Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

In February 2011, two years and four months after Plaintiff learned she had been disinherited by her mother, Plaintiff filed a complaint against financial advisor Bradley Lott for fraud and constructive fraud. A jury found that Lott had committed constructive fraud but that Plaintiff knew or should have known before February 2007 that the fraud occurred. Based on the jury’s findings, the district court dismissed the action, concluding that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding (1) the evidence did not support a finding that Plaintiff could have discovered the fraud sooner, and (2) therefore, the district court erred by dismissing the case based on the statute of limitations. Remanded for a new trial. View "Erdelyi v. Lott" on Justia Law

Robert Carson and his passenger, Hugh Sharp, were involved in a car accident in which Carson sustained multiple injuries and Sharp was killed. Carson filed a claim for worker’s compensation benefits. The Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division denied benefits, finding that Carson’s injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment with Metrocities Mortgage, LLC. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of Carson’s claim. Meanwhile, Sharp’s widow filed a wrongful death action against Carson and Metrocities. After a trial, a federal jury entered judgment against Metrocities under the theory of respondeat superior, concluding that Carson was acting within the course of scope of his employment when the accident occurred. On the basis of the federal judgment, Carson submitted a motion to reopen his claim with the OAH, contending that there was newly discovered evidence he was acting within the course of his employment at the time of the accident. The OAH eventually affirmed its earlier decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the OAH did not err when it failed to apply collateral estoppel to the issue of whether Carson was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of his injury. View "Carson v. State ex rel., Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

In 2011, Decedent died of injuries incurred in an automobile accident. Decedent was survived by his allegedly estranged wife, Laura Soran, and by his parents and sister. Decedent’s father, in his capacity as personal representative, brought a wrongful death claim brought against Robert Curran, the driver of the vehicle in which Decedent was a passenger when he died, and settled with Curran’s insurance providers for $400,000. A dispute subsequently arose between Decedent’s beneficiaries as to how the settlement proceeds should be distributed. The district court awarded Laura seventy-five percent of the settlement proceeds and divided the remainder among Decedent’s parents and sister. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court’s distribution order was clearly erroneous in that it misapplied the burden of proof and improperly presumed damages in favor of Decedent’s wife where Decedent’s marital relationship was uncertain. Remanded. View "In re Wrongful Death of Daniel P. Soran" on Justia Law

Margaret Reynolds and Jean Moore were involved in a car accident in which Margaret was injured. Jean was employed by Judith and Wilford Jaeger at the time of the accident. Margaret and her husband (the Reynolds) filed a complaint against Moore and the Jaegers, alleging negligence claims against Moore and respondeat superior claims against the Jaegers. The district court dismissed the Reynolds’ complaint, concluding (1) Moore was not sufficiently served for the court to obtain jurisdiction; and (2) Plaintiffs’ claims against the Jaegers were derivative of the claims asserted against Moore and could not be maintained in Moore’s absence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred by dismissing the Reynolds’ action against Moore, as Moore was properly served; and (2) because Moore’s dismissal was improper, the claim against the Jaegers should not have been dismissed. Remanded. View "Reynolds v. Jaeger " on Justia Law

Johanna Hicks died from an accidental overdose of her medications. Hicks’ estate filed suit against the doctor who treated Hicks for severe chronic pain for negligently causing Hicks’ death and filed suit against the doctor’s employer, claiming it should be held vicariously liable for the doctor’s negligence. A jury found that the doctor was not negligent in his treatment of Johanna and returned a defense verdict. On appeal, the estate argued that the district court erred by permitting the doctor and his codefendant to introduce the testimony of two expert witnesses on the doctor’s adherence to the appropriate standard of care for practitioners of pain medicine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the estate failed to preserve for appellate review the issue regarding the admissibility of the testimony of the two standard of care experts. View "Hicks v. Zondag" on Justia Law

Defendant, a contractor, and Plaintiff, a subcontractor, entered into a two subcontracts for part of a road work project. Plaintiff invoiced Defendant for the work under both contracts, but when Defendant failed to pay the full amount, Plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract damages and storage fees for Defendant’s equipment and materials. Defendant counterclaimed, alleging that Plaintiff had been overpaid on the contracts and had converted Defendant’s equipment. Defendant moved to have the matter removed to federal court and filed its counterclaim in that court. The case was subsequently remanded to state court, where Defendant filed its counterclaim. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, claiming Defendant’s counterclaim was untimely. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the counterclaim. After a bench trial, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to demonstrate any basis to reverse the district court’s dismissal of its counterclaim on summary judgment; (2) alternatively, Defendant’s proposed counterclaim was moot; and (3) Plaintiff was entitled to attorney fees and costs. View "Motzko Co. USA, LLC v. A & D Oilfield Dozers, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellants decided to sell 850 acres of farmland but wanted to retain the mineral rights. Summit Title Services prepared the deeds for the sale, but he deeds did not reserve the minerals. Appellants were made aware of the omission at closing, insisted that the deeds be corrected, and were assured by Summit’s employee that the problem had been rectified. Six years later, Appellants learned that the minerals had been transferred with the land. Appellants filed suit against Summit, its general counsel Olen Snider, and Kuzma Success Realty, a brokerage firm involved in the transaction. The district court granted summary judgment for Appellees on all claims, concluding that Appellants failed to exercise due diligence to discover the error so as to extend the statute of limitation as a matter of law. The Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment to Summit and Snider, concluding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether Appellants exercised due diligence to discover errors allegedly made by Summit and that Snider failed to present a prima facie case that he was entitled to summary judgment. View "Moats v. Prof'l Assistance, LLC " on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice action against the Campbell County Memorial Hospital under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (Act), alleging that Amanda Phillips, a certified nurse anesthetist for Northern Plains Anesthesia Associates, which provided anesthesia services for the hospital, acted as an employee or agent of the hospital, making the hospital vicariously liable for Phillips’ alleged negligence. The hospital filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that a government hospital could not be vicariously liable for acts of non-employees or independent contractors under the doctrine of ostensible agency. The district court denied the motion based on Sharsmith v. Hill. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in its interpretation of Sharsmith and that Sharsmith did not create an implied waiver of sovereign immunity under the Act. View "Campbell County Memorial Hosp. v. Pfeifle" on Justia Law

Pursuant to an oral agreement with Defendant, Plaintiff kept his beefalo cattle herd on Defendant's ranch. After a dispute arose between the parties regarding the oral agreement, Defendant asserted a lien for payments allegedly owed under the oral agreement. Plaintiff filed a complaint and petition for release of his cattle, asserting that the lien was knowingly false and groundless and that Defendant wrongfully converted the beefalo herd. The jury found that Defendant was liable for conversion of Plaintiff's cattle but that Defendant was entitled to the lien claimed for feed and pasturage from the time Defendant asserted the lien on the cattle until their court-ordered release. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, claiming the verdict was inconsistent because he could not be liable for conversion of Plaintiff's beefalo herd if he was entitled to a lien against the same. The district court denied Defendant's motions and entered a final judgment incorporating the jury's verdict. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for new trial because the verdict was contrary to law and could not be reconciled. Remanded for a new trial. View "McTiernan v. Jellis" on Justia Law

Richard Reynolds filed a complaint against Christopher Bonar, claiming personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. Bonar later filed a motion for sanctions for Reynolds' failure to comply with discovery, which the district court granted. Thereafter, Bonar filed a motion to dismiss based on Reynolds' failure to comply with the court's order. The district court granted Bonar's motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Reynolds subsequently re-filed his complaint against Bonar. The district court later dismissed Reynolds' complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with discovery. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding no constitutional violation in the district court's dismissal of Reynolds' complaint with prejudice. The Court also imposed sanctions upon Reynolds. View "Reynolds v. Bonar" on Justia Law