Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Raymond Dugan, who was convicted and sentenced in the Southern District of West Virginia for accessing child pornography. Dugan raised three main issues on appeal: the denial of his motion to compel discovery related to a foreign law enforcement agency's investigation, the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant, and the restitution order requiring him to pay $22,000 to five child victims.In the lower court, Dugan was convicted by a jury of accessing child pornography. He was sentenced to 54 months in prison, followed by five years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $22,000 in restitution. Dugan filed pretrial motions to compel discovery and suppress evidence, both of which were denied by the district court. The court found that the foreign agency's tip was reliable and that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The court also ruled that the officers acted in good faith when executing the warrant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decisions, holding that the denial of the motion to compel discovery was appropriate because Dugan's request was speculative and unsupported by evidence. The court also upheld the denial of the motion to suppress, finding that the search warrant was based on probable cause, given the deliberate steps required to access the child pornography website. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the restitution order, as the district court had carefully considered the relevant factors and evidence in determining the amounts.The Fourth Circuit affirmed Dugan's conviction and sentence, including the restitution order. View "US v. Dugan" on Justia Law

Ty Whitehead suffered a serious head injury during a bicycle training ride for a charity fundraiser due to a large pothole on Skyline Boulevard in Oakland. Whitehead alleged that the City of Oakland breached its statutory duty to maintain a safe roadway. Prior to the ride, Whitehead signed a release and waiver of liability, which included a provision discharging the City from any liability for negligence.The Alameda County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, holding that the release was valid and enforceable, thus barring Whitehead’s claim. The court reasoned that the release did not affect the public interest, relying on the multifactor test from Tunkl v. Regents of University of California. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, also relying on the Tunkl framework.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and concluded that the release was against public policy under Civil Code section 1668, which prohibits contracts that exempt a party from responsibility for their own fraud, willful injury, or violation of law. The court held that an agreement to exculpate a party for future violations of a statutory duty designed to protect public safety is unenforceable. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the City to argue the doctrine of primary assumption of risk on remand. View "Whitehead v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law

Oscar Hernandez allegedly sustained injuries from a RIDGID-branded nail gun purchased from Home Depot. The nail gun, designed and manufactured by other companies, was marketed and sold by Home Depot under a trademark license agreement with Ridge Tool Company. Hernandez filed a complaint against Ridge Tool Company and Home Depot, asserting claims of strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of fitness. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.The respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ridge Tool Company should not be held strictly liable as it only licensed the RIDGID trademark and did not participate in the design, manufacture, distribution, or sale of the nail gun. The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment on all claims except the strict liability claim, noting the lack of controlling precedent in Nevada on whether a trademark licensor can be held strictly liable under such circumstances. The court certified the question to the Supreme Court of Nevada.The Supreme Court of Nevada concluded that Nevada does not impose strict products liability on an entity whose only involvement with a defective product is licensing its trademark for marketing purposes. The court adopted the rule set forth in section 14 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, which states that a trademark licensor is not subject to strict liability unless it substantially participates in the design, manufacture, or distribution of the product. The court answered the certified question in the negative, holding that a trademark licensor cannot be held strictly liable for damages caused by a defective product if its role is limited to licensing its trademark. View "HERNANDEZ VS. THE HOME DEPOT, INC." on Justia Law

In 2018, Lillian Hester was convicted by a jury of abusing and murdering her six-year-old nephew, Jack. Lenda Hester, Jack’s grandmother, and Jason Conlee, Lillian’s boyfriend, pleaded guilty to charges of child abuse and endangerment. Jack’s half-sister, Elise, sought over $3 million in restitution for Jack’s future lost wages from the defendants.The Superior Court of Coconino County allowed Elise to assert victims' rights on Jack’s behalf but denied her request for restitution for Jack’s future lost wages, ruling that such wages were consequential damages and not recoverable as restitution. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that the future lost wages were too speculative and attenuated to be considered direct economic losses.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that future lost wages of a murdered child are recoverable as restitution if they meet the criteria of being economic losses directly caused by the criminal conduct, as outlined in the Wilkinson test. The court emphasized that the loss of Jack’s future wages was a direct result of his murder and not consequential damages. The court remanded the case to the Superior Court to determine the amount of restitution for Jack’s future lost wages, ensuring that the amount is reasonably estimated and not based on speculation. View "E. H. v HON. SLAYTON" on Justia Law

Derik L. Seymour was using a cable crossover exercise machine at the Bulldog Athletic Recreation Center at the University of Montana-Western when the cable snapped, allegedly causing him severe injury. Seymour filed a complaint against the State of Montana and the University of Montana-Western, alleging negligence and negligence-premises liability for improper maintenance of the exercise equipment.The First Judicial District Court found that Seymour failed to present admissible evidence that the State breached its standard of care and granted the State’s motion for summary judgment. Seymour's counsel withdrew, and he proceeded pro se. The court extended discovery deadlines multiple times due to Seymour's failure to respond to the State’s discovery requests. The State filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Seymour had not secured a liability expert to testify at trial. The District Court granted summary judgment, concluding that Seymour had not introduced any admissible evidence that the State breached its duty of care.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that Seymour failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the State’s standard of care. The court noted that Seymour did not dispute the necessity of an expert in the District Court and only argued on appeal that an expert was not necessary. The court found that the inspection and maintenance of specialized gym equipment involved technical considerations beyond the common knowledge of lay jurors, requiring expert testimony. The court concluded that Seymour did not present any evidence regarding the State’s standard of care, an essential element of his negligence claims, and affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for the State. View "Seymour v. State" on Justia Law

Livorio Loera was charged with felony vehicular homicide while under the influence after a two-vehicle accident on Interstate 90 resulted in the death of Jerome Socheath. Loera drove the wrong way on the highway and collided with an SUV, causing it to roll and eject Socheath, who died three days later. Loera was found intoxicated and with a blood alcohol content of .124 several hours after the crash. Evidence found in Loera's car included open and unopened alcohol containers and self-help books on addiction.The Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, excluded evidence regarding Socheath's seat belt use, deeming it irrelevant to Loera's conduct. The court also admitted evidence of unopened alcohol and self-help books found in Loera's trunk, considering it relevant to Loera's negligence. Loera appealed these decisions, arguing that the seat belt evidence was necessary for his causation defense and that the trunk evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the seat belt evidence, as it was irrelevant to determining Loera's conduct and causation. The court also found that the transaction rule did not apply to the seat belt evidence. However, the Supreme Court determined that the District Court erred in admitting the trunk evidence, as it was irrelevant to Loera's negligence and intoxication. Despite this error, the court concluded it was harmless due to the overwhelming admissible evidence proving Loera's guilt. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed Loera's conviction. View "State v. Loera" on Justia Law

Trent Berhow, while incarcerated at Western Missouri Correctional Center, fell from a ladder and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the state of Missouri, alleging that his supervisor's instructions created a dangerous condition leading to his injury. Berhow filed his suit more than a year after the incident, which brought into question the statute of limitations.Initially, Berhow sued the Missouri Department of Corrections. The department moved to dismiss the petition, citing the statute of limitations. Berhow then amended his petition to dismiss the department and add the state as the defendant. The Circuit Court of DeKalb County overruled the state's first motion for judgment on the pleadings but later sustained the state's renewed motion, which argued both sovereign immunity and the statute of limitations. Berhow's motion for sanctions was also effectively overruled by the circuit court.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Berhow's claim was barred by the statute of limitations under section 516.145, which requires actions against the Department of Corrections or any entity thereof to be brought within one year. The court reasoned that allowing Berhow to sue the state instead of the department would defeat the purpose of the statute, as the department acts on the state's behalf. The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, concluding that the statute of limitations barred Berhow's claim. View "Berhow v. State" on Justia Law

William D. Lunn, individually and as the representative of the estates of his three deceased children, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI) in October 2009, alleging a design defect caused an airplane crash that killed his children. In September 2012, CMI made an unapportioned offer of judgment for $300,000, which Lunn rejected. After a lengthy litigation process, a jury found in favor of CMI. Lunn moved for a new trial, which the district court granted in February 2021. CMI appealed, arguing the claims were barred by the statute of repose under the General Aviation Revitalization Act. The Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) reversed the district court's decision.CMI then sought attorney's fees, claiming entitlement under the offer of judgment statute since the judgment was less than their offer. The district court denied the motion, ruling the unapportioned offer invalid. CMI appealed this decision. COCA affirmed the district court's ruling, referencing prior cases that required offers of judgment to be apportioned among plaintiffs to be valid.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case to address whether an offer of judgment under 12 O.S.2021, § 1101.1(A) must be apportioned among multiple plaintiffs. The court held that such offers must indeed be apportioned to allow each plaintiff to independently evaluate the settlement offer. The court emphasized that unapportioned offers create confusion and hinder the plaintiffs' ability to assess the offer's value relative to their claims. Consequently, the court vacated COCA's opinion and affirmed the district court's judgment, ruling CMI's unapportioned offer invalid. View "Lunn v. Continental Motors, Inc." on Justia Law

David Hieber, who led Oakland County’s Equalization Department for nearly twenty years, was terminated after an employee reported him for creating a hostile work environment. Hieber sued Oakland County and his supervisor, Kyle Jen, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of pretermination and post-termination due process, political-affiliation retaliation, and age discrimination. He also brought state-law claims for defamation and age discrimination. Oakland County and Jen moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of Oakland County and Jen on all claims. Hieber appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Oakland County and Jen, in his official capacity, on Hieber’s pretermination due-process claim, finding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Hieber received a meaningful opportunity to respond to the charges against him. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment on Hieber’s post-termination due-process claim, political-affiliation retaliation claim, age discrimination claims, and defamation claim. The court also affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Jen in his individual capacity on the due-process claims.The main holding of the Sixth Circuit was that Hieber’s pretermination due-process rights may have been violated, warranting further proceedings on that claim. The court found that the investigatory interview and the pretermination hearing may not have provided Hieber with adequate notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to respond. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Hieber v. Oakland County, Mich." on Justia Law

Pablo Arredondo Padron was hired by Hugo Osoy to install two skylights in Osoy’s home. The project was agreed to take 10 to 12 days, equating to 80 to 96 hours of work. Padron fell from a ladder and was injured before completing the project. He subsequently sued Osoy for negligence, premises liability, and breach of specific Labor Code sections, alleging that his work was part of a larger remodeling project and that Osoy was at fault for the accident.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted summary judgment in favor of Osoy, finding that Padron’s claims were exclusively covered by workers’ compensation. The court determined that Padron was a residential employee under Labor Code section 3351(d) and did not fall within the exclusion from workers’ compensation coverage set forth in section 3352(a)(8)(A), as he had contracted to work for more than 52 hours. The court also rejected Padron’s arguments that he could sue in tort under section 3706 due to Osoy’s alleged failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Padron was not excluded from workers’ compensation coverage under section 3352(a)(8)(A) because he had contracted to work for more than 52 hours, regardless of the actual hours worked before his injury. The court also found that Osoy had secured workers’ compensation insurance as required by law, and thus, Padron could not pursue tort remedies under section 3706. The court concluded that Padron’s exclusive remedy was within the workers’ compensation system. View "Padron v. Osoy" on Justia Law