Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Joas underwent knee replacement at a Wisconsin hospital and received a Zimmer NexGen Flex implant. Within a few years, he began experiencing pain in his new knee. X-rays confirmed that the implant had loosened and required a surgical fix. Joas brought multiple claims against Zimmer. His case was transferred to a multidistrict litigation, where it was treated as a bellwether case. Applying Wisconsin law, the presiding judge granted Zimmer summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, declining to reinstate a single claim based on a theory of inadequate warning. The court predicted that the Wisconsin Supreme Court would follow the majority of states and adopt the “learned intermediary” doctrine, which holds that the manufacturer of a medical device has no duty to warn the patient as long as it provides adequate warnings to the physician. In addition, Joas has not identified any danger that Zimmer should have warned him about. Joas has no evidence to support causation. Joas did not select the NexGen Flex implant, so the information would not have caused him to change his behavior. His doctor selected the product, making his decision based on his own past experience, not on any marketing materials or information provided by Zimmer. View "Joas v. Zimmer, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2006, Moreno fell off scaffolding and landed on his back while working. An orthopedist found a soft tissue injury but no signs of fracture. He continued to feel significant pain. A follow-up test revealed acute lumbar radiculopathy—lower back pain caused by compression, inflammation or injury to a spinal nerve root. Moreno also is diabetic, has high blood pressure, and is obese. Moreno sought treatment from a psychologist, who reported that Moreno manifested depressed mood, irritability, memory difficulties, inability to concentrate, and an ongoing inability to sleep, sometimes for days. Moreno took several medications. In 2007, Moreno sought Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. An ALJ affirmed the denial of his application. In the district court, the parties agreed to a remand to a different ALJ, who concluded that Moreno was not disabled although he was suffering from severe impairments and could not perform his past work as a drywall taper. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The ALJ improperly relied on an outdated assessment although later evidence containing new, significant medical diagnoses reasonably could have changed the reviewing physician’s opinion. Doctors’ notes set forth problems with Moreno becoming distracted, “spacing out,” and experiencing difficulties concentrating; these limitations were not included in the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert. View "Moreno v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

Mann attacked his coworker, Baylay, a British citizen. The men, members of an Etihad Airways (incorporated in Abu Dhabi) flight crew, were at a Chicago hotel on a layover. Baylay sued Etihad, Mann, and the hotel’s corporate entities. The district court dismissed Baylay’s claims against Etihad, stating that they should be heard by the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, and later dismissed Baylay’s remaining claims, reasoning that it had no original jurisdiction over the claims and declining to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act imposes liability on the foreign state “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances,” 28 U.S.C. 1606. If the foreign state is not immune from suit, “plaintiffs may bring state law claims that they could have brought if the defendant were a private individual.” Baylay failed to show that his injuries would not be compensated under Illinois law. After Etihad’s dismissal, Baylay’s remaining claims included state-law claims against Mann and the hotel’s corporate entities. The corporate entities’ third-party contribution claims are entirely dependent on the resolution of the underlying state-law negligence claim against them. Baylay’s state-law claims substantially predominate; the district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction was not an abuse of discretion in light of 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). View "Baylay v. Etihad Airways P.J.S.C." on Justia Law

Mann attacked his coworker, Baylay, a British citizen. The men, members of an Etihad Airways (incorporated in Abu Dhabi) flight crew, were at a Chicago hotel on a layover. Baylay sued Etihad, Mann, and the hotel’s corporate entities. The district court dismissed Baylay’s claims against Etihad, stating that they should be heard by the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, and later dismissed Baylay’s remaining claims, reasoning that it had no original jurisdiction over the claims and declining to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act imposes liability on the foreign state “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances,” 28 U.S.C. 1606. If the foreign state is not immune from suit, “plaintiffs may bring state law claims that they could have brought if the defendant were a private individual.” Baylay failed to show that his injuries would not be compensated under Illinois law. After Etihad’s dismissal, Baylay’s remaining claims included state-law claims against Mann and the hotel’s corporate entities. The corporate entities’ third-party contribution claims are entirely dependent on the resolution of the underlying state-law negligence claim against them. Baylay’s state-law claims substantially predominate; the district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction was not an abuse of discretion in light of 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). View "Baylay v. Etihad Airways P.J.S.C." on Justia Law

Thompson pulled his JBS tractor/trailer onto the shoulder, activated his four‐way flashers, and fixed a malfunctioning light. With the flashers still on, he had just reentered the highway and was traveling 15-18 miles an hour when Hasib came around a curve and crashed into the back of his trailer. The impact killed Hasib instantly and set his E.J.A. truck on fire. Hasib’s son, Edin, who also drove for E.J.A., saw that his father’s truck on fire, parked, and attempted to pull his father from the cab. Edin suffered burns. On hearing of her husband’s death, Esma had to be taken to a hospital. As a result of Major Depressive Disorder, Esma never returned to work. Edin suffered PTSD. Hasib's daughter attempted suicide at her father’s grave. Hasib’s estate brought claims under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act and the Illinois rescue doctrine. The companies asserted counterclaims under the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act. On the wrongful death claim, a jury attributed 55 percent of the fault to Thompson and JBS and reduced its $5,000,000 damage award by 45 percent; it awarded Edin $625,000 on his rescue claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding the court’s refusal to give a jury instruction on the duty to mitigate damages, instead giving instructions related to “careful habits” and “exigent circumstances.” The court rejected arguments that the court should have apportioned Edin’s award and that the court erred in allowing an award for Esma’s lost earnings. View "Karahodzic v. JBS Carriers, Inc." on Justia Law

Thompson pulled his JBS tractor/trailer onto the shoulder, activated his four‐way flashers, and fixed a malfunctioning light. With the flashers still on, he had just reentered the highway and was traveling 15-18 miles an hour when Hasib came around a curve and crashed into the back of his trailer. The impact killed Hasib instantly and set his E.J.A. truck on fire. Hasib’s son, Edin, who also drove for E.J.A., saw that his father’s truck on fire, parked, and attempted to pull his father from the cab. Edin suffered burns. On hearing of her husband’s death, Esma had to be taken to a hospital. As a result of Major Depressive Disorder, Esma never returned to work. Edin suffered PTSD. Hasib's daughter attempted suicide at her father’s grave. Hasib’s estate brought claims under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act and the Illinois rescue doctrine. The companies asserted counterclaims under the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act. On the wrongful death claim, a jury attributed 55 percent of the fault to Thompson and JBS and reduced its $5,000,000 damage award by 45 percent; it awarded Edin $625,000 on his rescue claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding the court’s refusal to give a jury instruction on the duty to mitigate damages, instead giving instructions related to “careful habits” and “exigent circumstances.” The court rejected arguments that the court should have apportioned Edin’s award and that the court erred in allowing an award for Esma’s lost earnings. View "Karahodzic v. JBS Carriers, Inc." on Justia Law

While Beebe and Lucas Roh were at Starbucks on Rush Street in Chicago, with their sons, five-year-old Alexander and three-year-old Marcus, a wood and metal stanchion, part of a grouping intended to direct customers, fell onto Marcus’s finger, which had to be amputated that same day. Beebe sued. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Starbucks. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Any duty Starbucks may have owed Marcus was abrogated by his parents’ presence with him in Starbucks at the time of the accident. The boys were playing on the rope and stanchions. HIs parents had the duty to protect them from the obvious danger posed by playing on the unsecured stanchions, even if the parents were unable to foresee the particular injury that resulted. View "Roh v. Starbucks Corp." on Justia Law

While Beebe and Lucas Roh were at Starbucks on Rush Street in Chicago, with their sons, five-year-old Alexander and three-year-old Marcus, a wood and metal stanchion, part of a grouping intended to direct customers, fell onto Marcus’s finger, which had to be amputated that same day. Beebe sued. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Starbucks. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Any duty Starbucks may have owed Marcus was abrogated by his parents’ presence with him in Starbucks at the time of the accident. The boys were playing on the rope and stanchions. HIs parents had the duty to protect them from the obvious danger posed by playing on the unsecured stanchions, even if the parents were unable to foresee the particular injury that resulted. View "Roh v. Starbucks Corp." on Justia Law

Dunn and his adult son, Erik, visited a Menard store to purchase rolled insulation. He was a frequent customer. After paying for 21 rolls, Dunn was told to drive an adjoining self‐service warehouse to load his purchase. Both warehouse entrances displayed signs stating, “For your safety, caution, do not cut bandings, do not open packages, do not pull, do not climb, and if you need assistance, please call.” Dunn did not observe any Menard employees in the warehouse but understood he could ask for assistance. Dunn parked his van next to vertical stacks of insulation, noticing that one stack, approximately 16 feet high, “was not straight,” “seemed too high,” and was “unstable.” Dunn told Erik to “keep an eye” on the stack but did not seek assistance. He concluded he could obtain his insulation without touching the unstable batch. Dunn instructed Erik to “be cautious” and they proceeded to load their van. The leaning stack fell. Insulation struck Dunn and forced him to the ground, allegedly injuring his shoulder. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Menard. Menard did not owe Dunn a legal duty because the stack constituted an “open and obvious” danger and imposing such a duty would be excessively onerous under the circumstances. View "Dunn v. Menard, Inc." on Justia Law

Dunn and his adult son, Erik, visited a Menard store to purchase rolled insulation. He was a frequent customer. After paying for 21 rolls, Dunn was told to drive an adjoining self‐service warehouse to load his purchase. Both warehouse entrances displayed signs stating, “For your safety, caution, do not cut bandings, do not open packages, do not pull, do not climb, and if you need assistance, please call.” Dunn did not observe any Menard employees in the warehouse but understood he could ask for assistance. Dunn parked his van next to vertical stacks of insulation, noticing that one stack, approximately 16 feet high, “was not straight,” “seemed too high,” and was “unstable.” Dunn told Erik to “keep an eye” on the stack but did not seek assistance. He concluded he could obtain his insulation without touching the unstable batch. Dunn instructed Erik to “be cautious” and they proceeded to load their van. The leaning stack fell. Insulation struck Dunn and forced him to the ground, allegedly injuring his shoulder. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Menard. Menard did not owe Dunn a legal duty because the stack constituted an “open and obvious” danger and imposing such a duty would be excessively onerous under the circumstances. View "Dunn v. Menard, Inc." on Justia Law