Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Flor de Maria Mejia was involved in a hit-and-run accident where she struck a bicyclist, William McGill, with her van and fled the scene. The collision caused significant damage to her vehicle and injuries to herself. Shortly after the incident, a parking control officer observed Mejia driving the damaged van and later identified her as the driver. Mejia and her boyfriend subsequently burned the van. Mejia sought medical attention, claiming her boyfriend had assaulted her, but refused a rape examination. Evidence from the burned van and Mejia's social media messages linked her to the crime.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County convicted Mejia of fleeing the scene of an injury accident, resulting in a three-year prison sentence. The jury found her guilty of violating Vehicle Code § 20001, subd. (b)(2), and imposed a restitution obligation of $7,500. Mejia's defense included multiple inconsistent statements to the police and an attempt to shift blame to her boyfriend, Carter, who also testified at trial.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. Mejia challenged the identification process, the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments, and the sentencing enhancement for personal infliction of great bodily injury. The court found the identification process was not unduly suggestive, and any assumed Griffin error (prosecutor's comment on Mejia's failure to testify) was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also addressed the prosecutor's improper comment during rebuttal, concluding that the trial court's immediate and forceful admonition to the jury mitigated any potential prejudice.The court upheld the jury's finding of the sentencing enhancement, stating substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Mejia's failure to render aid exacerbated McGill's injuries. The court affirmed the trial court's restitution order, finding no abuse of discretion. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "People v. Mejia" on Justia Law

Wanda Bowling entered into a contract with the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission to manage its information technology functions. When the contract ended, Bowling allegedly withheld login information for three online accounts, leading the Commission to sue for breach of contract. Bowling counterclaimed for libel and misclassification of her employment status. The district court dismissed the misclassification counterclaim and granted summary judgment to the Commission on all other claims.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed Bowling's counterclaim for misclassification and denied her motion to amend it, citing untimeliness. The court also granted summary judgment to the Commission on its breach of contract claim, concluding that Bowling's login information constituted intellectual property and that she had breached the contract by not certifying the erasure of confidential information. The court awarded the Commission $956.67 in damages. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment on Bowling's libel counterclaim, citing a qualified privilege defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court's finding of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that the Commission had adequately alleged damages exceeding $75,000. However, the appellate court found that the contract was ambiguous regarding whether the login information constituted intellectual property or other materials covered by the contract, and that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the damages. Therefore, it reversed the summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The court also upheld the district court's denial of Bowling's motion to amend her counterclaim for misclassification, finding no abuse of discretion.On the libel counterclaim, the appellate court agreed that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on a qualified privilege without giving Bowling notice. However, it affirmed the summary judgment on the grounds that the Commission's statements were substantially true. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission v. Bowling" on Justia Law

Catalina Estillado died from injuries sustained in a workplace accident at ABC Polymer Industries, LLC. Her spouse, Crescencio Pablo, filed a wrongful-death claim against her coworkers, Dean Leader and William Durall, alleging their willful conduct caused her death by removing a safety guard from the machine involved. The Jefferson Circuit Court found in favor of Pablo, awarding $3 million in damages. Leader and Durall appealed.The circuit court determined that the machine was originally manufactured with a safety gate interlocked with a limit switch, which was later removed. The court concluded that Durall had effectively "removed" the safety device by not reinstalling it and by training employees to bypass it. The court also found that Durall knew injury was likely from this removal and that the removal was not part of a modification that rendered the safety device unnecessary.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. It found that while the machine was originally manufactured with the safety device, there was no evidence that Durall knew the safety gate should be interlocked with a limit switch when he inspected and installed the machine. The court also noted that instructing employees to bypass a safety device does not equate to its removal under § 25-5-11(c)(2), referencing the precedent set in Williams v. Price. Additionally, Durall had left ABC Polymer before Estillado was hired and did not train her.The court concluded that Pablo failed to prove Durall willfully and intentionally removed the safety device. Consequently, the judgment against Durall was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The appeal by Leader was dismissed due to his bankruptcy discharge. View "Leader v. Pablo" on Justia Law

Cave Quarries, Inc. hired Warex LLC to conduct a controlled explosion to blast a rock wall at its quarry. The explosion went wrong, destroying Cave Quarries' asphalt plant. Cave Quarries sued Warex, claiming strict liability and negligence. The oral contract between the parties did not cover this scenario, so Cave Quarries turned to tort law.The Orange Circuit Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. The court held that strict liability did not apply because Cave Quarries was not an innocent bystander but a participant in the blasting. The court ruled that the negligence standard should apply and found material issues of fact precluding summary judgment. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the negligence standard should apply.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that strict liability for blasting does not extend to customers who hire the blaster, as they are participants in the activity and benefit from it. The court maintained that strict liability applies to damage caused to neighbors and bystanders but not to customers. The court remanded the case for further proceedings on the negligence claim, directing the trial court to enter judgment for Warex on the strict liability claim and proceed with the negligence claim. View "Cave Quarries Inc. v. Warex, LLC" on Justia Law

In September 2017, Michael Wollan was admitted to Essentia Health and died two days later. Mary Wollan, on behalf of Michael's heirs, filed a medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit against Essentia, seeking economic and noneconomic damages. The jury found Essentia at fault and a proximate cause of Michael's death, but also found a non-party at fault, allocating 25% fault to Essentia and 75% to the non-party. The jury awarded $500,657 in total damages, which included $116,657 in past economic damages.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, held a jury trial and entered a judgment against Essentia, including costs and disbursements totaling $639,292.06. Essentia's motion for a new trial was denied by the district court.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found the jury's verdict inconsistent and irreconcilable, particularly the award of past economic damages, which exactly matched the amount requested by Wollan but did not align with the 25% fault allocation. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in denying Essentia's motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, noting that the jury's damage award was not supported by sufficient evidence and was contrary to the record.Additionally, the Supreme Court addressed other issues likely to arise on remand, including the admissibility of settlement evidence and the district court's exclusion of such evidence under N.D.R.Ev. 408. The court upheld the exclusion of settlement evidence, finding no abuse of discretion. The award of costs and disbursements was also reversed, consistent with the reversal of the judgment. View "Wollan v. Innovis Health" on Justia Law

Sarah Palin filed a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times and its former Opinion Editor, James Bennet, alleging that an editorial falsely linked her political action committee's map to the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The editorial claimed a "clear" and "direct" link between the map and the shooting, which Palin argued was defamatory.Initially, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Palin's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case in 2019, finding that Palin had plausibly stated a defamation claim. The case proceeded to trial, where the jury deliberated but the district court dismissed the case again under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, ruling that Palin had not proven actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Despite this, the jury returned a verdict finding the defendants "not liable."The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court's Rule 50 ruling improperly intruded on the jury's role by making credibility determinations and weighing evidence. The appellate court noted several trial errors, including the exclusion of relevant evidence, an inaccurate jury instruction, and jurors learning of the district court's Rule 50 dismissal during deliberations. These issues undermined the reliability of the jury's verdict.The Second Circuit vacated the district court's Rule 50 judgment and the jury's verdict, remanding the case for a new trial. The appellate court emphasized the importance of the jury's role in determining credibility and weighing evidence, and found that the errors at trial necessitated a retrial. View "Palin v. New York Times Co." on Justia Law

Marcus Cook petitioned for a temporary order of protection against his former girlfriend, Kim Elizabeth Bodine, alleging that she had repeatedly trespassed on his property and stalked him despite his demands for no contact. Cook's petition detailed several incidents, including Bodine entering his home uninvited, driving by his house, and being arrested for stalking. Based on these allegations, the Gallatin County Justice Court issued an ex parte temporary protective order and scheduled a hearing.At the hearing, Cook testified about the ongoing harassment and its impact on his life, including increased anxiety and changes to his daily routine. He presented evidence such as police citations and surveillance footage. Bodine, represented by counsel, did not testify but attempted to discredit Cook's claims through cross-examination and by presenting a GPS report suggesting she was not near Cook's home during one alleged incident. The Justice Court found Cook's testimony credible and issued a 10-year protective order against Bodine.Bodine appealed to the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, which affirmed the Justice Court's decision. She then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, arguing that the Justice Court failed to provide sufficient findings of fact and that the evidence did not support the need for a long-term protective order.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and upheld the lower courts' decisions. The Court found that the Justice Court had made adequate oral findings and that substantial evidence supported the issuance of the protective order. The Court concluded that the Justice Court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a 10-year protective order, given Bodine's pattern of conduct and the need to prevent further harm to Cook. The decision was affirmed. View "Cook v. Bodine" on Justia Law

Monty Clarence Petersen filed a complaint on January 27, 2020, alleging that Jennifer J. Simon, APRN, committed medical malpractice by prescribing Lovenox within 24 hours of his surgery on January 25, 2018, causing him injuries. A summons was issued on October 31, 2022, and served on Simon on January 9, 2023. Simon moved to dismiss the complaint because Petersen did not serve it within six months of filing, as required by Montana Code Annotated § 25-3-106.The Fourth Judicial District Court of Missoula County granted Simon's motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, citing the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations under § 27-2-205, MCA. The court interpreted the statute to allow dismissal with prejudice if the defendant had made an appearance and other substantive law supported such dismissal.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that § 25-3-106, MCA, mandates dismissal without prejudice for untimely service unless the defendant has made an appearance, which only affects the need for service, not the nature of the dismissal. The court found that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice based solely on untimely service. The Supreme Court also noted that it could not issue an advisory opinion on whether a new complaint would be barred by the statute of limitations or statute of repose, as no new complaint had been filed.The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order dismissing the complaint with prejudice and remanded the case for entry of an order dismissing the complaint without prejudice. View "Petersen v. Simon" on Justia Law

Darren J. Gray suffered a heart attack while working on a road construction project and applied for workers' compensation benefits. The Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division denied his request. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings also denied the request, and the district court affirmed that decision. Mr. Gray appealed, arguing that his work exertion was unusual or abnormal under Wyoming law.The Office of Administrative Hearings found that Mr. Gray did not meet his burden of proof under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-603(b)(ii) to show that his work exertion was unusual or abnormal for his employment. The Hearing Examiner determined that the tasks Mr. Gray performed on the day of his heart attack, including lifting and slamming metal pipes, were consistent with the job duties of similarly-situated employees. The district court affirmed this decision, agreeing that Mr. Gray's exertion was not clearly unusual or abnormal for his type of employment.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the Hearing Examiner's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence, including job descriptions and testimony from Mr. Gray's supervisor. The court found that the tasks Mr. Gray performed were within the normal scope of his employment duties. The court also noted that the independent medical examiner's testimony did not establish that the exertion was unusual. Therefore, the court concluded that Mr. Gray did not meet the statutory requirements for workers' compensation benefits for his heart attack. View "Gray v. State, Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division" on Justia Law

A child in the custody of the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) suffered severe abuse by his adoptive mother. Just before his 21st birthday, he filed a tort suit against OCS and his adoptive mother. OCS moved to dismiss the lawsuit as untimely. The child argued that the statute of limitations should be tolled for three reasons: it was tolled while he was in OCS custody until age 19, collateral estoppel should prevent OCS from arguing he was competent to file suit, and equitable tolling should apply. The superior court rejected these arguments and dismissed the suit as untimely.The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, found that the child’s claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations for tort claims. The court concluded that the statute of limitations was not tolled during the child’s extended foster care past age 18, as the age of majority in Alaska is 18. The court also found that the child was competent to file suit and that equitable tolling did not apply because the child had not demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances prevented him from filing on time.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court’s decision. The court held that the statute of limitations was not tolled during the child’s extended foster care because the age of majority is 18, and the extended foster care statute does not create an exception. The court also held that OCS was not estopped from arguing the child was competent because the issues in the conservatorship and partial guardianship proceedings were not identical to the issue of competency to file suit. Finally, the court held that equitable tolling did not apply because the child did not demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances made it impossible to file on time. The judgment of the superior court was affirmed. View "Blake J. v. State" on Justia Law