Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Juan Mendez was approached by two Chicago police officers investigating a gunshot detected near his home early one morning. As the officers arrived and questioned Mendez and a juvenile on the porch, Mendez suddenly fled, jumping a fence and running down an alley. The officers pursued him, with one warning that Mendez had something in his waistband and then in his hand. During the chase, Mendez fell, got up, and turned toward the officers with an object in his hand. One officer, perceiving a threat, shot Mendez three times, resulting in paralysis from the waist down.Mendez filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against the City of Chicago and the two officers, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, battery under Illinois law, and seeking indemnification from the City. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that, based on body-camera footage and the circumstances, a reasonable officer would have had probable cause to believe Mendez posed a threat to the officers’ safety. The court also found that, without a Fourth Amendment violation, Mendez could not prevail on his state law claims. Mendez appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the record independently and affirmed the district court. The Seventh Circuit held that Officer Szczur had probable cause to believe that Mendez posed a threat of serious physical harm under the totality of the circumstances, making the use of deadly force reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that the state law battery and indemnification claims failed for the same reasons. The judgment for the defendants was affirmed. View "Mendez v City of Chicago" on Justia Law

An employee working as a practice manager at a healthcare facility in Cleveland, Tennessee, claimed that she contracted COVID-19 in December 2020 through workplace exposure to infected patients and coworkers. She sought workers’ compensation benefits, alleging disabling lung injuries and long-term complications as a result. Initially, the employer paid temporary disability benefits but later denied her request for total disability, relying on the opinion of a pulmonologist who concluded that her exposure to the virus could not be attributed primarily to her workplace given widespread community transmission.The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims considered the employer’s motion for summary judgment, supported by the pulmonologist’s opinion that workplace exposure could not be established as the primary cause of the illness. The court excluded certain medical evidence offered by the employee and denied her request for a continuance to obtain a new medical expert. It subsequently granted summary judgment for the employer, finding that the employee had failed to present expert medical evidence of causation, an essential element of her claim.On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed, holding that the employee’s challenge to the denial of a continuance was untimely and that summary judgment was appropriate due to her lack of expert proof on medical causation. The Supreme Court of Tennessee Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reviewed the case and affirmed the Appeals Board’s judgment. The court held that, where an employee fails to provide expert medical evidence establishing that her injury arose primarily out of her employment, summary judgment for the employer is warranted. The court also found no reversible error in the handling of procedural issues and clarified that earlier case law regarding employer filing obligations did not preclude the employer’s defenses in this context. View "Graham v. CHI Memorial Healthcare System" on Justia Law

Kevil Wingo, a pretrial detainee at the Cobb County Adult Detention Center, died from a perforated gastric ulcer after repeatedly complaining of severe abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. Jail nurses employed by WellStar Health Systems misdiagnosed his symptoms as drug withdrawal ("detox") and assured the sheriff’s deputies overseeing security that Wingo was medically stable. Despite Wingo’s persistent requests to be sent to a hospital and his deteriorating condition, the deputies deferred to the medical staff’s judgment, consistent with their training not to make independent medical decisions. Wingo was eventually moved to a padded cell for observation, where he died within hours.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted summary judgment in favor of the sheriff’s deputies on the plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, finding that they were protected by qualified immunity because they reasonably relied on medical professionals’ assessments. The district court also granted summary judgment to Deputy Wilkerson on a state law negligence claim, concluding that the plaintiffs’ expert could not establish causation with medical certainty regarding whether Wilkerson’s actions affected Wingo’s chance of survival.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Eleventh Circuit held that nonmedical jail officers cannot be found liable for deliberate indifference to a detainee’s serious medical needs when they reasonably rely on the advice of medical professionals. The court further found that the absence of expert testimony establishing causation prevented the state law negligence claim against Deputy Wilkerson from surviving summary judgment. Thus, all claims against the defendant deputies were disposed of in their favor, and the district court’s rulings were affirmed. View "Wingo v. Harris" on Justia Law

A property management company leased a single-family home to a tenant under an agreement that limited pets to “outside cat & chickens,” as handwritten in the lease. Despite this, the tenant kept two large dogs—a pit bull and a German shepherd—at the property. Neighbors described these dogs as aggressive, vicious, and frequently unrestrained, with some reporting prior biting incidents and expressing fear for their children’s safety. The landlord regularly visited the property but claimed to be unaware of the dogs' presence or their behavior. One day, while retrieving a baseball from the yard, a young boy was bitten by the pit bull.The boy’s father, acting as his guardian, sued the landlord in the Second District Court, Weber County, alleging negligence for allowing a dangerous condition—the pit bull—on the premises. Following discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the landlord, holding that, as a matter of law, the landlord did not owe a duty to protect third parties from injuries caused by the tenant’s dog. The court also denied the plaintiff’s postjudgment motion challenging this ruling.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah considered whether Utah law recognizes circumstances in which a landlord may be held liable in negligence for injuries inflicted by a tenant’s dog. The court examined several premises liability theories, including those treating the dog as a dangerous condition or activity on the land, and reviewed relevant provisions from the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Ultimately, the court found no basis under Utah law, or the proposed extensions, to impose a duty on the landlord in this context. The Supreme Court of Utah affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that the landlord did not owe a duty to protect third parties from injuries caused by a tenant’s dog under the facts presented. View "Tesch v. Bonneville" on Justia Law

Two young children, ages four and two, were severely injured after falling from a second-floor bedroom window in an apartment building in Lodi, California, where they lived with their mother. The accident occurred shortly after the property owner replaced the apartment’s windows during a renovation that did not include installing fall prevention devices on the upper-floor windows. The children’s guardian ad litem sued the property owner and its manager, alleging negligence based on both general negligence and negligence per se, claiming that the absence of fall prevention devices violated the California Building Standards Code and proximately caused the injuries.The case was heard in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. Prior to trial, the defendants sought to defeat the negligence per se claim, arguing the building was exempt from current code requirements because it complied with the code at the time of its original construction in 1980. The trial court denied their motion, allowing both negligence theories to proceed to trial. After plaintiffs presented their case, the court granted a nonsuit for the entire complaint, ruling there was no duty owed under general negligence given lack of foreseeability, and that the window replacement qualified for a code exemption, negating negligence per se.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the matter de novo. The appellate court affirmed the nonsuit on the general negligence claim, finding the harm was not sufficiently foreseeable to impose a duty. However, it reversed the nonsuit as to negligence per se, holding that replacing the window did not qualify for the “original materials” exemption in the Building Code, and thus the defendants were required to comply with current safety standards. The case was remanded for retrial on the negligence per se claim. View "Jimenez v. Hayes Apartment Homes" on Justia Law

A man seeking treatment for mental health issues voluntarily admitted himself to a hospital in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Medical staff determined he needed emergency medication and began to physically restrain him when he refused a shot. An off-duty police officer, working as a hospital security guard and wearing his police uniform, intervened. He twisted the patient's arm behind his back, and when the patient pulled away to relieve pain, the officer punched the patient’s head into a cinderblock wall, causing head trauma. The patient remained nonviolent throughout and was smaller in stature than those restraining him.Following the incident, the Chattanooga Police Department conducted an internal investigation. Opinions within the review process were divided, but the interim chief ultimately found no policy violation. The patient filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, alleging excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, multiple state-law torts, and municipal liability against the City for failing to train or supervise the officer. The district court granted summary judgment for the officer on all but the assault and battery claim, finding qualified immunity on the excessive force claim, and granted summary judgment for the City on all claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that, although a reasonable juror could find the officer’s use of force excessive under the circumstances, the law was not clearly established that an officer in this situation could not use such force. Therefore, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found that the City was not liable under Monell since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a final policymaker’s actions were the moving force behind his injury. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Guptill v. City of Chattanooga" on Justia Law

A member of the Kuwaiti royal family was defrauded by a Baltimore restaurateur, who convinced her to send nearly $7.8 million under the guise of investing in real estate and restaurant ventures in the United States. The restaurateur used the funds to acquire multiple properties, including a condominium in New York City and a home in Pikesville, Maryland, but secretly held ownership in his own name and for his personal use. After the fraud was uncovered, the investor sued the restaurateur for fraud and sought to impose a constructive trust over the properties purchased with her funds. Around the same time, she attempted to file a notice of lis pendens to protect her interest in the Pikesville property, but the notice was recorded against the wrong property and was thus ineffective.During discovery, the investor learned that World Business Lenders, LLC (WBL) had issued three loans to the restaurateur, each secured by properties acquired with her funds. She then filed suit against WBL in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that WBL aided and abetted the restaurateur’s fraud by encumbering the properties with liens, thereby hindering her ability to recover on any judgment. Following a bench trial, the district court found for WBL on two of the loans, but found WBL liable for aiding and abetting fraud in relation to the loan secured by the Pikesville home, awarding compensatory and punitive damages.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment for WBL on the first two loans but reversed as to the Pikesville loan. The Fourth Circuit held that WBL was not willfully blind to the restaurateur’s fraud in any of the loans as a matter of law and remanded with instructions to enter final judgment for WBL on all claims. View "Al-Sabah v. World Business Lenders, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an experienced bus rider, was injured when she fell while standing on a public bus operated by a transit district. She had stood up and moved toward the rear door in anticipation of her stop, holding a bag in one hand and a phone in the other. Security camera footage showed she was not holding onto a railing at the time the bus made a routine turn, lost her balance, and fell. The driver was not alleged to have made any unusual maneuver, nor did other passengers appear affected. The plaintiff claimed the driver operated the bus negligently and failed to warn her to hold on or sit down.After the incident, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Kern County, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence against both the driver and the transit district (the latter on a vicarious liability theory). The defendants moved for summary judgment, relying heavily on the bus’s video recording to argue that the bus’s movement was ordinary and that the plaintiff’s own actions were the proximate cause of her injury. The plaintiff argued that factual disputes remained, that the heightened duty of care for common carriers was not met, and that expert opinion and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur created triable issues for the jury. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding there was no evidence of negligence by the driver and that the plaintiff’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of her injury.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that, while common carriers owe a heightened duty of care, that duty does not make them insurers of passenger safety for ordinary vehicle movements. The court further held that evidence, including the video, established the driver did not breach the applicable duty, and the plaintiff’s own negligence was the sole proximate cause of her injury. The court also ruled that neither comparative negligence nor res ipsa loquitur doctrines applied under these facts. Judgment for the defendants was affirmed. View "Agustin v. Golden Empire Transit Dist." on Justia Law

The case involves a woman who, as a minor, engaged in a sexual relationship with an adult more than twice her age. After the relationship ended, she experienced significant psychological distress, including anxiety and difficulty with personal relationships, and was later diagnosed with PTSD by a psychologist. Years after the relationship, she reported the events to the police, resulting in criminal charges against the adult, who was ultimately acquitted. Over a decade after the relationship ended, she brought civil claims for negligence per se, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.The Circuit Court of Fairfax County sustained the defendant’s plea in bar, finding that the statute of limitations had run. The court determined that the version of the Virginia accrual statute in effect when the plaintiff reached the age of majority governed the action. The court found no legislative intent to apply later, more favorable statutes retroactively and ruled that the limitations period began when the plaintiff turned 18. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed, concluding that the relevant accrual statute did not apply retroactively and that the plaintiff’s own complaint demonstrated awareness of her injuries and their connection to the relationship before reaching adulthood.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed whether the lower courts erred in refusing to apply the more recent accrual statute retroactively and in finding that the plaintiff was aware of her injuries and their causal connection before the age of majority. The Supreme Court held that arguments for retroactive application of the statute were waived because they were not properly raised below, and that the record supported the finding that the plaintiff knew of her injury and its connection to the relationship as a minor. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding that the claims were time barred. View "Doe v. Green" on Justia Law

Mike Dennis developed mycosis fungoides, a subtype of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, after regularly applying Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide manufactured by Monsanto, for approximately 20 years. Dennis claimed his cancer resulted from exposure to Roundup, which he alleged was sold and marketed without adequate warnings about its carcinogenic risks, despite Monsanto’s knowledge of the potential danger. He brought claims for design defect, failure to warn (under both negligence and strict liability), and negligence. At trial, the jury found that Monsanto was liable for failing to warn about the cancer risk, determining Monsanto knew or should have known of the risk, failed to provide adequate warnings, and acted with malice or oppression. The jury awarded Dennis $7 million in economic damages and $325 million in punitive damages.Following the verdict, Monsanto moved for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The Superior Court of San Diego County denied Monsanto’s requests to overturn the liability findings but reduced the punitive damages award from $325 million to $21 million, finding the original award disproportionate to the compensatory damages. Monsanto timely appealed, arguing that Dennis’s failure to warn claims were preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and that the punitive damages were excessive and unconstitutional.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that FIFRA does not preempt state law failure to warn claims that parallel federal misbranding requirements, in line with United States Supreme Court precedent and California decisions. The court also found that the punitive damages award, as reduced by the trial court, did not violate due process, as it was based on highly reprehensible conduct directly related to Dennis’s harm. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in full. View "Dennis v. Monsanto Co." on Justia Law