Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Pedro Castaneda died in a traffic accident at an intersection on State Highway 249 that was under construction. At the time, the intersection’s traffic lights were installed but not yet operational, and there was a dispute about whether they were properly covered to indicate their status. Castaneda’s family sued the contractors involved in the project, SpawGlass Civil Construction, Inc. and Third Coast Services, LLC, alleging that negligence in the construction and installation of the traffic signals contributed to the fatal accident. The construction project was governed by an agreement between the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and Montgomery County, with the County responsible for the project’s design and construction, but with TxDOT retaining authority over the adjacent frontage roads and final approval of plans.The trial court denied the contractors’ motions for summary judgment that sought dismissal under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 97.002, which grants immunity to contractors under certain conditions. The contractors appealed. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Section 97.002 applies only to contractors who are in direct contractual privity with TxDOT, and since neither contractor had a direct contract with TxDOT, they could not invoke the statute’s protection.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals. It held that Section 97.002 does not require direct contractual privity with TxDOT for a contractor to qualify for statutory immunity. The court determined that, based on the summary judgment record, SpawGlass and Third Coast performed work "for" TxDOT within the meaning of the statute, as their activities directly related to frontage roads that TxDOT would own and maintain. The court remanded the case to the court of appeals to determine whether the contractors met the remaining requirements of Section 97.002. View "THIRD COAST SERVICES, LLC v. CASTANEDA" on Justia Law

A mother, acting on behalf of her minor child, brought medical malpractice claims against a hospital, a medical practice, and a physician after her child suffered injuries during birth. She alleged that the defendants failed to meet the applicable standard of care before, during, and after delivery, including failing to discuss delivery options, improperly conducting the delivery resulting in a shoulder injury, and failing to perform certain ultrasounds. The original and first amended complaints detailed specific alleged breaches of care. After fact discovery concluded, the mother disclosed expert witnesses whose opinions went beyond the scope of the existing pleadings, addressing acts or omissions not previously alleged.The defendants moved to strike the portions of the expert disclosures related to these new allegations. In response, the mother filed second amended complaints, adding new claims based on the acts and omissions identified by her experts, including allegations concerning the administration of Pitocin, repair of a perineal tear, and additional alleged nursing errors. The defendants then moved to dismiss these new allegations, arguing they were untimely under Alabama’s Medical Liability Act (AMLA), which requires timely amendment of complaints upon learning of new or different acts or omissions. The Talladega Circuit Court denied the motions to dismiss and motions to strike, reasoning that the amendments were timely because they were filed more than 90 days before trial and soon after the close of discovery.Reviewing the matter on petitions for writs of mandamus, the Supreme Court of Alabama held that the new allegations in the second amended complaints were not timely under AMLA § 6-5-551. The Court concluded that the plaintiff had knowledge of the facts underlying the new claims well before amending and failed to act promptly as required by statute. The Court directed the trial court to grant the motions to dismiss the new allegations, but the plaintiff’s remaining, timely claims could proceed. View "Ex parte Coosa Valley Medical Center" on Justia Law

A patient with multiple serious health conditions was taken to a hospital after being found unconscious by his minor daughter. He was treated briefly and discharged in the middle of the night, despite the absence of any adult at home to care for him. His wife, who was away at the time, had expressed concerns to the hospital staff about his ability to manage his condition at home, but her concerns were neither documented nor communicated to the attending physician. The patient was sent home alone via ride-share, and was later found by his wife in a severely deteriorated state. He died after subsequent hospitalization.The patient’s wife filed suit in the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada, alleging professional negligence as well as ordinary negligence, including a claim for negligent credentialing, hiring, training, supervision, and retention. The defendants moved to dismiss the ordinary negligence claim, arguing it was inseparable from professional negligence. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that some aspects—such as discharge decisions—were administrative and could support a claim for ordinary negligence. The district court also denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration after new case law was issued.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case on a petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that claims relating to the discharge decision and alleged failures in credentialing, hiring, training, supervision, and retention were not independent of the medical relationship and therefore sounded in professional negligence, not ordinary negligence. The court ruled that such claims must be subsumed under the existing professional negligence claim and are subject to the requirements for professional negligence actions. The court directed the district court to vacate its prior order and subsume the challenged claim under the professional negligence claim. View "RENOWN REGIONAL MED. CENTER VS DIST. CT." on Justia Law

A group of medical professionals and a pharmacy were alleged to have negligently prescribed and dispensed controlled substances to a patient with a history of substance abuse. The patient, while impaired by these drugs, drove her vehicle, crossed the center line, and fatally struck a cyclist. The personal representative of the cyclist’s estate brought wrongful death claims against the patient and the medical providers, asserting that the providers’ negligence foreseeably led to the fatal collision.In the Deschutes County Circuit Court, the medical providers and pharmacy moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that, under Oregon law, medical professionals can only be liable in negligence to their own patients or those with whom they have a special relationship, not to third parties like the deceased cyclist. The trial court agreed, relying in part on prior Supreme Court precedent, and dismissed the claims against these defendants. The plaintiff appealed, and the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the complaint stated a claim for relief under ordinary negligence principles, finding that prior case law did not bar such claims.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Supreme Court held that, under Oregon’s common-law negligence principles, a plaintiff can state a claim against medical professionals for physical harm to nonpatients if the professionals’ conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk of the kind of harm that occurred. The Court rejected the argument that liability should be limited only to patients or those with a special relationship, declining to create an exception for medical professionals. The Court reversed the circuit court’s limited judgments and remanded for further proceedings, clarifying that ordinary negligence liability extends to foreseeable physical harm to nonpatients caused by medical professionals’ unreasonable conduct. View "Stone v. Witt" on Justia Law

A minor child was injured in 2018 while playing on a piece of playground equipment called “Rocks and Ropes” at Meadowlark Elementary School in Cheyenne, Wyoming. The child’s parents, Scott and Heather Hunter, alleged that the equipment was defective and that the school failed in its supervision and medical care following the incident, as their daughter was diagnosed weeks later with a crushed vertebra. The Hunters sued Universal Precast Concrete, Miracle Recreation Equipment, Churchich Recreation Equipment, and Laramie County School District #1, alleging strict product liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and failure to warn.The case proceeded before the District Court of Laramie County. Due to extensive delays—including those caused by the COVID-19 pandemic—there were multiple changes to scheduling orders. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the business defendants after excluding several of the Hunters’ expert witnesses under the Daubert standard, finding their testimony unreliable or irrelevant. The court denied summary judgment to the School District. After a mistrial was declared due to repeated improper conduct by the Hunters’ counsel during voir dire and opening statements, the district court dismissed the remaining claims against the School District with prejudice as a sanction for counsel’s actions and various procedural violations.The Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s exclusion of the Hunters’ experts and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the business defendants, holding that the lower court properly performed its gatekeeping function and the Hunters failed to offer admissible evidence of a defect. However, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice, concluding that, while counsel’s conduct warranted sanctions, the extreme sanction of dismissal was not justified without prior warning or full consideration of lesser sanctions. The case was remanded for imposition of a lesser sanction. View "Hunter v. Universal Precast Concrete, Inc." on Justia Law

On November 14, 2020, Officer David Collier and his partner arrived at a residence in Escambia County, Florida, to serve arrest warrants on Jacob Settle and his wife. Settle was in his truck parked closely alongside the house in a dark, debris-filled backyard. When the officers approached and identified themselves, Settle refused to exit the vehicle. After Collier threatened to break the truck’s windows, Settle started the engine and shifted the transmission into gear. Collier, believing he and his partner were in imminent danger due to his proximity to the truck, fired his gun into the vehicle, fatally wounding Settle. Settle’s estate sued Collier for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and for battery under Florida law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida considered Collier's motion for summary judgment, in which he asserted qualified immunity and state law immunity. The district court denied the motion, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude Collier violated Settle’s constitutional rights by using deadly force on a non-moving vehicle that did not pose a risk to the officers. The district court also denied state immunity for the battery claim, reasoning that a jury could find Collier acted with wanton disregard for Settle’s safety.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that Collier was entitled to qualified immunity, concluding that his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable because Settle’s actions—starting the engine and shifting the truck into gear while resisting arrest—could reasonably be perceived as an immediate threat. The court further held that Collier was entitled to state statutory immunity from the battery claim, as his conduct met the standards for justified use of force under Florida law. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Collier. View "Settle v. Collier" on Justia Law

A Texas truck driver was injured while making roadside repairs in Iowa when his parked semi was struck by another vehicle. After the accident, the driver retained a Texas attorney to pursue his personal injury claim. That attorney negotiated with the insurer for the other driver, ultimately agreeing to a settlement of $125,000 and requesting a release. However, the client did not sign the release and later replaced his attorney, claiming he had not authorized the settlement. The client then filed a lawsuit in Iowa, seeking additional compensation and naming the driver, the driver’s employer, and others as defendants.The defendants responded by moving to enforce the settlement agreement in the Iowa District Court for Warren County. The district court, acting as factfinder with no objection from either party, held a hearing, accepted evidence, and considered the client’s affidavit. The court found that the attorney was presumed to have settlement authority and that the client had not rebutted this presumption with clear and convincing evidence. The court enforced the settlement and dismissed the case upon payment of the agreed sum. The client’s motion to reconsider was denied, and he appealed.The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the district court’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review. The Supreme Court held that, because the client did not object to the district court’s procedure, the court properly acted as factfinder. The Supreme Court further held that the district court’s finding—that the attorney had authority to settle—was supported by substantial evidence, and thus the settlement agreement was enforceable. The court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. View "Recio v. Fridley" on Justia Law

A former student alleged that the director of his school’s childcare program sexually abused him during the 2001-2002 school year, both on campus and at her residence. The childcare program was operated by West End YMCA on the school’s campus, and the director was employed by West End YMCA, not by the school district. The student, as plaintiff, brought suit against several parties, including the school district, asserting multiple causes of action related to negligence and abuse.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County reviewed the district’s motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication on four causes of action asserted against it. The court granted summary adjudication in favor of the district on two causes—negligent hiring/retention and failure to perform mandatory duties—but denied it as to the first (negligent supervision of students) and fourth (negligent supervision/failure to warn, with respect to Johnson) causes of action. The school district sought writ relief from the partial denial, specifically contesting the denial as to the fourth cause of action.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the petition for writ of mandate. The appellate court focused solely on the fourth cause of action, which alleged negligent supervision of the program director. Applying the standard from C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist., the Court of Appeal held that liability for negligent supervision requires actual or constructive knowledge by the district’s supervisory employees of the individual’s dangerous propensities. The record contained no evidence that any district employee had actual or constructive knowledge of the director’s inappropriate conduct. Accordingly, the appellate court granted the writ of mandate and directed the superior court to enter summary adjudication in favor of the district on the third, fourth, and seventh causes of action, awarding costs to the district. View "Rancho Cucamonga Central School Dist. v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

A fire at a property in Washington, D.C. in 2015 resulted in the deaths of two tenants. The parents of the tenants sued both the property’s record owner, Len Salas, and his father, Max Salas, who managed the property, for wrongful death in a D.C. trial court. The jury found both defendants jointly and severally liable and awarded multimillion-dollar verdicts. After the verdict, both Len and Max filed for bankruptcy in different jurisdictions. In Max’s bankruptcy case, the court held he was entitled to an unlimited homestead exemption in the property. Subsequently, in Len’s bankruptcy case in Tennessee, the estate’s interest in certain avoidance and recovery rights under the Bankruptcy Code was sold at auction, with the plaintiffs purchasing those rights.The plaintiffs then filed an adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, seeking to avoid transfers and recover property. The bankruptcy court denied their motion for summary judgment and granted partial summary judgment to Max on the fraudulent conveyance claims. Plaintiffs sought and received leave from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to pursue an interlocutory appeal. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s partial grant and denial of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, but did not certify the order for appeal or designate it as a final order.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction. The court determined that because the district court’s order was neither final nor properly certified for interlocutory appeal, it could not exercise appellate jurisdiction under the relevant statutes. As a result, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Brekelmans v. Salas" on Justia Law

An employee of an independent home inspection company was injured while inspecting a private residence, slipping and falling on outdoor steps made of wooden railroad ties. The inspector was hired by his employer to conduct a safety inspection at the home for the homeowner's insurance company. The homeowner did not direct his work, provide tools, or control how he performed the inspection. The inspector admitted the steps were visible and that he was not watching where he stepped, and he received workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries. He and his wife sued the homeowner for negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium, alleging the steps were hazardous.The Superior Court of Ventura County granted summary judgment for the homeowner, relying on the Privette doctrine, which generally prevents employees of independent contractors from suing the person who hired the contractor for work-related injuries. The plaintiffs argued that the homeowner was not a “hirer” under Privette and that there was a factual dispute about whether the “concealed hazard” exception from Kinsman v. Unocal Corporation applied. They pointed to evidence that the steps were sometimes slippery and that the homeowner had mentioned this to her gardener years earlier.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the judgment. The court held that the Privette doctrine applied because the homeowner, by allowing the inspection and paying for insurance, was effectively a hirer. The court further found that the concealed hazard exception did not apply, as there was no evidence the condition was concealed or that the inspector could not have discovered it with reasonable care. The court affirmed summary judgment for the homeowner, and the derivative loss of consortium claim failed as well. View "Andrews v. Wagner" on Justia Law