Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

A nurse employed at a hospital in Alaska claimed that he contracted a persistent Clostridiodes difficile (C. diff) infection as a result of workplace exposure in September 2018. He had a preexisting gastrointestinal condition but experienced worsening symptoms after caring for a patient with C. diff. After returning to Arkansas, he continued to suffer from the infection and sought workers’ compensation benefits, asserting that his illness was work-related. The hospital disputed the claim, arguing that the infection was not caused by workplace exposure.The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board initially found the nurse credible, determined that he contracted C. diff at work, and awarded him temporary total disability and medical benefits. The Board also ruled that the hospital had waived its right to cross-examine the authors of certain medical reports submitted by the nurse, because the hospital’s requests for cross-examination were not filed within the time limits set by 8 AAC 45.052. The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission reviewed the case and concluded that the Board erred in applying 8 AAC 45.052, reasoning that the documents in question were not “medical reports” as defined by the regulation. The Commission held that the general evidentiary rule, 8 AAC 45.120, applied instead, and that the hospital’s cross-examination requests were timely. The Commission remanded the case to the Board to allow cross-examination of the doctors.On remand, a new Board panel held a de novo hearing, reversed most of the prior factual findings, and denied the nurse’s claim for benefits. The Commission affirmed this denial. The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska held that the Commission erred in its interpretation of “medical reports” under 8 AAC 45.052, finding the Board’s broader interpretation reasonable and consistent with longstanding practice. The Supreme Court reversed the Commission’s remand order, vacated subsequent decisions, and remanded for reinstatement of the original compensation award. View "Woodell v. Alaska Regional Hospital" on Justia Law

On June 23, 2019, a multi-vehicle accident occurred on Interstate 59 in Birmingham, Alabama. John Daniels, Jr. lost control of his car after being struck by another vehicle and crashed into the concrete median, where his car was subsequently hit by other vehicles. Nicholas Raynard Smith, Jr., riding a motorcycle with a companion, approached the accident scene and collided with Daniels’s car, suffering severe injuries. There was conflicting evidence about whether the streetlights near the accident site were operational at the time, but it was undisputed that two specific streetlights were not working when first responders arrived. Smith alleged that the City of Birmingham was responsible for maintaining those streetlights and had been on notice of lighting problems in the area.Smith filed suit in the Jefferson Circuit Court, asserting claims of negligence and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and/or retention against the City. The court dismissed Smith’s wantonness and recklessness claims, leaving only the negligence-based claims. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing it was entitled to municipal and substantive immunity. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that factual questions remained regarding the City’s notice of the lighting issue and whether the inoperable streetlights proximately caused Smith’s injuries.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the City’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court held that the City was entitled to substantive immunity on Smith’s negligence claim, concluding that a municipality’s voluntary maintenance of streetlights for public safety does not create a legal duty to individual motorists. The Court also noted Smith’s concession that his negligent hiring, training, supervision, and/or retention claim should be dismissed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Alabama granted the City’s petition and directed the circuit court to enter summary judgment in favor of the City. View "Ex parte City of Birmingham PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS" on Justia Law

The case concerns an automobile accident that occurred in rural Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, on January 3, 2024. James Godwin, a resident of Dallas County and employee of Talton Communications, Inc., was driving a company vehicle when he was rear-ended by Desi Bernard Peoples, a resident of Fayette County. Godwin subsequently filed suit in the Dallas Circuit Court against Peoples, his employer Talton, and Penn National Security Insurance Company, which provided uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Godwin’s claims included negligence and wantonness, a claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits, and a workers’ compensation claim against Talton. Godwin received all medical treatment for his injuries in Dallas County, where he and his wife reside and work.After the complaint was filed, Penn National moved to sever the workers’ compensation claim and to transfer the remaining claims to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court, arguing that transfer was warranted for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice under Alabama’s forum non conveniens statute, § 6-3-21.1. The Dallas Circuit Court denied the motion to sever but ordered the workers’ compensation claim to be tried separately. The court also denied the motion to transfer, finding insufficient evidence that Tuscaloosa County was a significantly more convenient forum or that Dallas County had only a weak connection to the case.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed Penn National’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel transfer. The Court denied the petition, holding that Penn National failed to meet its burden of showing that Tuscaloosa County was significantly more convenient or that Dallas County’s connection to the case was weak. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s choice of venue is entitled to deference when both venues are proper and that the evidence presented did not justify overriding that choice. View "Ex parte Penn National Security Insurance Company" on Justia Law

A fatal motor vehicle accident occurred after a patron, Bailey, was served alcohol at two establishments, including one operated by the appellants. Bailey drove the wrong way on an interstate, resulting in a collision that killed himself and five members of the Abbas family. The Abbas family’s estates sued the restaurant operators (collectively “Roosters”) for dram shop liability and negligent training. At the time, Roosters held both a businessowners policy (BOP) and a commercial umbrella policy (CUP) with Grange Insurance Company. The BOP provided $1,000,000 in liquor liability coverage, which was undisputed. The dispute centered on whether the CUP also provided liquor liability coverage, particularly in light of an endorsement (CU 47) that replaced the liquor liability exclusion in the CUP.The Fayette Circuit Court found the language of the CUP and CU 47 ambiguous when considered alongside the BOP, reasoning that umbrella policies are intended to supplement underlying coverage. The court granted summary judgment to Roosters, holding that the CUP provided additional coverage. Grange appealed, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed, finding CU 47 unambiguously replaced the liquor liability exclusion and precluded coverage under the CUP. The appellate court remanded for entry of a declaratory judgment in Grange’s favor.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case de novo. It held that CU 47 unambiguously replaced the liquor liability exclusion in the CUP, leaving no basis for additional coverage. The court enforced the policy as written, declining to consider extrinsic evidence or arguments not preserved below. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the commercial umbrella policy does not provide liquor liability coverage for the claims at issue. View "GEORGETOWN CHICKEN COOP, LLC V. GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY" on Justia Law

In February 2016, Kevin Frost kidnapped his estranged wife, Sherri Frost, during a contentious divorce. He lured her into a situation where he could seize her, forced her into his vehicle, and held her for several hours in a barn owned by a family associate. During captivity, Kevin made Sherri severely intoxicated and later delivered her to the emergency room before turning himself in. Kevin pleaded guilty to assault and kidnapping and served a prison sentence. Sherri subsequently filed a civil suit against Kevin, Frost Ranching Corporation (the Ranch), and other parties, seeking damages for injuries and emotional distress resulting from the kidnapping. She alleged that Kevin acted, at least in part, to prevent her from obtaining an interest in the Ranch during the divorce.The Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, dismissed claims against some defendants and granted summary judgment to Frost Limited Partnership. The court denied summary judgment to the Ranch on vicarious liability, allowing that issue to proceed to trial. At trial, Sherri presented evidence of medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other damages. The jury found Kevin liable for several torts but awarded only $20,000 in damages, which matched the lower end of medical expenses and did not account for pain and suffering. The District Court granted Sherri’s motion for a new trial, finding the jury’s award unsupported by substantial evidence, as it disregarded uncontradicted, credible evidence of pain and suffering. The court also granted the Ranch’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that the Ranch could not ratify Kevin’s conduct absent acceptance of any benefit from the kidnapping.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed both rulings. It held that the jury’s damages award was not supported by substantial evidence and that a new trial on damages was warranted. The court also held that, under Montana law, ratification requires acceptance of a benefit, which was absent here, so the Ranch could not be held liable for Kevin’s actions. View "Frost v. Frost" on Justia Law

Kia and Hyundai manufactured millions of vehicles between 2011 and 2021 that lacked engine immobilizers, a standard anti-theft device, and had ignition assemblies that were easily compromised. These design features made the cars especially vulnerable to theft, leading to a surge in thefts nationwide, particularly after a viral social media trend demonstrated how to steal these vehicles. In two separate incidents, teenagers stole such cars and, while driving them, caused accidents that resulted in severe injury to Donald Strench and the death of Matthew Moshi. Strench and Moshi’s estate brought suit against Hyundai and Kia, respectively, alleging that the companies were liable under the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA) for design defects that made the cars susceptible to theft and, consequently, to the resulting injuries.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed the claims, holding that the plaintiffs could not establish proximate causation as a matter of Ohio law. The district court relied on Ohio precedents that generally absolve car owners of liability for injuries caused by thieves who steal their cars, applying the same reasoning to the manufacturers.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the Ohio cases concerning car owners’ liability do not control product liability claims against manufacturers. The Sixth Circuit found that, under OPLA and Ohio common law, foreseeability must be assessed from the perspective of a manufacturer, who is expected to have specialized knowledge of risks, including those arising from third-party theft. The court concluded that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the manufacturers should have foreseen the risk of theft-related accidents. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the design defect and inadequate warning claims, but affirmed the dismissal of the manufacturing defect and nonconformance to representation claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the surviving claims. View "Moshi v. Kia Motors Am., Inc." on Justia Law

A woman experiencing a mental health crisis called 911 and requested that police come to her home to shoot her. Three officers responded and found her holding a bat and a pickaxe. The officers maintained a distance of about fifteen feet and attempted to de-escalate the situation, with one officer assuring her that she would not be harmed. After several minutes, and following an interaction with the woman’s mother, one officer tased her, and another officer shot her multiple times as she moved in the direction of the officers. The woman survived but suffered severe injuries.The plaintiff, acting on the woman’s behalf, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the two officers and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and also brought a negligence claim against the municipality. The officers moved to dismiss the complaint on qualified immunity grounds, and the municipality sought judgment on the pleadings. The district court granted the officers’ motion to dismiss the excessive force claims and the municipality’s motion on the negligence claim, but initially denied the municipality’s motion as to the § 1983 claim. Later, the district court granted the municipality’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the § 1983 claim as well.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the complaint plausibly alleged that both officers violated the woman’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by tasing and shooting her under the circumstances described. The court also held that the district court erred in dismissing the municipal liability claim. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the claims against the officers, vacated the judgment for the municipality, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Chrestman v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County" on Justia Law

A 63-year-old man with a history of sciatica and alcohol-use disorder attempted to board a city bus in Indianapolis. Earlier that day, he had been hospitalized for intoxication but was released while still mildly intoxicated. That evening, after waiting at a bus stop, he approached a bus as it was preparing to leave. As the bus pulled away, he lost his balance and fell into the road, where he was run over and later died from his injuries. At the time of the incident, his blood-alcohol content was approximately 0.261. His mother, acting as the personal representative of his estate, filed a wrongful death suit against the public transportation corporation, alleging negligence.The Marion Superior Court presided over a jury trial in which the transportation corporation argued that the decedent was contributorily negligent, which would bar recovery. The jury viewed video footage of the incident and heard testimony regarding the decedent’s physical condition and intoxication. After deliberation, the jury found in favor of the estate and awarded damages, later reduced by statutory limits. The transportation corporation moved for judgment on the evidence and, after the verdict, for a motion to correct error, both of which the trial court denied. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, finding the decedent contributorily negligent as a matter of law.The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacated the Court of Appeals’ opinion, and reviewed the trial court’s denial of the motion to correct error de novo. The Court held that the evidence, including the video footage and testimony, did not establish as a matter of law that the decedent was contributorily negligent. Multiple reasonable inferences could be drawn from the evidence, so the jury’s verdict was not clearly erroneous or unsupported. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to correct error. View "Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation v. Bush" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was indicted by a Rhode Island grand jury, along with several co-defendants, on charges related to an alleged mortgage fraud conspiracy. He filed multiple motions to dismiss the charges in Rhode Island Superior Court, arguing that the indictment was tainted by prosecutorial misconduct and the presentation of misleading or missing evidence. After evidentiary hearings, a Magistrate denied his motions, and an Associate Justice of the Superior Court, on de novo review, adopted the Magistrate’s decision and added that the plaintiff had not shown sufficient prosecutorial misconduct to justify dismissal. The plaintiff did not appeal this ruling. Later, the charges against him were dismissed by the state as part of a plea agreement with a co-defendant.Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a malicious prosecution suit in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island against state law enforcement defendants. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that collateral estoppel barred the plaintiff from relitigating whether the indictment was procured by fraud or misconduct, since that issue had already been decided in state court. The plaintiff responded only that the issues were not identical, and did not contest the “final judgment” or “full and fair opportunity to litigate” elements of collateral estoppel.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiff had waived his arguments regarding the “final judgment” and “full and fair opportunity” elements by failing to raise them in the district court, and that no exceptional circumstances justified excusing this waiver. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants, holding that collateral estoppel applied and barred the plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim. Costs were awarded to the defendants. View "Shabshelowitz v. Rhode Island Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Robin Roebuck, who had previously undergone a heart transplant, was hospitalized at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona in April 2020 for COVID-19. During his stay, an arterial blood gas test was performed as part of his treatment, which led to complications requiring surgery and resulting in significant scarring and reduced function in his right arm and hand. In January 2021, Roebuck filed a medical negligence lawsuit against the Mayo Clinic and two of its medical professionals, alleging that the test was negligently performed. He did not claim gross negligence.The Superior Court of Maricopa County initially denied Mayo Clinic’s motion to dismiss, finding that Roebuck had sufficiently alleged the test was part of his heart treatment rather than COVID-19 care. After discovery, the court determined the test was related to COVID-19 treatment and granted summary judgment for Mayo Clinic, holding that Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-516 provided immunity from ordinary negligence claims during the pandemic, requiring proof of gross negligence or willful misconduct instead. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that § 12-516’s bar on ordinary negligence claims for pandemic-related medical care violated the Arizona Constitution’s anti-abrogation clause.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case and held that § 12-516(A) unconstitutionally abrogates the right to recover damages for injuries caused by ordinary negligence by health care providers during a public health emergency. The Court found that gross negligence is not a reasonable alternative to ordinary negligence and that the statute’s limitation impermissibly abolishes a protected right of action. The Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings, while vacating part of the court of appeals’ reasoning and replacing it with its own. View "ROEBUCK v MAYO CLINIC" on Justia Law