnipseed, an anesthesiologist and pain management specialist, treated Leonard for neck and back pain allegedly caused by the accident. Among other treatments, Turnipseed performed a cervical radiofrequency neurotomy on Leonard. According to Turnipseed, Leonard responded favorably to the cervical neurotomy and he recommended that she undergo the procedure annually for the next five to six years. These future treatments make up a large percentage of Leonard’s life care plan and alleged damages. Defendants disputed the medical necessity of those expensive, future treatments. Turnipseed moved to quash the subpoena on undue burden grounds. The district court denied his motion to quash. He appealed. In the alternative, he sought a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to quash the subpoena. "With misgivings about the district court’s substantive ruling," the Fifth Circuit dismissed Turnipseed’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, and denied his alternative petition for a writ of mandamus for not having demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to the writ. View "Martin v. Turnipseed" on Justia Law

A trooper with the Louisiana State Police was responding to a car crash when a driver, driving a tractor-trailer owned by Nu Line Transport, crashed into the parked vehicle in which Plaintiff was sitting. The trooper and his wife on behalf of themselves and their two minor children (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit in state court seeking damages for personal injury and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs alleged that the crash was proximately caused by (1) negligence on the part of the truck driver (for which the Plaintiffs sought to hold Nu Line vicariously liable), and (2) negligence on the part of Nu Line in its hiring, training, and supervision of the driver.   Before rendering a decision, the Fifth Circuit certified the following question of law to the Louisiana Supreme Court for rendition of a judgment or opinion concerning such questions or propositions of Louisiana law:   Under Louisiana law, can Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of their minor children, simultaneously maintain (1) a direct negligence claim against Nu Line for negligent hiring, training, and supervision of its employee and (2) a negligence claim against the employee for which Nu Line could be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior, (3) after Nu Line has stipulated that the employee was in the course and scope of employment when the alleged negligence occurred?   The court explained that certification was appropriate because this proceeding involves a question or proposition of Louisiana state law that is determinative of said cause independently of any other questions involved in said case and that there are no clear controlling precedents. View "Fox v. Nu Line Transport" on Justia Law

Plaintiff led police on a high-speed chase through a residential neighborhood. Once Plaintiff exited his vehicle, Defendant sheriff's deputy tased Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the deputy, claiming he violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment Rights. The District Court denied the deputy's claim of qualified immunity, finding there were material factual disputes as to whether a reasonable officer would have viewed Plaintiff as an immediate threat; whether Plaintiff's apparent surrender was a ploy to evade arrest; and whether Plaintiff was tased once or twice.The Fifth Circuit reversed. After considering the threat posed by Plaintiff in fleeing law enforcement as well as the force used by the deputy, the court determined that the deputy did not violate Plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, Plaintiff was unable to overcome the bar of qualified immunity. View "Salazar v. Molina" on Justia Law