Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around Susan Miller, who sued Michaels Stores, Inc. for negligence after she slipped and fell in one of their stores in Slidell, Louisiana, during a rainstorm. Miller claimed that she had entered the store via a propped-open exit door, where no warning signs or mats were present, and subsequently slipped on a clear substance. She argued that a store employee had admitted to the presence of a warning sign and mat at the other door, indicating that the store was aware of the wet conditions but had failed to adequately warn customers.Earlier, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana had granted summary judgment in favor of Michaels. The store had argued that Miller lacked evidence proving that they had notice of any hazards where she slipped. The district court ruled that none of the evidence showed that Michaels was aware of a hazard in the area where Miller fell, and hence granted summary judgement for Michaels.Upon review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the court affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Miller's evidence was insufficient to show that Michaels had actual or constructive notice of the specific hazard that caused her fall. Furthermore, it ruled that the statements made by the Michaels employee were irrelevant to the issue of notice and were therefore inadmissible. Lastly, the court found no evidence that Michaels had spoiled any evidence, as alleged by Miller. Therefore, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Michaels Stores. View "Miller v. Michaels Stores" on Justia Law

Patricia Hanger filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Allison L. Raines and Emergency Physicians of Tidewater, PLC, alleging that they negligently failed to treat her low blood sodium, leading to a seizure and a subsequent fall that resulted in a traumatic brain injury. The defendants argued that the fall could have been caused by other means. A jury sided with Hanger and awarded her $1.6 million, a decision that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.The Court of Appeals had to decide whether the trial court erred in refusing a jury instruction supporting the defendants' theory of the case. The Court of Appeals held that this question was waived. The defendants argued that they did not waive their right to appeal this question and that they were entitled to the issuance of their proffered jury instruction.The Supreme Court of Virginia disagreed with the Court of Appeals, concluding that the defendants did not waive their argument. The Supreme Court found that the defendants had preserved their objection to the trial court's refusal to issue the jury instruction and had adequately briefed the matter before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's failure to issue the jury instruction was reversible error and that the Court of Appeals also erred in declining to rule on the matter. The case was reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals to enter a mandate to the trial court consistent with the opinion. View "Emergency Physicians of Tidewater v. Hanger" on Justia Law

In March 2017, Monique Howard, the plaintiff, stayed at a hotel operated by the defendant, Accor Management US, Inc. During her stay, the handheld shower head in her room fell apart, cutting her and causing her to fall. Howard subsequently sued the hotel for negligence and premises liability. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish that the hotel had actual or constructive notice of any problem with the handheld shower head. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff did not provide evidence to establish a triable issue of material fact regarding the hotel's notice of the shower head's unsafe condition.On appeal to the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight, the plaintiff argued that summary judgment was inappropriate because her evidence raised triable issues regarding the hotel's knowledge of the unsafe shower wand. She also argued that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to raise a triable issue on notice. The court also rejected the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Regarding the plaintiff's reliance on an expert's declaration, the court sustained most of the defendant's evidentiary objections, finding the expert's conclusions speculative and lacking foundation. Therefore, the court concluded that the evidence did not establish a triable issue of material fact as to the hotel’s notice of a flaw in the shower wand, thus affirming the trial court's decision. View "Howard v. Accor Management US" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Zhen Feng Lin, a food delivery driver who was severely injured in a car accident, and his employer's insurance company, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company. After the accident, Lin received a settlement from the at-fault driver's insurance company, and workers' compensation benefits from his employer's insurance carrier, Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Lin later sought additional recovery under his employer's underinsured motorist policy with Hartford Accident.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that Lin and Hartford Accident had not entered into a "settlement agreement" as defined by the insurance policy. As a result, the court ruled that the policy limits should be reduced by the amount Lin received in workers' compensation benefits. The court also agreed with the district court that Lin should be credited for the amount he paid to settle the workers' compensation lien.Additionally, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Lin's counterclaims for bad faith and breach of contract. The court found no plausible claim supporting the argument that Hartford Accident unreasonably delayed settling Lin's claim. Lin's request for statutory penalties for Hartford Accident's purported delay in handling his claim was also denied.Finally, the court denied both parties' motions for sanctions. Lin's appeal was deemed frivolous in part, but the court exercised its discretion not to impose sanctions. View "Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Lin" on Justia Law

An automobile accident in Idaho resulted in Emily Fairbanks receiving severe injuries while a passenger in a vehicle driven by Holly Galbraith. Fairbanks filed two lawsuits: one against the Idaho Transportation Department claiming negligent maintenance of a guardrail, and another against Galbraith in Wyoming for negligence. Galbraith sought to dismiss the Wyoming suit, citing that the statute of limitations had elapsed. The district court denied the motion. Later, Galbraith was granted summary judgment based on collateral estoppel, preventing relitigation of negligence and damages issues established in the Idaho case.Both parties appealed. Galbraith claimed the lower court had erred in its conclusion about the statute of limitations, while Fairbanks disputed the application of collateral estoppel and the application of Idaho's statutory cap on non-economic damages. The Supreme Court of Wyoming concluded that the statute of limitations had run before Fairbanks filed her complaint, reversing the district court's ruling on the issue. The court did not address the merits of the collateral estoppel appeal. The court found that under Idaho law, Fairbanks' lawsuit was time-barred as she made no effort to locate Galbraith during the time Galbraith was out of state, thus the statute of limitations was not tolled. View "Galbraith v. Fairbanks" on Justia Law

A medical malpractice lawsuit was filed by Dwan and Aaron Bray, individually and on behalf of their minor child, against Dr. Timothy J. Thress and various other medical entities. The suit, which was initially filed in state court, related to alleged negligence in Dwan Bray's prenatal care and the subsequent birth of their child. However, Thress was employed by a federally funded health center during his treatment of Bray. Under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act (FSHCAA), the lawsuit was removed to federal court and the United States was substituted as the defendant.The U.S. government moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the Federal Tort Claims Act’s (FTCA) administrative exhaustion requirement. The plaintiffs countered by moving to remand the action to state court, arguing that the FSHCAA did not apply. The district court denied both of plaintiffs’ motions, finding the FSHCAA applicable and any attempt to amend plaintiffs’ complaint futile. The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ FTCA claim without prejudice and remanded plaintiffs’ claims against the remaining defendants to state court. The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s denial of their motion to remand and its dismissal of their FTCA claim.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. It held that Thress's conduct was covered by the FSHCAA, and that the plaintiffs' attempts to amend their complaint were futile since they had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the FTCA before instituting the lawsuit. View "Bray v. Bon Secours Mercy Health, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, an automobile repair technician, Donijah Virgo, was injured when his stalled vehicle was hit by a car driven by Heather Michelle Roberts while he was attempting to push it across a road. Virgo sued Roberts for negligence, but the Mobile Circuit Court granted Roberts a partial summary judgment, dismissing Virgo's counterclaim. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the lower court's decision.In October 2020, Virgo was diagnosing a mechanical problem in a Crown Victoria automobile. The car stalled on a road, and he moved it into a median left-turn lane. After waiting for about 10 minutes for traffic to clear, Virgo attempted to push the car across the road, during which Roberts's vehicle collided with it, resulting in major damage and serious injuries to Virgo.Roberts sued Virgo for negligence and wantonness and sought uninsured motorist benefits from GEICO Casualty Company. Virgo filed a counterclaim alleging negligence on Roberts's part. After settling the claim against GEICO, Roberts moved for a summary judgment on Virgo's counterclaim, which the circuit court granted.The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court concluded that Virgo failed to present substantial evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding his counterclaim, and thus, the circuit court did not err in granting a summary judgment in favor of Roberts. View "Virgo v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The case involves Maria Acosta, who sued six Miami-Dade officers involved in the arrest of her son, Maykel Barrera, who died after the encounter. Acosta alleged federal excessive-force claims and state wrongful-death claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers, and Acosta appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to five of the six officers on Acosta’s excessive-force claims and to all of the officers on Acosta’s wrongful-death claims.The Court of Appeals found that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Acosta, the officers used excessive force when they tased and kicked Barrera while he was subdued, on the ground, and no longer resisting arrest, violating clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.Furthermore, the court vacated the summary judgment on Acosta’s wrongful-death claim, concluding that there was enough evidence for the case to go to trial. The court ruled that the district court erred in emphasizing Acosta’s lack of expert evidence directed to the cause of Barrera’s death since she did not have to present expert testimony to show causation. View "Acosta v. Miami-Dade County" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Dania Mateo, filed a case against Davidson Media Group Rhode Island Stations, LLC and several of its employees, which included 22 counts alleging violations of Rhode Island's Fair Employment Practices Act (RIFEPA) and Civil Rights Act (RICRA) as well as claims of sexual harassment, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, negligence, false imprisonment, defamation, and conspiracy to commit defamation. The case was pending for nearly 14 years.Mateo appealed a Superior Court decision granting partial summary judgment in favor of certain defendants. The defendants cross-appealed, arguing that the hearing justice erred in granting partial final judgment because he failed to make an express determination that there was no just reason for delay, as required by Rule 54(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island found the defendants’ cross-appeal meritorious. The Court ruled that the hearing justice erred in granting partial final judgment because he failed to determine whether the criteria clearly set forth in Rule 54(b) had been satisfied. The Court held that the judgment must be vacated and the case remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings. As a result, the Court did not reach the issues raised in the plaintiff's appeal. View "Mateo v. Davidson Media Group Rhode Island Stations, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Louisiana considered whether an architect and contract administrator had duty of care towards an employee of a subcontractor under the terms of a construction contract. The employee, Gustavo Bonilla, had been injured during a demolition job and filed a suit alleging negligence against Verges Rome Architects (VRA) and Morphy Makofsky, Inc. (MMI). VRA had been hired as a consultant for design and contract administration services. The trial court ruled in favor of VRA, but the court of appeal reversed this decision.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Louisiana found that the contract terms were clear and unambiguous, and did not impose a duty on VRA to oversee, supervise, or maintain the construction site or Mr. Bonilla’s safety. VRA was required to make weekly site visits to ensure work was progressing according to specifications. However, the contract specifically stated that these visits should not be construed as supervision of actual construction. Responsibility for site safety and construction methods was allocated to the contractor.The Court concluded that VRA could not be held liable for failing to perform duties it was not contractually obligated to undertake. As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal's decision and reinstated the trial court's judgment, which granted summary judgment in favor of VRA. View "BONILLA VS. VERGES ROME ARCHITECTS" on Justia Law