Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Attorney Donald Gilbert represented the Utah Down Syndrome Association and several of its founders in litigation between the Association and the Utah Down Syndrome Foundation, Inc. Gilbert filed this petition for extraordinary relief challenging (1) a 2008 district court judgment ordering Gilbert to disgorge $30,000 taken from Foundation bank accounts to pay his attorney fees, (2) an injunction that originally barred Gilbert’s clients from paying him with Foundation funds, (3) an order denying Gilbert’s motion to vacate the 2008 judgment, and (4) an order denying Gilbert’s motion for relief from the 2008 judgment. The Supreme Court denied Gilbert’s petition for extraordinary relief, holding (1) Gilbert unreasonably delayed seeking extraordinary relief from the injunction, the disgorgement order, and the denial of his motion to vacate; and (2) Gilbert failed to pursue the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy of direct appeal from the denial of his motion for relief from judgment. View "Gilbert v. Third Dist. Court Judges" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was seriously injured during the course of his employment with Defendant. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant’s negligence caused his injuries. Defendant moved for summary judgment asserting that it was immune from suit under the exclusive remedy provision of the Utah Workers’ Compensation Act. The district court granted the motion, determining that Defendant qualified for immunity under the “eligible employer” statute. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Defendant did not “secure the payment” of workers’ compensation benefits for Plaintiff as required by the statute. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant qualified as an “eligible employer” under the workers’ compensation statutes and fulfilled all of the statutory requirements. View "Nichols v. Jacobsen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was babysitting a four-year-old boy when the boy threw a toy at her, striking her in the eye. The impact caused Plaintiff to lose all vision in that eye. Plaintiff sued the boy’s parents for negligent supervision and the boy for negligence. The district court granted summary judgment on the negligent supervision claim against the parents but denied summary judgment on the negligence claim against the boy, concluding that a four-year-old boy can be liable for negligence under Utah law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that children under the age of five may not be held liable for negligence. View "Nielsen v. Bell" on Justia Law

M.J. was allegedly required to enter into an underage marriage at the direction of Warren Jeffs, then the head of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and trustee of the United Effort Plan Trust. M.J. filed suit against Jeffs and Bruce Wisan, in his capacity as special fiduciary of the Trust, asserting a variety of tort claims and claims for both vicarious and direct liability against the Trust. The Trust filed a series of motions for summary judgment, all of which were denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment in large part, upholding that district court’s decisions on all issues except its determination that the Trust is subject to liability on reverse veil-piercing grounds, holding that the Trust was entitled to summary judgment on that limited basis. View "M.J. v. Wisan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured when forced to stop suddenly near a construction crew on a Utah road. Plaintiff submitted a notice of claim against the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). UDOT did not respond to the notice of claim within sixty days, and therefore, Plaintiff’s claim was deemed denied. One month later, UDOT sent a letter to Plaintiff stating that UDOT denied the claim. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit against UDOT and several unnamed “John Does.” UDOT moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (GIA) barred Plaintiff’s claim because he did not file within one year of the date on which it was deemed denied. The trial court granted UDOT’s motion and dismissed Plaintiff’s entire suit with prejudice, including his claim against the Doe Defendants. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the denial letter sent after the deemed denial had occurred did not restart the limitations period and was a legal superfluity, and therefore, Plaintiff did not timely file his suit under the GIA; (2) estoppel was not warranted in this case; and (3) the dismissal of the Doe Defendants was proper where they were described as employees of UDOT. View "Monarrez v. Utah Dep’t of Transp." on Justia Law

Saltz Plastic Surgery, P.C. and Renalto Saltz (collectively, Saltz) performed an abdominoplasty and a breast augmentation on Conilyn Judge. Judge was subsequently interviewed by Fox News and posed for post-operative photographs showing the results of her surgery. Fox News aired redacted nude photographs of Judge both before and after the operation. Judge filed suit against Saltz, alleging five causes of action, including publication of private facts, false light, and intrusion upon seclusion. The trial court grated summary judgment for Saltz on all claims. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court adopted the requirement in section 652D(b) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts that plaintiffs must show that “the matter publicized…is not of legitimate concern to the public” and affirmed the court of appeals’ reversal of the grant of summary judgment on the claims for publication of private facts and intrusion on seclusion, holding that the court of appeals did not err in concluding that disputed issues of fact precluded summary judgment Judge’s claims for publication of private facts and intrusion on seclusion. View "Judge v. Saltz Plastic Surgery, P.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was the owner of a boat that he docked in the marina at Jordanelle Reservoir. One day in 2008, Plaintiff walked out onto the floating dock and was injured when his boat “heaved” and struck him, shattering his shoulder. Plaintiff sued the State, which owns the marina, docks, boat slips, and reservoir, alleging that his injuries were due to the negligent adjustment of the dock. The State moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of governmental immunity. The district court granted the motion, concluding that Plaintiff’s injuries fell within the “natural condition” exception to the waiver of immunity. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the Jordanelle Reservoir was designed and created by human activity, and because it would not exist but for that activity, the reservoir is not a natural condition on the land under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act. Remanded. View "Glaittli v. State" on Justia Law

Under Utah’s Governmental Immunity Act, plaintiffs who have a claim against a governmental “employee” for acts committed during the performance of the employee’s duties must file a notice of claim within one year after the claim arises or the claim is barred. In the instant case, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Brigham Young University (BYU) and its traffic cadet for negligently causing a motorcycle accident Plaintiff was involved in while leaving a BYU parking lot. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the BYU Defendants were “employees” of Provo City as defined in the Act at the time of the collision, and therefore, Plaintiff failed to file a timely notice of claim as required by the Act. The court of appeals remanded for further proceedings, holding that there was insufficient evidence that the BYU Defendants were “employees” under the Act and that the district court’s dismissal was premature. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in interpreting the statutory definition of “employee” and in reversing the trial court’s dismissal. View "Mallory v. Brigham Young Univ." on Justia Law

Kelly Colvin was killed in an automobile accident while returning to Utah from a work project in Maryland. The accident occurred when Colvin was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his coworker, Joseph Giguere. Colvin’s widow and son sued Giguere, claiming that Colvin’s death was proximately caused by Giguere’s negligent driving. Giguere moved for summary judgment, asserting that the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act barred this suit because the accident occurred in the course of his and Colvin’s employment. The district court agreed and granted Giguere’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the accident occurred while Colvin and Giguere were carrying out a special errand for their employer, this action was barred under the Act’s exclusive remedy provision. View "Colvin v. Giguere" on Justia Law

Robert Baird sought a civil stalking injunction against his mother, Gloria Baird, because Gloria contacted him almost every day. The district court granted a three-year injunction, determining that Gloria’s nearly daily phone calls to Robert were causing Robert emotional distress. Gloria appealed, arguing that the district court misinterpreted Utah’s Stalking Statute because it entered the injunction based on its finding that Gloria’s conduct was causing Robert emotional distress without finding that her conduct would have caused emotional distress to a reasonable person in Robert’s circumstances. The Supreme Court vacated the stalking injunction, holding (1) the Stalking Statute required the district court to determine whether Gloria’s conduct would cause a reasonable person in Robert’s circumstances emotional distress; and (2) the statutory definition of emotional distress means mental or psychological suffering, and there is no requirement that the emotional distress arise from outrageous and intolerable conduct by the respondent. View "Baird v. Baird" on Justia Law