Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment to Respondents and dismissing Appellant's wrongful death action on grounds of common law official immunity and vicarious official immunity, holding that the court of appeals erred.Four-year-old Eric Dean was killed by his father's girlfriend following at least seven separate reports from different sources of suspected abuse of Eric. Appellant brought this action against Pope County and three child protection workers (collectively, Respondents) alleging that the child protection workers' negligence in performing their duties under the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act (RMMA), Minn. Stat. 626.556, was the proximate cause of Eric's death. The district court granted summary judgment for Respondents on immunity grounds. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the RMMA abrogated the defense of official immunity as to duties undertaken to comply with subdivisions 10 and 11 of section 626.556 or related rules and provisions of law; (2) statutory discretionary function immunity under Minn. Stat. 466.03, subd. 6 did not apply in this case; and (3) a genuine issue of material fact existed precluding summary judgment. View "Jepsen v. County of Pope" on Justia Law

Stephan “Craig” Mitchell suffered a work-related back injury in 1995. Since that time he had continuing back pain and received numerous medical interventions to try to treat the pain, including several surgeries. This appeal from the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission raised two issues: (1) whether the employer rebutted the presumption that the worker was permanently and totally disabled between 2004 and 2017 due to a back injury; and (2) whether the worker is entitled to compensation for a back surgery obtained without prior approval. The Alaska Supreme Court found that because the employer in this case failed to produce evidence of jobs that could accommodate the worker’s limitations, the employer failed to rebut the presumption that he was disabled. And because the surgery did not yield long­ term pain relief or functional improvement and because it entailed using a medical device in a way that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had specifically warned was not established as safe or effective, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny reimbursement. View "Mitchell v. United Parcel Service, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court reversing the judgment of the trial court rendered in accordance with a jury verdict awarding Plaintiff damages for injuries he received from a fall on the City of Bridgeport's sidewalk, holding that the appellate court erred.On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the appellate court erred in determining, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-174(b), that the trial court should not have admitted into evidence a medical record containing the opinion of Plaintiff's treating physician assistant when Defendant was unable to cross-examine the physician assistant. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that the appellate court incorrectly determined that Plaintiff's medical records were inadmissible under section 52-174(b). View "DeMaria v. Bridgeport" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, plaintiffs Michael and Crystal Haytasingh appealed a judgment entered in favor of the City of San Diego and Ashley Marino, a City lifeguard. Plaintiffs sued the City after an incident at Mission Beach in 2013: Michael was surfing and defendant Marino was operating a City-owned personal watercraft. Although the parties offered different versions of what occurred that day, the plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that Marino was operating her personal watercraft parallel to Haytasingh, inside the surf line, when she made an abrupt left turn in front of him. In order to avoid an imminent collision with Marino, Haytasingh dove off of his surfboard and struck his head on the ocean floor. Haytasingh suffered serious injuries, including a neck fracture. Plaintiffs alleged that Marino was negligent in her operation of the personal watercraft. Prior to trial, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment of plaintiffs’ negligence cause of action, determining that Government Code section 831.7 provided complete immunity to the defendants on plaintiffs’ negligence cause of action. After the trial court granted summary adjudication as to plaintiffs’ claim of ordinary negligence, plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege they were entitled to relief pursuant to two statutory exceptions to the statutory immunity provided for in section 831.7: (1) that Marino’s conduct constituted an “act of gross negligence” that was “the proximate cause of injury;” and (2) that the City failed to “guard or warn of a known dangerous condition or of another hazardous recreational activity known to the public entity…that is not reasonable assumed by the participant as inherently a part of the hazardous recreational activity out of which the damage or injury arose.” A jury ultimately found in favor of defendants. While the Court of Appeal determined the trial court did not err in finding section 831.7 provided defendants with complete immunity with respect to plaintiffs’ ordinary negligence claim, the trial court did err, however, in determining that Harbors and Navigation Code section 655.2’s five mile per hour speed limit did not apply to City lifeguards, and in instructing the jury that all employees of governmental agencies acting within their official capacities were exempt from the City’s five mile per hour speed limit for water vessels that are within 1,000 feet of a beach under San Diego Municipal Code section 63.20.15. The Court concluded this error was prejudicial. Judgment was therefore reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Haytasingh v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that he was denied proper medical treatment after his shoulder was injured while defendant was escorting him to the shower, seeking relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The district court accepted the magistrate judge's findings and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.The Fifth Circuit concluded that the Western District of Louisiana may be an improper venue for plaintiff's FTCA claim and that venue may be a jurisdictional issue in FTCA cases. The court vacated the district court's order dismissing the FTCA claim and remanded for determination of whether venue is proper. The court also affirmed the district court's implicit denial of plaintiff's implicit motion to amend his complaint to include a Bivens claim. View "Moler v. Wells" on Justia Law

Guzman, driving a truck for his employer (Progressive), rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff was driving a truck for his employer. Following the accident, the plaintiff returned to work for three weeks, but then left his employment. During the following months, the plaintiff continued to receive treatment. His former employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, Liberty, paid for the treatment.Plaintiff sued The defendants served a $200,000 offer to settle (Code of Civil Procedure 998). Plaintiff rejected the offer. The parties stipulated that a $256,631.76 workers’ compensation lien existed and that the defendants would admit negligence, but not causation as to the plaintiff’s injuries. The jury returned a verdict of $115,000.Opposing the plaintiff’s fee petition, the defendants argued that the plaintiff should not recover fees and post-offer costs because the verdict did not exceed the section 998 offer. Defendants’ costs totaled $174,830.29. The court awarded the plaintiff $50,600 in attorney fees and the $475.98 pre-offer filing fee in costs. Although Labor Code section 3856 requires costs to be paid from the judgment, the court added the fees and costs to the verdict, then concluded the defense had a net gain over the plaintiff and was the prevailing party and entered an $8,754.22 final judgment in favor of the defendants.The court of appeal affirmed. The court erred by adding attorney fees to the verdict when calculating the net judgment. A $59,354.31 defense judgment should have been entered there was no “judgment for damages recovered” from which the plaintiff’s reasonable litigation expenses and attorney fees or Progressive’s workers’ compensation lien could be paid. (Lab. Code 3856(b)). The defendants had not challenged their $8,754.22 judgment. View "Oakes v. Progressive Transportation Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Martinez regularly crosses a Beverly Hills alley to get to her satellite office. The alley, paved with asphalt, has a concrete drainage channel (swale) running down its center. Martinez was walking through the alley when the front edge of her flip-flop hit the swale; the asphalt, normally flush against the swale, had worn away, creating a divot, 1.75 inches deep. The divot had been there since “at least 2014.” The city is aware that people sometimes walk in its alleys, but alleys are used by heavy commercial trucks and equipment, which degrades asphalt. Every two years, the city inspects streets and alleys for purposes of prioritizing resurfacing; it will inspect potential hazards in response to user calls. The city had not inspected the alley at issue since 2009 and received no complaints with respect to the divot.The court of appeal affirmed the summary judgment rejection of Martinez’s suit. Under Government Code 835.2, a public entity is charged with constructive notice of a dangerous condition only if that condition was sufficiently obvious that the entity acted negligently in not discovering and repairing it. Because alleys, unlike sidewalks, are primarily used for purposes other than walking, and because the cost of inspecting alleys with the same vigilance as inspecting sidewalks would be astronomical relative to the benefit of doing so, what is an obvious defect in the condition of an alley is not the same as for a sidewalk. The divot was not an obvious defect. View "Martinez v. City of Beverly Hills" on Justia Law

Seattle police officers sued, alleging that they were defamed by Sawant, a Seattle City Council member, through comments Sawant made about a deadly police shooting in which the plaintiffs were involved. The district court dismissed the claims, finding that the complaint failed adequately to allege that Sawant’s remarks were “of and concerning” them.The Ninth Circuit reversed. Sawant’s words suggested that her remarks were directed not only at the police generally, but also at the individual officers involved in the shooting. She told the crowd that the shooting constituted “a blatant murder at the hands of the police,” and she called for the Seattle Police Department to be held accountable “for their . . . individual actions.” The complaint plausibly alleged that some of those who read or heard Sawant’s remarks— the plaintiffs’ families, friends, and colleagues, and members of the general public—knew that the plaintiffs were the officers involved in the shooting and that these readers and listeners understood that Sawant’s remarks were directed at the plaintiffs. The district court erred in concluding that no reasonable person could conclude that Sawant’s remarks concerned the individual officers but rather spoke to broader issues of police accountability; at most, the district court identified one reasonable interpretation of Sawant’s words, not the only reasonable interpretation. Where a communication is capable of two meanings, one defamatory and one not, it is for a jury, not a judge, to determine which meaning controls. View "Miller v. Sawant" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court returning a $5.9 million verdict in favor of Plaintiff on his negligence action, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.An employee of Defendant collided the forklift he was driving with Plaintiff's vehicle, resulting in injuries to Plaintiff. Plaintiff brought this action, alleging negligence. The case proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff, and the district court awarded Plaintiff $2.3 million in attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) imposed sanctions within its discretion; (2) did not err in instructing the jury; and (3) did not err by concluding that Plaintiff was entitled to recover the entirety of his contingency fee from the verdict under Nev. R. Civ. P. 68. View "Capriati Construction Corp. v. Yahyavi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court overruled Savage v. St. Aeden’s Church, 189 A. 599 (Conn. 1937), insofar as it concluded that an employee is entitled to compensation as a matter of law when, during the course of the employee's employment, he or she is injured due to an idiopathic fall onto a level floor.The Appellate Court reversed the decision of the Compensation Review Board (Board) affirming the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commissioner for the Second District (Commissioner) denying Plaintiff's application for benefits filed after she suffered a syncopal episode at her workplace, which caused her to fall backward and strike her head on the ground, concluding that, under Savage, Plaintiff's injury was compensable as a matter of law. The Supreme Court reversed after overruling the portion of Savage at issue, holding that the risk or condition must be "peculiar to the employment" for the injury to be compensable. View "Clements v. Aramark Corp." on Justia Law