Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Joe and Lora Killoran, along with their businesses, Maple Valley Ag Products, LLC, and Maple Valley Ag Chemicals, Inc., sued Kip Kaler for slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and unlawful interference with business. The Killorans alleged that Kaler made defamatory statements during Co-op meetings, calling them "crooks and thieves" and advising others not to do business with them. These statements allegedly caused significant reputational harm, economic losses, and mental distress to the Killorans and their businesses.The District Court of Cass County dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court found that the slander claim was not well-pled, as the Killorans failed to provide sufficient factual support for the statements made by Kaler and did not adequately plead the falsity of the statements. The IIED claim was dismissed because the court determined that Kaler's conduct was not extreme and outrageous enough to permit recovery. The unlawful interference with business claim was dismissed due to the lack of an independent tort to support it, following the dismissal of the slander and IIED claims.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of the IIED claim, agreeing that Kaler's conduct did not meet the threshold for extreme and outrageous behavior. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the slander claim, finding that the district court had improperly applied the pleading standards and failed to accept the allegations as true. The court also reversed the dismissal of the unlawful interference with business claim, as the potential for an independent tort (slander) existed. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Killoran v. Kaler" on Justia Law

A 10-year-old student at an elementary school in Lincoln, Nebraska, was injured during a game of tag in a physical education class. The student was holding a pool noodle to tag classmates when another student, K.H., grabbed the pool noodle, causing the student to fall and hit her head. The student's mother sued the school district for negligence. The school district claimed sovereign immunity under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), arguing the claim arose from a battery.The district court overruled the school district's motion for summary judgment, finding a factual dispute about whether the pool noodle was part of the student's body. The court noted that while K.H. intentionally grabbed the pool noodle without the student's consent, it was unclear if this contact constituted a battery since the pool noodle was not necessarily part of the student's person.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court noted that public school districts are political subdivisions under the PSTCA and that if a claim falls within an exemption, the political subdivision is not liable. The court examined whether the contact with the pool noodle could be considered offensive contact with the student's body, which would constitute a battery. The court found that whether an object is part of a person's body is determined on an objective reasonable person basis and that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding this question.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the factual dispute about whether the pool noodle was part of the student's body precluded summary judgment. The case was allowed to proceed to determine if the school district retained sovereign immunity. View "Scott v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001" on Justia Law

Andrew J. Scarborough, as the administrator of the estate of Timothy John Chumney, filed a lawsuit in the Montgomery Circuit Court against Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Deora Johnson, and Shari Barfield. The case involved allegations of negligence and medical malpractice following Chumney's suicide while incarcerated. The defendants initially did not object to the venue in their Rule 12 motions or answers. However, two years after the trial was first set, they moved to amend their answers to raise the defense of improper venue and filed a motion to transfer the case to Limestone Circuit Court. The Montgomery Circuit Court agreed and transferred the case.Scarborough petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the defendants had waived their defense of improper venue by not raising it earlier. The defendants contended that the transfer was mandatory under § 6-5-546 of the Alabama Medical Liability Act (AMLA), which they claimed allowed for a venue change at any time before trial.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and determined that the defendants had indeed waived their right to challenge the venue under Rule 12(h)(1)(A) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure by not including the defense in their initial motions. The court also clarified that § 6-5-546 of the AMLA did not apply because Scarborough did not allege that the acts or omissions occurred in more than one county. Therefore, the general timing provisions of Rule 12(h)(1) remained applicable.The Supreme Court of Alabama granted Scarborough's petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Montgomery Circuit Court to vacate its order transferring the case to Limestone Circuit Court. View "In re: Scarborough v. Wexford Health Sources" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Lorraine Bellmar, as the personal representative of her deceased husband Harry Bellmar's estate, filed a medical malpractice and wrongful death action against Dr. Robert Moore and his medical practice. Harry Bellmar had been Dr. Moore's patient for approximately ten years, suffering from morbid obesity, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and high cholesterol. In December 2006, an abnormal EKG was performed, but Dr. Moore did not order any follow-up cardiac testing over the next ten years. Harry Bellmar died in June 2016 from cardiac arrhythmia.The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the seven-year statute of repose under G. L. c. 260, § 4, because the claim was based on the 2006 EKG, which occurred more than seven years before the filing of the lawsuit in December 2017. The Appeals Court affirmed the decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the statute of repose does not shield later negligent acts if the medical malpractice claim is not predicated on acts or omissions that took place more than seven years before the filing of the claim. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Dr. Moore's treatment of the decedent within the seven-year period was negligent, independent of the 2006 EKG. The case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings. View "Bellmar v. Moore" on Justia Law

Kimberly Montoya filed a medical malpractice claim against Dr. Aaron Fowler, alleging that he failed to call a "code stroke" when she exhibited signs of a stroke while under his care. As a result, a CT scan was delayed, leading to severe disability. Montoya argued that immediate action would have mitigated her damages significantly. She requested a burden-shifting jury instruction, asserting that the absence of a timely CT scan made it impossible to prove the extent of damages caused by Dr. Fowler's negligence.The Superior Court of Orange County denied Montoya's request for the burden-shifting instruction, reasoning that such an instruction was not appropriate in cases involving omissions and that Montoya's ability to establish damages was not seriously impaired by the ruling. Montoya then filed a writ petition challenging this decision.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that if Montoya could present evidence showing Dr. Fowler's negligence in failing to order a CT scan, a reasonable possibility that a timely CT scan followed by a thrombectomy would have mitigated her damages, and that the CT scan was critical to establishing causation, then public policy requires shifting the burden of proof to Dr. Fowler to show that his negligence did not cause her damages. The court emphasized that a defendant should not benefit from their own negligence when it results in the absence of critical evidence.The Court of Appeal granted Montoya's petition, directing the lower court to vacate its ruling denying the requested jury instruction. However, the appellate court did not mandate a specific instruction, leaving it to the trial court to determine the appropriate instruction based on the evidence presented at trial. View "Montoya v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Jon and Shawna Hill, along with their children, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Stuart Clive and his employer, Emergency Medicine of Idaho, P.A. (EMI), alleging that Clive misdiagnosed Jon Hill with vertigo when he was actually suffering from a stroke. This misdiagnosis led to severe physical and cognitive impairments for Jon Hill. The Hills claimed negligence, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, and respondeat superior liability. The district court dismissed the children's claims, ruling that Idaho does not recognize a claim for loss of parental consortium. The jury found in favor of EMI and Clive, and the district court denied the Hills' motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct.The Hills appealed the district court's dismissal of their children's claims, two evidentiary rulings, and the denial of their motion for a new trial. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the children's claims, agreeing that Idaho law does not recognize a claim for loss of parental consortium for non-fatal injuries. The court noted that creating such a cause of action involves significant policy considerations best left to the legislature.The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision to allow expert testimony on "hindsight bias" by EMI's expert, Dr. Opeolu M. Adeoye, finding it irrelevant and prejudicial. The court held that this error affected the Hills' substantial rights, as the testimony improperly endorsed EMI's theme of hindsight bias, potentially influencing the jury's decision. Consequently, the judgment in favor of EMI and Clive was vacated, and the case was remanded for a new trial. The court did not address the Hills' other issues on appeal due to the remand. EMI's request for attorney fees on appeal was denied, as they were not the prevailing party. View "Hill v. Emergency Medicine of Idaho, P.A." on Justia Law

Kevin Vericker published an internet blog questioning the credentials, character, and competency of Norman Christopher Powell, who was appointed as the attorney for North Bay Village. Powell filed a defamation lawsuit against Vericker, claiming the blog posts were defamatory per se. Vericker responded with a motion for summary judgment and an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that Powell, as a public official, needed to prove actual malice, which he could not. The trial court denied Vericker's motion.Vericker then sought a writ of certiorari from the Third District Court of Appeal to review the denial of his anti-SLAPP motion. The Third District held that certiorari was not appropriate for reviewing such orders, aligning with the Fourth District's position that public policy favors interlocutory review through rule amendments rather than expanding certiorari jurisdiction. The Third District certified conflict with the Second District's decisions in Gundel, Baird, and Davis, which had allowed certiorari review for anti-SLAPP motions.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case and held that denials of anti-SLAPP motions do not constitute irreparable harm sufficient to support certiorari relief. The court emphasized that the Anti-SLAPP statute does not provide immunity from suit but rather aims for the expeditious resolution of meritless, speech-targeted lawsuits. To align with legislative intent, the court amended Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3) to allow interlocutory review of nonfinal orders denying anti-SLAPP motions. The court approved the Third District's decision and disapproved the Second District's conflicting decisions. View "Vericker v. Powell" on Justia Law

Jeremy James Allen, while incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Faribault, filed a complaint against several officials alleging deliberate indifference and medical malpractice related to a hand injury from December 2017. He did not file any grievances with prison officials regarding his injury or medical treatment during his incarceration. Allen's complaint was initially filed in state court and later removed to federal court. After his release from custody, Allen amended his complaint, substituting Charles Brooks and Cheryl Piepho for previously unidentified defendants.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted Allen's unopposed motion to amend his complaint after his release. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, but did not initially raise the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The district court denied the motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds, finding that Allen plausibly alleged a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care.Brooks and Piepho later raised the failure to exhaust defense in a summary judgment motion, arguing that Allen's original complaint, filed while he was incarcerated, was subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) exhaustion requirement. The district court denied their motion, ruling that the amended complaint, filed after Allen's release, was not subject to the PLRA's exhaustion requirement and did not relate back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c).The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Allen's amended complaint, filed after his release, was the operative complaint and not subject to the PLRA's exhaustion requirement. Additionally, the court found that the amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint because naming John and Jane Doe defendants did not qualify as a "mistake" under Rule 15(c). View "Allen v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Vonzell Scott was shot while waiting in his car at a Wendy’s drive-thru in Chicago around 3:00 am on December 31, 2018. Scott had a brief altercation with another driver, but it ended peacefully. Shortly after, two armed individuals approached Scott’s car and opened fire, injuring him. Scott sued Wendy’s, alleging negligence for not providing overnight security guards, which he claimed could have prevented the shooting.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of Wendy’s. The court found that while Wendy’s owed a duty to protect Scott from intentional third-party assaults, the specific shooting incident was so aberrant that Wendy’s failure to provide security guards did not proximately cause Scott’s injury. The court concluded that the shooting was unforeseeable and that additional security would not have prevented it.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the extreme, isolated, and unprovoked nature of the shooting made it unforeseeable as a matter of law. The court noted that while there was evidence of prior crimes in the area, none were similar to the shooting Scott experienced. The court concluded that Wendy’s could not have reasonably foreseen the attack, and therefore, the lack of security guards did not proximately cause Scott’s injury. The court emphasized that the foreseeability of an injury is context-dependent and that the specific type of violence Scott endured was not reasonably foreseeable based on the prior incidents. View "Scott v Wendy's Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

Ms. Rajmonda Mile attended her daughter’s wedding at Kirkbrae Country Club on September 9, 2018, where she allegedly slipped and fell. She filed a lawsuit against Kirkbrae in Providence County Superior Court and requested any photographs or videotapes of the incident. Kirkbrae acknowledged possessing a surveillance video of the incident but claimed it was protected under attorney work product privilege, referencing the case Cabral v. Arruda.The Superior Court denied Ms. Mile’s motion to compel the production of the video, agreeing with Kirkbrae’s assertion that the video was protected under the work product doctrine. Ms. Mile then sought review from the Rhode Island Supreme Court, arguing that the video was actual evidence of the incident and not created in anticipation of litigation.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the video was not protected under the work product privilege because it was recorded by Kirkbrae’s surveillance system at the time of the incident and not at the request of an attorney. The court emphasized that the burden of proving the applicability of the work product privilege lies with the party seeking to withhold the evidence. Since Kirkbrae failed to meet this burden, the trial justice’s denial of the motion to compel was deemed an error.The Rhode Island Supreme Court quashed the Superior Court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, instructing the lower court to compel the production of the video. View "Mile v. Kirkbrae Country Club" on Justia Law