Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of two police officers in this complaint seeking money damages under various state law tort theories, holding that the officers were entitled to discretionary function immunity.This case stemmed from a police officer's investigation of suspicious activity in a residential area and the officer's detainment of Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit against two of the officers who arrived at the scene before Plaintiff was eventually released, alleging state law tort theories arising from this encounter. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the officers' conduct was not privileged because they lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Plaintiff as part of their investigation; but (2) the officers were entitled to discretionary function immunity under the Kansas Tort Claims Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. 75-6101 et seq. View "Schreiner v. Hodge" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals holding that the City of San Antonio was not immune from suit under the Texas Tort Claims Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 101.001-101.109, for injuries arising from the use of law enforcement vehicles, holding that the court of appeals erred.Plaintiff was injured when he was riding his motorcycle behind a police officer's vehicle but three lanes over and the car in front of him braked. Plaintiff sued the City, alleging that the officer was negligent in turning on his emergency lights. The trial court concluded that the City failed to prove that the officer was entitled to official immunity, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the City for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the City made the necessary showing that its officer acted in good faith. View "City of San Antonio v. Riojas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the trial court granting the City of San Antonio's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint alleging that their injuries arose from a police officer's vehicular pursuit of a fleeing suspect who crashed into their car, holding that the court of appeals erred.After Plaintiffs sued the City pursuant to section 101.021 of the Texas Tort Claims Act the City filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing that the officer's actions were too attenuated from Plaintiffs' injuries and that the officer's actions were not reckless and did not violate applicable laws or ordinances. The trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that the City's immunity was waived. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by sovereign immunity. View "City of San Antonio v. Maspero" on Justia Law

Robyn Krile appealed a judgment dismissing her defamation claims against Julie Lawyer. In 2017, Assistant State’s Attorney Julie Lawyer received an anonymous letter concerning a Bismarck police officer’s destruction of evidence. During Lawyer’s investigation, she reviewed the file of Sergeant Robyn Krile and concluded Krile had made false statements as a Bismarck police officer. Lawyer sent a letter (“Giglio letter”) to Bismarck Police Chief Dan Donlin summarizing her investigation into Krile’s file and stating her belief that Krile had made false statements as a Bismarck police officer. Lawyer informed Chief Donlin that such information would have to be disclosed to the defense in cases in which Krile was involved pursuant to Giglio and, as a result, the Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office would no longer use Krile as a witness in its cases. The Bismarck Police Department terminated Krile’s employment because the Burleigh County State’s Attorney’s Office was no longer willing to use Krile as a witness. Krile filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Human Rights claiming the Bismarck Police Department discriminated against her based on race and sex. As part of the Department of Labor’s investigation, the Bismarck Police Department submitted two affidavits of Lawyer in which she explained the circumstances and her reasoning for issuing the Giglio letter. The Department of Labor concluded the Bismarck Police Department did not unlawfully discriminate against Krile. In March 2019, Krile sued Lawyer in her official and individual capacity for defamation. The complaint alleged Lawyer defamed Krile by publishing the Giglio letter to the Bismarck Police Department, specifically Chief Donlin, and by publishing her affidavits to the Department of Labor in the course of its investigation. The complaint also alleged Lawyer defamed Krile by publishing the Giglio letter to the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Board and by publishing the Giglio letter and related information to Krile’s prospective employers. Appealing the district court's judgment, Krile argued the district court erred by failing to consider all of the materials the parties submitted and thereby treat the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. She also argued the court erred in dismissing her defamation claims. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Krile failed to plead a valid claim for defamation. View "Krile v. Lawyer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court that granted summary judgment in favor of highway construction contractors and subcontractors (collectively, contractors) in this action alleging negligent maintenance of a construction site, holding that the contractors were entitled to summary judgment.Officer Curtis Blackbird died on duty when his police cruiser crashed into a parked crane and a portion of Highway 94 that was closed for construction. Plaintiff brought this action against the contractors, alleging negligence. The district court granted summary judgment for the contractors. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no triable issue of fact, and therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the contractors. View "Porter v. Knife River, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the district court erred in dismissing Appellant's complaint alleging that EMTs wrongfully denied him medical treatment after concluding that Appellant's claims were barred by the public duty doctrine, Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.0336, and the Good Samaritan statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.500(5).In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants negligently misdiagnosed him and negligently denied him medical treatment because he was homeless and uninsured. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that, as a matter of law, Defendants could not be held liable for damages based on the public duty doctrine or the Good Samaritan statute. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order to the extent it dismissed Plaintiff's claims based on misdiagnosis but reversed it to the extent it dismissed claims based on socioeconomic discrimination, holding that a failure to render medical assistance or to transport a patient to the hospital based solely on their socioeconomic status may qualify as an affirmative act exempted from the public duty doctrine and as gross negligence, which would render the Good Samaritan statute inapplicable. View "Porchia v. City of Las Vegas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Weber County and dismissing the claims brought by Brian and Mariah Cunningham against the County, a Special Weapons and Tactics training provider, holding that the district court erred across the board.Brian was attending a training when can explosive set on a door latch detonated and caused severe injuries to Brian's face and neck. Brian and Mariah sued the County, alleging negligence and gross negligence. The district court granted the County's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the action, holding (1) the preinjury release Brian signed was unenforceable because it was neither clear nor unmistakable; and (2) the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah waives immunity for gross negligence claims and loss of consortium claims that arise out of an injury for which immunity has been waived. View "Cunningham v. Weber County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the original actions filed in this Court seeking a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition to compel Judge Megan E. Shanahan to allow M.R. to proceed in a lawsuit using a pseudonym and partially sealing M.R.'s affidavit at his request, holding that Judge Shanahan abused her discretion by allowing M.R. to proceed using a pseudonym.M.R., a Cincinnati police officer using a pseudonym, filed a complaint for injunctive relief alleging that Defendants, several people, had publicly made the false claim that he was a white supremacist. M.R. filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and an affidavit in support of the motion along with his complaint. Judge Shanahan granted the request. Relators, the Cincinnati Enquirer and Eugene Volokh, filed separate actions seeking access to M.R.'s affidavit and to prevent Judge Shanahan from continuing to permit M.R. to use a pseudonym. The Supreme Court granted the writs, holding that M.R.'s privacy interests did not substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings. View "State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Shanahan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court determining what portion of a settlement was subject to the Commonwealth's Medicaid lien, holding that there was no error.Appellant was seriously injured in a car accident. Because the Commonwealth's Medicaid program paid for a portion of Appellant's medical care the Commonwealth was entitled to a lien on the proceeds of an ensuing settlement between Appellant and the driver who caused the accident. At issue was what portion of the settlement was subject to the Medicaid lien. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court's judgment was proper under the deferential standard. View "Farah v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Depositors Insurance Company in its declaratory judgment action to determine any obligation it had relative to Patrick Sandidge pursuant to Ridley v. Guaranty National Insurance Co., 951 P.2d 987 (Mont. 1997), holding that the district court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err by holding a hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment; (2) did not err by holding that Depositors had standing to bring a declaratory action pursuant to Ridley; (3) did not err by granting Depositors' motion for summary judgment; and (4) did not abuse its discretion by denying Sandidge attorney fees and costs. View "Depositors Insurance Co. v. Sandidge" on Justia Law