Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

In Spring 2015, plaintiffs Thomas and Julie Stewart were injured when they lost control of their motorcycle while riding over a Garden State Parkway overpass. Thomas testified that, after he and his wife passed through the Toms River toll plaza, their bike began to “shimmy,” and Thomas suspected that he had suffered a flat tire. As they tried to pull over, they crossed the expansion joint between the roadway and the bridge, and the bike’s back end bounced up and ejected Julie. Thomas then let go of the bike, slid to the ground, and both he and Julie suffered serious injuries. They brought this action against defendants, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority and several of its paving and roadwork contractors, including Earle Asphalt. The parties engaged in over two years of discovery, with plaintiffs requesting extensions seven times. During argument before the trial court on defendants’ joint motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs changed their theory of liability. They argued, for the first time, that defendants failed to properly pave a portion of roadway on the overpass, leaving a height differential in the pavement. Under that newly asserted theory, plaintiffs alleged that it was the height differential in the roadway, rather than the joint, that caused them to lose control of the motorcycle. The trial court declined to consider the new theory and granted summary judgment to the Authority on its immunity defense and to Earle on its derivative immunity defense. The Appellate Division reversed, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed based on the testimony of one of the motorcyclists who accompanied plaintiffs and claimed to have seen a piece of metal in the roadway. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that plaintiffs’ new theory should not have been considered given its late presentation. Nonetheless, for completeness, the Court held that plaintiffs’ new theory also did not raise an issue of material fact. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants was reinstated, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. View "Stewart v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and instead granting summary judgment in favor of Elliot Brey, holding that Wis. Stat. 632.32(2)(d) does not bar an insurer from requiring that an insured sustain bodily injury or death in order to trigger underinsured (UIM) coverage under an automobile liability insurance policy.The circuit court determined (1) the State Farm automobile liability insurance policy issued to Brey's mother and her husband did not provide uninsured motorist (UIM) coverage to Brey for the death of his father in an automobile accident because Brey was an insured under the policy but his father was not; and (2) Brey could not recover under the policy because he did not sustain bodily injury. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that sections 632.32(1) and (2)(d) bar an insurer from limiting UIM coverage to only those insureds who sustain bodily injury or death. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 632.32(2)(d) does not require insurers to extend UIM coverage to an insured for bodily injury or death suffered by a person who was not insured under the policy. View "Brey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Dorothy Wright and her grandchildren (collectively, the “Decedents”) were killed when their vehicle was struck by a stolen vehicle that was being chased by College Park Police Department officers. At the time of the accident, the City of College Park had an insurance policy provided by Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company (“Atlantic”), which provided coverage for negligent acts involving the City’s motor vehicles up to $5,000,000 but also included immunity endorsements which said that Atlantic had no duty to pay damages “unless the defenses of sovereign and governmental immunity are inapplicable.” Plaintiffs filed suit against the City, raising claims of negligence and recklessness resulting in the wrongful deaths of the three Decedents, to which the City raised sovereign immunity as a defense. Plaintiffs claimed the insurance policy limit was $5,000,000 for the three deaths, while Atlantic contended the policy limit was capped at $700,000 under the relevant statutory scheme and the terms of the City’s policy. As the parties agreed, pursuant to OCGA 36-92-2 (a)(3), the sovereign immunity of local government entities was automatically waived up to $700,000 in this instance, regardless of whether the City had a liability insurance policy. Atlantic intervened in the case to litigate the limit of the insurance policy. The trial court ruled that the policy limit is $5,000,000, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Georgia Supreme Court then granted Atlantic’s petition for certiorari to decide whether the City’s insurance policy waived the City’s sovereign immunity under OCGA 36-92-2 (d)(3). The Supreme Court concluded the Court of Appeals incorrectly ruled that the City’s insurance policy increased the sovereign immunity waiver notwithstanding the immunity endorsements, which expressly precluded coverage when a sovereign immunity defense applies. Judgment was therefore reversed. View "Atlantic Specialty Insurance Co. v. City of College Park, et al." on Justia Law

In 2013, Vercellino was injured in an accident while riding on an ATV operated by his friend, Kenney. Both were minors. Vercellino was a covered dependent on his mother’s insurance plan. The plan is self-funded, so ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1001, preempted state law. The Insurer paid nearly $600,000 in medical expenses and did not exercise its right to seek recovery in subrogation from Kenney or Kenney’s parents during the applicable statutory period, nor did Vercellino’s mother ever file suit to recover medical expenses from the Kenneys. In 2019, Vercellino, then an adult, filed suit against the Kenneys seeking general damages and sought declaratory judgment that the Insurer would have no right of reimbursement from any proceeds recovered in that litigation. The Insurer counterclaimed, seeking declaratory judgment that it would be entitled to recover up to the full amount it paid for Vercellino’s medical expenses from any judgment or settlement Vercellino obtained.The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Insurer. The plain language of the plan at issue here is unambiguous: the Insurer is entitled to seek reimbursement for medical expenses arising out of the ATV accident paid on Vercellino’s behalf from any judgment or settlement he receives in his litigation with Kenney. View "Vercellino v. Optum Insight, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals holding that the decision of the North Carolina Industrial Commission should be reversed and this case remanded to the Commission for recalculation of Plaintiff's average weekly wage, holding that the court of appeals did not err.Plaintiff, an injured employee, received temporary disability benefits. Plaintiff later requested that his claim be assigned for a hearing, claiming that Defendant, his employer, had unilaterally lowered the amount of temporary total disability benefits that he had been receiving with respect to his back injury and that the parties could not agree with respect to the amount of benefits to which Plaintiff was entitled. The Commission determined that the fifth method for calculating Plaintiff's average weekly wage was appropriate for use in this case. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings and conclusions that the Commission made in support of its average weekly wages determination appeared to rest upon a misapplication of the applicable legal standard. View "Nay v. Cornerstone Staffing Solutions" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that WMATA's negligence resulted in the death of their son, Okiemute Whiteru (Mr. Whiteru), a WMATA passenger who sustained grievous injuries after falling in the parapet area of the Judiciary Square Metro Station in Washington, D.C. Plaintiffs contend that under the common law of the District of Columbia, WMATA, as a common carrier, breached its duty to render aid to Mr. Whiteru, because WMATA had reason to know that he was injured and needed assistance, but failed to discover him.The DC Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to WMATA as to whether Mr. Whiteru's contributory negligence bars the negligence claim, concluding that the record at summary judgment fails to demonstrate that WMATA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court agreed with plaintiffs that there are genuine factual disputes regarding whether WMATA breached its duty to aid Mr. Whiteru after he negligently injured himself. The court explained that the District of Columbia unambiguously recognizes the special relationship between common carriers and passengers: a common carrier cannot evade liability for negligence if it knows or has reason to know that a passenger is injured, breaches its duty to render aid to the injured passenger, and the passenger’s original injuries are aggravated as a result. The court stated that the law provides that a common carrier is liable in this scenario even if the passenger's own negligence caused his initial injuries. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Whiteru v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's judgment against a utility in this personal injury action, holding that a limitation of liability provision in a utility tariff approved by state regulators barred the utility's liability for damages suffered by a residential customer's houseguests.The tariff at issue provided that the utility "shall not be liable for any damage or loss" in the limited circumstance where damage or loss is "caused by the escape of gas" from the residence's housepiping or appliances. Plaintiffs in this case were injured in precisely that way while they were houseguests at the home of one of the utility's residential customers. The trial court and court of appeals concluded that the liability limitation was applicable only to damage or loss sustained by the utility's customer and therefore, the tariff's liability limitations did not apply to Plaintiffs' negligence claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the filed-rate doctrine, the liability limitation plainly and expressly precluded the utility's liability for Plaintiffs' damagers and appleid to them as "consumers" of the utility's gas services. View "CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court concluding that the statute of limitations for negligence, as set forth in Neb. Stat. Ann. 25-207, begins to run on the date of a plaintiff's injury, holding that that court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of a tire repair company on the grounds that it was barred by the statute of limitations.A pickup truck owned by a construction company was involved in an accident that occurred when the right rear tire of the vehicle suffered a tread separation, resulting in a roll-over. Employees of the company that were passengers in the pickup truck at the time of the accident brought a negligence suit against the tire repair company that mounted the tire. The tire repair company moved for summary judgment based on the four-year statute of limitations. Because the action was brought more than four years after installation of the tire but within four years of the accident the district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Employees' cause of action for ordinary negligence accrued at the time of the accident and not at the time the tire company installed the tire. View "Susman v. Kearney Towing & Repair Center, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2015, Talignani, a U.S. military veteran, consulted a VA neurosurgeon, who recommended that he undergo neck surgery. Because the VA could not perform a timely surgery, the surgeon suggested Talignani obtain evaluation and treatment at Saint Louis University Hospital. Talignani agreed and expressed a preference for the Hospital because he had previously undergone surgery there. A nurse obtained the VA’s approval to secure treatment for Talignani at a non-VA provider. The VA agreed to pay for “evaluation and treatment rendered pursuant to the non-VA provider’s plan of care.” The VA then sent a request for outpatient services to the Hospital. The Hospital agreed to treat Talignani and asked the VA to conduct several pre-operative tests. In January 2016, Dr. Mercier performed neck surgery on Talignani using the Hospital’s facility and staff. Talignani died shortly after being released.Talignani’s estate alleged he was prescribed excessive pain medication prior to his discharge, which proximately caused his death. An administrative complaint with the VA was denied. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the summary judgment rejection of a suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b). The Act waives sovereign immunity for certain torts committed by “employee[s] of the Government.” The estate’s claim does not involve a government employee. View "Talignani v. United States" on Justia Law

After slipping and falling in the crosswalk of a Safeway parking lot, which was wet due to rain, Paige sued Safeway for negligence and premises liability. She asserted that Safeway failed to exercise due care in the manner it restriped the crosswalk several weeks before her fall by not adopting measures that would have made the crosswalk more slip-resistant. The jury returned a verdict for Safeway.On appeal, Paige argued the trial court erroneously prohibited her from cross-examining Safeway’s liability expert about standards promulgated by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) with respect to safe walking surfaces. Paige contends that Evidence Code Section 721(b)(3) makes clear that an adverse expert may be cross-examined about a publication established as reliable authority, such as the ASTM standards, regardless of the expert’s consideration or reliance on the publication in forming his opinions. The court of appeal affirmed. While the trial court erroneously prohibited Paige from using the ASTM standard during her cross-examination of Safeway’s expert based on the expert’s lack of consideration or reliance on it, the error was harmless. View "Paige v. Safeway, Inc." on Justia Law