Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Felix Franco, a commercial truck driver, was asleep in his parked semi-trailer truck when it was hit by another truck driven by an employee of Richland Refrigerated Solutions, LLC. Franco claimed that the accident caused a back injury that necessitated surgery, while Richland acknowledged the accident but disputed the cause of Franco's injury. Franco had a history of degenerative back problems and had experienced back pain before the accident. The case went to trial, and a jury found in favor of Richland.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin handled the initial trial. Franco sought to admit medical illustrations as evidence, but the court only allowed two as demonstrative exhibits. The court provided jury instructions and a special verdict form, focusing on whether the accident caused Franco's injury. The jury ultimately ruled in favor of Richland, and Franco's post-trial motions were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's rulings, including the denial of Franco's motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial. The appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the accident did not cause Franco's injury. The court also upheld the jury instructions and special verdict form, stating they accurately reflected Wisconsin law. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to exclude two of Franco's medical illustrations. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in all respects. View "Franco v Richland Refrigerated Solutions, LLC" on Justia Law

Gerard A. Kirsch, a member of Calvary Temple Church of Evansville, Inc., was injured while building a storage barn on the church's property. Kirsch fell from a ladder and sustained a severe arm injury. He sued the church, alleging negligence for failing to provide safe equipment and proper supervision.The Vanderburgh Superior Court denied the church's motion for summary judgment, which argued that Indiana Code section 34-31-7-2 limited the church's liability. The court held that a jury must decide if the church breached any duty to Kirsch. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, interpreting the statute narrowly to apply only to parts of the premises used primarily for worship services, thus allowing Kirsch's claim to proceed.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the term "premises" in Indiana Code section 34-31-7-2 includes the entire parcel of land owned by the church, not just the areas used primarily for worship services. Since the church's entire property is used primarily for worship services, the statute applies, limiting the church's liability to warning of hidden dangers and refraining from intentional harm. Kirsch admitted the church breached neither duty, leading the court to grant summary judgment in favor of the church. View "Calvary Temple Church of Evansville, Inc. v. Kirsch" on Justia Law

Great Plains Trucking Inc. and Lennis H. Beck (defendants) appealed a circuit court judgment in favor of Carrie S. Schultz and Robert C. Schultz, Sr. (plaintiffs), surviving parents of Robert C. Schultz, Jr., in a wrongful death action. Beck, a truck driver for Great Plains, collided with the plaintiffs' vehicle, resulting in the death of their son. The collision occurred in Wentzville, Missouri, under dark and rainy conditions. The plaintiffs' vehicle had fishtailed and was struck by another vehicle before Beck's truck collided with it.The Circuit Court of St. Charles County held a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict awarding the plaintiffs $10,000,000 in compensatory damages, $10,000,000 in aggravating circumstances damages against Great Plains, and $25,000 in aggravating circumstances damages against Beck. The circuit court entered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdicts and awarded post-judgment interest. The defendants filed a post-trial motion for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the circuit court overruled. The defendants then appealed.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The court found that the defendants did not preserve their claims of error for appellate review or that their preserved claims failed on the merits. Specifically, the court held that the defendants failed to preserve the issue of excluding expert testimony regarding the mother's impairment by THC because they did not object at trial. Additionally, the court found that the defendants did not preserve their objection to the participation of separate counsel for the plaintiffs throughout the trial.The court also held that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that Beck failed to keep a careful lookout and that the jury's award of aggravating circumstances damages against both Beck and Great Plains was supported by sufficient evidence. The court concluded that Beck's multiple violations of the Missouri CDL manual and Great Plains' acceptance of Beck's conduct demonstrated complete indifference or conscious disregard for the safety of others. View "Schultz vs. Great Plains Trucking, Inc." on Justia Law

Trina Cunningham, an employee of the Baltimore Department of Public Works, was responsible for monitoring water flow at the Patapsco Wastewater Treatment Plant. On June 3, 2019, while inspecting the plant's Grit Facility, Cunningham fell through a metal, grated catwalk that collapsed under her feet, causing her to drown in the wastewater chamber below. Her estate and family members filed a lawsuit against multiple defendants, including the City of Baltimore, various city officials, and several crane servicing companies, alleging negligence and other claims related to her death.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted motions to dismiss filed by most of the defendants, including Freeland Hoist & Crane, Inc., but did not address the claims against Crane 1 Services, Inc., and Overhead Crane Service, Inc., who had not filed motions to dismiss. The district court dismissed the entire complaint, despite the unresolved claims against these two defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court's order was not a final decision because it did not resolve all claims against all parties. The appellate court noted that the district court failed to address the claims against Crane 1 Services and Overhead Crane Services, and thus, the order was not appealable. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded the case to the district court to adjudicate the remaining claims. View "Estate of Cunningham v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore" on Justia Law

In September 2016, a high school student, almost 16 years old, was involved in a fistfight during an art class. The teacher, who weighed 375 pounds and had a back condition, intervened to stop the fight. While pulling the larger boy away, the teacher lost his balance and fell onto the plaintiff, breaking the plaintiff’s leg. The plaintiff sued the teacher and the school district for negligence, arguing that the teacher should not have intervened due to his physical condition and that the school district failed to train teachers on safely handling physical altercations.The case was tried in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. After a 15-day trial, the jury viewed a video of the incident multiple times and concluded that neither the teacher nor the school district was negligent. The jury found that the plaintiff and the other boy were each 50 percent responsible for the harm. The plaintiff filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and a motion for a new trial, both of which were denied by the trial court.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, finding no error in the trial court’s decisions. The appellate court held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict that neither the teacher nor the school district was negligent. The court also found no error in the trial court’s exclusion of the plaintiff’s expert witness and the refusal to give several special jury instructions requested by the plaintiff. The appellate court concluded that the standard instructions given were sufficient and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the trial court’s rulings. View "I.C. v. Compton Unified School Dist. et al." on Justia Law

Lonnie Two Eagle, Sr. was injured when Chad Sully, who was driving and suffered a seizure, collided with him while he was operating a lawn mower. Two Eagle sued Dr. Matthew Smith and the entities Avel eCare, LLC and Moonlighting Solutions, LLC, which contracted with Dr. Smith to provide medical services to Rosebud Indian Health Services Hospital. Two Eagle alleged medical malpractice and ordinary negligence, claiming Dr. Smith was negligent in treating Sully and authorizing him to drive despite his seizure history.The Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Todd County, South Dakota, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that Dr. Smith owed no duty of care to Two Eagle. The court found that there was no relationship between Dr. Smith and Two Eagle that would give rise to a duty, and that imposing such a duty would contravene public policy.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that Dr. Smith did not owe a duty to Two Eagle under either a medical malpractice or ordinary negligence theory. The court reasoned that there was no special relationship between Dr. Smith and Sully that would create a duty to Two Eagle, and that the risk of harm to Two Eagle was not foreseeable. Additionally, the court emphasized public policy considerations, noting that imposing a duty on physicians to protect third parties could negatively impact the physician-patient relationship and lead to overly restrictive recommendations by physicians. View "Two Eagle V. Avel Ecare" on Justia Law

The case involves Eastern Maine Medical Center and eight other Maine hospitals (the Hospitals) who filed a 509-page complaint against various businesses and individuals (the Opioid Sellers) involved in the marketing and distribution of prescription opioids. The Hospitals alleged that the Opioid Sellers created illegitimate demand for opioids and unlawfully increased supply, leading to an opioid epidemic that caused the Hospitals to incur high costs for treating patients with opioid misuse, addiction, and dependency, with only partial reimbursement from insurance.The Business and Consumer Docket (Duddy, J.) dismissed the Hospitals' complaint. The court found that the complaint did not comply with the requirement for a "short and plain statement" of the claim but chose to dismiss it based on the legal insufficiency of the claims. The court concluded that the Hospitals could not recover under any of their legal theories, including negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, fraud and negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy. The court also denied the Hospitals' request for leave to amend their complaint.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's dismissal. The court held that the Hospitals' claims were legally insufficient. Specifically, the court found that the Hospitals did not have a direct negligence claim, as they did not suffer harm directly caused by the Opioid Sellers. The fraud and misrepresentation claims failed due to lack of reliance by the Hospitals on the Opioid Sellers' misrepresentations. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed because the Hospitals did not confer a benefit on the Opioid Sellers. The public nuisance claim failed as the Hospitals did not suffer a special injury different in kind from the public. Lastly, the civil conspiracy claim was dismissed as it required an underlying tort, which was not present. The court concluded that the deficiencies in the complaint could not be remedied by amendment. View "Eastern Maine Medical Center v. Walgreen Co." on Justia Law

Appellants Marilyn Kubichek and Dorothy Baldwin were injured on October 11, 2019, when they were struck by a Segway operated by Eduardo Samonte during a guided tour run by Unlimited Biking Washington, D.C., LLC. They filed two complaints on December 30, 2022, alleging negligence by Samonte and failure to train and supervise by Unlimited Biking. The complaints were filed after the three-year statute of limitations for negligence had expired.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia consolidated the two cases and granted Samonte's motion to dismiss, concluding that the COVID-19 emergency orders did not toll the statute of limitations for the appellants' claims. The court determined that the tolling orders only applied to deadlines that fell within the tolling period or arose from claims that accrued during the tolling period. Since the Segway accident occurred before the tolling period began and the statutory deadline was after the tolling period expired, the court ruled that the limitations period was not tolled.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The Court of Appeals held that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that must be raised by the defendant and should not be raised sua sponte by the court. However, in this case, the trial court did not act entirely sua sponte because Samonte had asserted the limitations defense, and the appellants had the opportunity to litigate the issue. The Court of Appeals also confirmed that the Superior Court's tolling orders during the COVID-19 pandemic did not toll the limitations period for the appellants' negligence claims, as the orders only applied to deadlines that expired during the emergency period, which was not the case here. The dismissal of the complaints was affirmed. View "Kubichek v. Unlimited Biking Washington, DC, LLC" on Justia Law

In June 2015, Dylann Roof shot and killed nine people at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, including M.P.'s father, Reverend Clementa Pinckney. M.P., a minor, filed a lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.) and its subsidiaries, alleging that Facebook's algorithm recommended harmful content that radicalized Roof, leading to the murders. M.P. asserted claims of strict products liability, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress under South Carolina law, as well as a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for conspiracy to deprive her of her civil rights.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina dismissed M.P.'s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), concluding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred her state law tort claims. The court also found that M.P. failed to plausibly allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that M.P.'s state law tort claims were barred by Section 230 because they sought to hold Facebook liable as a publisher of third-party content. The court also determined that M.P. failed to plausibly allege proximate causation under South Carolina law, as her complaint did not provide sufficient factual foundation linking Roof's Facebook use to his crimes. Additionally, the court found that M.P. forfeited her challenge to the dismissal of her Section 1985 claim by not adequately addressing it in her appellate brief. The court also concluded that any potential claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment granting Facebook's motion to dismiss. View "M.P. v. Meta Platforms Inc." on Justia Law

D.G. sued the Orange County Social Services Agency and the County of Orange for negligence, alleging that he was sexually abused by his foster father from the mid-1970s until he was a teenager. D.G. claimed he informed his social worker that "bad people are hurting me," but no action was taken. The County moved for summary judgment, arguing there was insufficient evidence that it was aware of any abuse or risk of abuse while D.G. was in the foster home. The trial court agreed, finding the information reported was insufficient to make the abuse foreseeable and that discretionary immunity applied.The Superior Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of the County, concluding that there was no duty to protect D.G. from the unforeseeable criminal conduct of his foster father and that the social worker was immune under Government Code section 820.2 for discretionary acts. D.G. appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that the County failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that a duty of care did not exist and that discretionary act immunity did not apply. The court held that the failure to investigate potential abuse when indicators were present made the harm foreseeable, thus imposing a duty of care. Additionally, the court found no evidence that the social worker made a considered decision regarding the potential abuse. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "D.G. v. Orange County Social Services Agency" on Justia Law