Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Following heavy snowfall in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, the roofs of several chicken houses at ten poultry farms collapsed. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company, which insured the farms, sued Rogers Manufacturing Corporation, the manufacturer of the roof trusses used in the chicken houses, claiming strict product liability, negligence, and breach of warranties. Rogers moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Norfolk’s claims were barred by the Arkansas statute of repose.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas agreed with Rogers and dismissed the complaint. Norfolk appealed the dismissal, arguing that the statute of repose did not apply to Rogers because the roof trusses were standardized goods, not custom-designed for the farms.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Norfolk’s favor. The court found that Norfolk’s complaint plausibly supported an inference that the roof trusses were standardized goods, which would not be covered by the Arkansas statute of repose. The court emphasized that at this early stage, the complaint should not be dismissed if it allows for a reasonable inference of liability.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings, noting that the facts and legal arguments could be further developed as the case progresses. View "Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Rogers Manufacturing Corporation" on Justia Law

Charles Leonhardt, a pretrial detainee at the Big Horn County Jail, suffered from back pain and was eventually diagnosed with two lower back infections after being transported to a hospital. He sued Big Horn County Sheriff Ken Blackburn, Jail Captain Debbie Cook, unnamed detention officers, the Big Horn County Sheriff’s Office, and the Jail, alleging negligence and deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment.The District Court of Big Horn County granted summary judgment to the defendants on both claims. The court found that Sheriff Blackburn had fulfilled his duty to arrange for medical care by contracting with Midway Medical Clinic, which provided medical services to inmates. The court also determined that the actions of Sheriff Blackburn, Captain Cook, and the detention officers were reasonable and did not proximately cause Mr. Leonhardt’s injuries. Additionally, the court found no evidence of deliberate indifference to Mr. Leonhardt’s medical needs, as the defendants ensured he received timely medical care.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the negligence claim, as the defendants acted reasonably and provided Mr. Leonhardt with access to medical care. The court also found no evidence that the defendants were aware of and disregarded an excessive risk to Mr. Leonhardt’s health, thus failing to meet the subjective component of a deliberate indifference claim. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants on both the negligence and Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claims. View "Leonhardt v. Big Horn County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

Defendants discovered that a parcel of land near their property was seemingly omitted from the plaintiff's deed. They arranged for the heirs of a previous owner to deed that parcel to them without confirming the heirs' ownership or consulting the plaintiff, who used the parcel. After recording their deed, defendants informed the plaintiff that they owned the parcel and asked her to remove her belongings. The plaintiff sued for deed reformation and slander of title.The Superior Court, Windham Unit, Civil Division, granted the plaintiff's claim for deed reformation on summary judgment and concluded that Mr. Kolodziej slandered the plaintiff's title after a bench trial. Defendants appealed the decision.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that the plaintiff had a transferrable ownership interest capable of disparagement, as the reformed deed related back to the original deed. The court found that the defendants published a false statement by recording a deed that falsely claimed ownership of the disputed parcel. The court also concluded that Mr. Kolodziej acted with malice by recklessly disregarding the plaintiff's potential claim to the property. Finally, the court determined that the plaintiff's legal expenses incurred in clearing the cloud on her title constituted special damages necessary to sustain her slander-of-title claim. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the deed reformation and the ruling on the slander-of-title claim, including the award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff. View "Massucco v. Kolodziej" on Justia Law

In this case, Claudia Kennedy, as the executor of Donald R. Gerres's estate, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Western Reserve Senior Care and Dr. Sataya Acharya, among others, alleging that substandard medical care led to Gerres's death in October 2013. Kennedy initially filed the lawsuit in September 2014, voluntarily dismissed it in January 2019, and refiled it within a year.The trial court denied the healthcare providers' motion for judgment on the pleadings, which argued that the four-year statute of repose for medical claims barred Kennedy's refiled action. However, after the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Durrani, which held that the saving statute does not preserve claims refiled after the statute of repose expires, the healthcare providers sought summary judgment. The trial court denied this motion but later granted a directed verdict in favor of the healthcare providers after Kennedy's opening statements.Kennedy appealed to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, arguing that R.C. 2305.15(A) tolled the statute of repose because Dr. Acharya had moved out of Ohio. The Eleventh District affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that applying the tolling statute to Dr. Acharya, who left Ohio for legitimate business purposes, violated the dormant Commerce Clause.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that R.C. 2305.15(A) does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause as applied to a physician who moved out of Ohio to practice medicine in another state. The court found that the tolling statute serves a legitimate local purpose and does not impose a burden on interstate commerce that is clearly excessive in relation to its benefits. The judgment of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Kennedy v. W. Res. Senior Care" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a self-represented pediatric dentist, sued the defendant newspaper for defamation, alleging that two articles published by the defendant exaggerated the scope and seriousness of disciplinary proceedings against him. The articles reported on disciplinary actions taken by the Department of Public Health and the Connecticut State Dental Commission, which resulted in a reprimand, fines, and probation of the plaintiff’s dental license. The plaintiff claimed that five statements in the articles were defamatory and that a stock photograph accompanying the articles was independently defamatory.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, concluding that the five statements were either substantially true or protected by the fair report privilege under the First Amendment. The court did not address the photograph as an independent defamation claim, as the plaintiff had not distinctly raised it as such in his pleadings. The plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, declining to consider the photograph claim because it was not distinctly raised before the trial court.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision. The court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment without treating the plaintiff’s references to the photograph as an independent defamation claim. The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s self-represented status did not relieve him of the obligation to sufficiently articulate his claims. The court also clarified that the fair report privilege is not defeated by demonstrating malice in fact, and that the privilege applies as long as the report is a fair and substantially accurate account of the proceedings. View "Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co." on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, David Yaffee, was injured in a car accident in 2015 when his vehicle was rear-ended by a truck driven by Joseph Skeen, who was employed by KLS Transportation, Inc. Yaffee experienced significant pain and medical issues following the accident, leading to multiple medical treatments, including surgeries and ongoing pain management. He filed a personal injury lawsuit against Skeen and KLS, with National Liability & Fire Insurance Company appearing on behalf of KLS.The Superior Court of Sacramento County oversaw the trial, where a jury awarded Yaffee $3,299,455 in damages for past and future economic earnings and noneconomic loss. The defendants challenged several aspects of the award, including past and future medical damages, lost earnings, future noneconomic damages, and the award for costs and prejudgment interest. The trial court denied the defendants' motions for a new trial and partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court had erred in its interpretation of the Hospital Lien Act (HLA) regarding the proper measure of past medical damages. The appellate court concluded that the HLA only applies to emergency and ongoing services provided while the patient remains in the hospital or an affiliated facility, not to all future services related to the injury. Consequently, the award for past medical damages was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial on this issue.The appellate court also found that the award for future medical damages was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding the need for a dorsal root ganglion stimulator. This award was also reversed and remanded for a new trial. However, the court upheld the jury's awards for past and future lost earnings and future noneconomic damages, finding sufficient evidence to support these awards. The award for costs and prejudgment interest was vacated due to the partial reversal of the judgment. View "Yaffee v. Skeen" on Justia Law

A woman was involved in a head-on car collision in Petaluma, California. Fire department paramedics responded to the scene and repeatedly offered her medical assistance, which she declined, stating she was not injured. Despite being warned of potential serious injuries that might not yet be symptomatic, she refused transport to a hospital. Hours later, she suffered a debilitating stroke due to a hypertensive crisis triggered by the collision. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the City of Petaluma and the paramedics, alleging gross negligence for failing to properly assess her medical condition and transport her to a hospital.The Sonoma County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the paramedics did not assume a duty of care to provide the medical assistance claimed by the plaintiff. The court found that the paramedics did not initiate medical care but merely offered it, which the plaintiff refused. Therefore, the paramedics did not owe a duty to perform a full medical assessment.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the paramedics did not assume a duty to provide medical assistance under the negligent undertaking doctrine. The court emphasized that the paramedics' duty was limited by the plaintiff's repeated refusals of medical assistance and transport to a hospital. The court concluded that the paramedics' actions did not increase the risk of harm to the plaintiff and that they left her in the same condition as when they arrived. Thus, the paramedics did not owe a duty to provide the medical care the plaintiff claimed was necessary. View "Murphy v. City of Petaluma" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Antonio Juarez, Jose Hinojosa, Jose Espinosa, and Maria Morfin filed a lawsuit against the San Bernardino City Unified School District following an incident involving Officer Alejandro Brown, a District employee. In February 2018, Juarez found a cell phone and later, Officer Brown, tracking his phone, confronted the plaintiffs, identifying himself as a District police officer. Brown, armed and displaying his badge, demanded compliance, struck Juarez with his firearm, and threatened the others. Brown later pled guilty to assault and battery and threatening the plaintiffs under color of law.The Superior Court of Riverside County sustained the District’s demurrer to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint without leave to amend, leading to the dismissal of the case. The court found the complaint insufficient to establish that Officer Brown was acting within the scope of his employment with the District and dismissed the claims of negligence, battery, assault, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, false arrest and imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Bane Act.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reversed and remanded the case. The appellate court held that the scope of employment is a factual issue that cannot be resolved as a matter of law on demurrer. The court found that Officer Brown’s off-duty misconduct, while investigating a suspected theft and wielding his authority as a peace officer, could be regarded as an outgrowth of his employment. The court directed the trial court to vacate its order sustaining the demurrer, enter a new order overruling the demurrer, and conduct further proceedings. The appellate court also rejected the District’s arguments regarding the Bane Act and found the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficient to state a cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. View "Juarez v. San Bernardino City Unified Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

On February 9, 2017, a bus owned and operated by New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJT) allegedly struck and injured Jeffrey Colt in Manhattan. Colt and his wife, Betsy Tsai, filed a lawsuit on September 18, 2017, claiming negligence, negligent hiring, and loss of consortium. NJT and its employee, Ana Hernandez, who was driving the bus, denied many of the allegations and asserted various defenses, including a lack of jurisdiction and immunity from suit. In 2020, NJT moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was protected by sovereign immunity as an arm of the State of New Jersey.The Supreme Court of New York County denied NJT's motion, ruling that NJT had waived its right to assert sovereign immunity by waiting three years to raise the defense. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision but on different grounds, concluding that NJT was an arm of the State of New Jersey and entitled to sovereign immunity. However, it held that dismissing the case would be unjust since the plaintiffs could not sue in New Jersey due to venue rules.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division's order but on different grounds. The Court of Appeals held that NJT is not entitled to invoke sovereign immunity in New York courts. The court considered factors such as how New Jersey defines NJT and its functions, the state's power to direct NJT's conduct, and the effect of a judgment against NJT on the state's dignity. The court concluded that allowing the suit to proceed would not offend New Jersey's sovereign dignity because NJT operates with significant independence and New Jersey would not be liable for a judgment against NJT. Therefore, NJT and the other defendants could not claim sovereign immunity. View "Colt v. New Jersey Tr. Corp." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, the decedent's son and Administrator of her estate, filed a negligence, medical malpractice, and wrongful death lawsuit in the Supreme Court, New York County, against Dewitt Rehabilitation and Nursing Center and other defendants. The decedent was a resident at Dewitt in February and March 2019. Dewitt moved to transfer the venue to Nassau County based on a forum selection clause in two electronically signed admission agreements. Dewitt supported its motion with the agreements and an affidavit from its director of admissions, Francesca Trimarchi. The plaintiff contested the authenticity of the agreements, claiming the signatures were forged and provided an exemplar of the decedent's handwritten signature for comparison.The Supreme Court granted Dewitt's motion, finding that Dewitt met its initial burden to show the forum selection clause was applicable and enforceable, and that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the alleged forgery. The case was ordered to be transferred to Supreme Court, Nassau County. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Dewitt failed to adequately authenticate the admission agreements as Trimarchi did not witness the signing, and thus the forum selection clause was unenforceable. The dissent argued that the burden should be on the plaintiff to prove the clause should not be enforced.The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the Appellate Division's decision, reinstating the Supreme Court's order. The court held that Dewitt met its burden of establishing the authenticity of the agreements through circumstantial evidence, including Trimarchi's affidavit and the agreements themselves. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the authenticity of the signatures. The court also clarified that CPLR 4539(b) was inapplicable as the documents were originally created in electronic form. The certified question was answered in the negative. View "Knight v New York & Presbyt. Hosp." on Justia Law