Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs-Appellants are American victims and the relatives and estates of victims of terrorist attacks in Israel between 2001 and 2003. Plaintiffs alleged that Palestine Investment Bank ("PIB") facilitated the attacks, in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. 2213-39D. The district court dismissed the case on the ground that it lacked personal jurisdiction over PIB.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A) permits a federal court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant to the extent allowed by the law of the state in which it sits. New York's long-arm statute, C.P.L.R. 302(a)(1) authorizes personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant for causes of action that arise out of “transact[ing] any business within the state,” whether in person or through an agent. in this context, transacting business means “purposeful activity—some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State," invoking the benefits of the state's laws.Here, the PIB's actions indicated that it availed itself of the benefits of New York's financial system and that Plaintiff's claim arose from these activities. View "Spetner v. PIB" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and reinstated the opinion and award filed by the North Carolina Industrial Commission in favor of Plaintiff following a tractor-trailer accident in which Plaintiff, an employee a trucking company, sustained injury, holding that the agency's decision should not have been disturbed by the lower appellate court.After the accident, Plaintiff provided notice to her employer and its insurance carrier of the accident and of the injury her husband received in the accident but did not report injury to herself. The Commission concluded that Plaintiff's injury was causally related to the accident, that Plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for not providing notice of her injury until two years later, that Defendants were not prejudiced, and that Plaintiff was totally disabled as a result of her injury. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no error in either the Commission's findings of fact or in its conclusions of law. View "Sprouse v. Turner Trucking Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion by issuing a writ of certiorari in this case and that the issuance of the writ of certiorari was the only issue for which the dissent set out any reasoning, thus declining to address any remaining issues contained in Plaintiffs' brief.Plaintiffs brought a tort suit against the Young Men's Christian Association of Northwest North Carolina (the YMCA), admitting that their sexual abuse claims would be barred by the statutes of limitations in effect before enactment of the SAFE Child Act, 2109 N.C. Sess. Laws 1231, but asserting that the Act revived their claims. The YMCA moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that the Act's revival of the statute of limitations violated the state Constitution. The trial court concluded that YMCA's claim was a facially challenge to the Act and transferred the issue to a panel of the court of appeals. After the YMCA appealed, Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal as impermissibly interlocutory. The court of appeals issued a divided opinion, the majority vacating the transfer order and the dissent challenging the issuance of a writ of certiorari. Plaintiffs appealed based on the dissent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly issued the writ of certiorari; and (2) this Court declines to address the second issue raised in Plaintiffs' brief. View "Cryan v. Nat'l Council of YMCA" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals in this personal injury case, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by including in the jury charge an instruction on res ipsa loquitur.Plaintiff sued Elegante and its elevator-maintenance contractor, Schindler, after he was allegedly injured in an elevator malfunction. The trial court granted summary judgment for Elegante, and Plaintiff's claims against Schindler proceeded to trial. The jury found that Schindler's negligence proximately caused the elevator incident and awarded Plaintiff damages. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the portion of the court of appeals' judgment relating to sanctions imposed on Schindler and otherwise reversed, holding that the trial court erred by submitting a res ipsa instruction to the jury and that the error was not harmless. View "Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Ceasar" on Justia Law

In this case alleging defective design and development of a commercial property the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that the running of limitations was equitably tolled while the suit was on appeal, holding that there was no tolling.The suit in this breach of contract and negligence action was eventually dismissed for failure to file a certificate of merit. Plaintiff nonsuited its claims and refiled. The court of appeals held that the certificate of merit was deficient as to the breach of contract claim but complied with the statute with respect to the negligence claim. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the certificate of merit failed to satisfy Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 150.002 as to Plaintiff's negligence claim. The Supreme Court remanded the case for a determination of whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a new suit against Defendant that included a new certificate of merit. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant on the grounds that Plaintiff's claims were time-barred. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Plaintiff was entitled to equitable tolling. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no tolling during the appeal of the earlier-filed lawsuit. View "Levinson Alcoser Associates, LP v. El Pistolon II, Ltd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus relief in this negligence and premises liability action, holding that the district court's decision to grant a new trial after a three-week trial was an abuse of discretion.Irma Villegas, an employee of Rudolph Mazda, was struck by a vehicle driven by another employee after several employees drank beer on site. Plaintiff, Villegas's daughter, sued Defendants alleging negligence, failure to train, and premises liability. The jury awarded Plaintiffs over $4 million in damages. Plaintiff filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, on grounds of mistrial, for a new trial. The district court granted the motion, giving four reasons for its decision. Rudolph petitioned the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus, which the court denied. The Supreme Court conditionally granted the writ, holding that, individually or collectively, none of the errors identified by the district court presented a proper basis for a new trial. View "In re Rudolph Automotive, LLC" on Justia Law

In this wrongful death action, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court entering judgment on the jury's verdict awarding more than $15 million to Plaintiffs in noneconomic damages, holding that the award in this case was excessive.Sarah Gregory was driving an eighteen wheeler that jackknifed across lanes of traffic and caused four deaths, including Bhupinder Deol. Deol's family brought a wrongful death action against Gregory and her employer. The jury awarded approximately $16.8 million to Deol's family, and noneconomic damages accounted for more than $15 million of the total. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) nothing in the record or in Plaintiffs' arguments demonstrated a rational connection between the injuries suffered and the amount awarded; and (2) the trial court erred in denying Defendants' request to designate another truck company as a responsible third party. View "Gregory v. Chohan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Thomas L. Cardella & Associates' (Cardella) motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in this case alleging common law negligent supervision or retention, holding that the claim was barred by the Iowa Workers' Compensation Act (IWCA), Iowa Code ch. 85.Plaintiff sued Cardella two years after she quit her employment there. Because she missed the deadline for bringing a hostile work environment claim under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA), Iowa Code ch. 216, Plaintiff sued for common law negligent supervision or retention and presented her claim to the jury seeking emotional distress damages related to her mental health as a negligent supervision claim premised on Cardella failing to protect her from assault and battery. After a trial, the jury awarded Plaintiff $400,000 in emotional distress damages. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, as presented to the jury, Plaintiff's claim was barred by IWCA. View "McCoy v. Thomas L. Cardella & Associates" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the circuit court entering judgment on a jury verdict in favor of Cornerstone Hospital of Huntington, LLC in this lawsuit brought by Petitioner seeking damages for injuries he sustained while visiting a patient at Cornerstone, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the peer review privilege protected Cornerstone's incident report from discovery.At issue was a circuit court order protecting from discovery an incident report in which an employee of Cornerstone described the condition of the patient's room following Petitioner's injury based on the peer review privilege set forth in W. Va. Code 30-3C-1 to -5. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in ruling that the peer review privilege protected the incident report from discovery because the employee prepared the report exclusively for its own use in its internal quality assurance and facility maintenance review process; and (2) did not err in entering judgment on the jury's verdict because Petitioner failed to rebut Cornerstone's assertion of the peer review privilege. View "Toler v. Cornerstone Hospital of Huntington, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Florida's offer-of-judgment statute does not impose the requirement that a party must prevail in a proceeding to be entitled to fees under the statute, and therefore, the statute is not a prevailing-party statute.Plaintiff sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company seeking damages for her sister's wrongful death. Before trial, Plaintiff served Defendant with two proposals for settlement, both of which Defendant rejected. After a jury trial, the jury awarded Plaintiff $300,000 in compensatory damages and $16,000,000 in punitive damages. The court of appeal reversed the punitive damages award as excessive. Thereafter, Plaintiff sought attorney's fees based on Defendant's rejection of her offers of judgment. The Supreme Court provisionally granted the motion for reasonable attorney's fees conditioned upon the trial court's finding of entitlement and determination of amount, holding that the offer-of-judgment statute is not a prevailing-party statute. View "Coates v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co." on Justia Law