Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Barbara Green (Barbara) filed this wrongful death action after her son Jeffrey Green (Green) jumped from the roof of drug rehabilitation treatment facility Anaheim Lighthouse (Lighthouse), and ended his life. Lighthouse appealed the judgment following a jury verdict in Barbara’s favor. Specifically, it claimed the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury Green’s suicide was a superseding cause of harm and on premises liability. It also claimed the judgment should have been reversed because the court improperly allowed opinion testimony by an undisclosed rebuttal expert. After review, the Court of Appeal found no error and affirmed the judgment. View "Green v. Healthcare Services" on Justia Law

Michael Summerfield brought a medical malpractice suit against St. Luke’s McCall, Ltd. (St. Luke’s), following the surgical removal of his gallbladder. During surgery, the attending surgeon, employed by St. Luke’s, unknowingly spilled and left a gallstone in Summerfield’s peritoneal cavity. When it was later determined that the gallstone was not in the removed gallbladder, the surgeon failed to inform Summerfield of the incident, warn him of any potential complications, or properly document the incident in his medical records. St. Luke’s moved for summary judgment, challenging the admissibility of the opinions offered by Summerfield’s expert witness. St. Luke’s claimed Summerfield’s expert, as an emergency medicine and wound care physician, was unable to establish the requisite knowledge of the applicable standards of care and breaches thereof by St. Luke’s and the attending surgeon. The district court initially agreed with St. Luke’s and granted its motion for summary judgment. Summerfield then filed a motion for reconsideration and attached a supplemental declaration from his expert witness that established the requisite foundation. The district court considered this additional evidence and granted Summerfield’s motion. However, the district court later reversed itself, relying on Ciccarello v. Davies, 456 P.3d 519 (2019), which held that a trial court was afforded discretion in determining whether to consider new declarations accompanying a motion for reconsideration if they were untimely for consideration at summary judgment. Summerfield appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, contending the district court’s sua sponte reversal of itself was in error and contrary to previous decisions issued by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court in part, and reversed in part. The Court affirmed district court’s decision to grant St. Luke’s motion for summary judgment on Summerfield’s claim that Dr. Ocmand breached the standard of care for not noticing the spilled gallstone and not retrieving it because Dr. Madsen did not establish a sufficient foundation to testify as to the appropriate standard of care. The Court also affirmed the district court’s sua sponte decision to reverse itself and not consider Dr. Madsen’s third affidavit and reinstate judgment for St. Luke’s on this same ground. However, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision to grant St. Luke’s motion for summary judgment as to Summerfield’s claims that Dr. Ocmand breached the standard of care by failing to inform Summerfield of the spilled gallstone and by failing to note the spilled gallstone in Summerfield’s medical chart because Dr. Madsen laid a sufficient foundation to testify as to these matters. View "Summerfield v. St. Luke's McCall" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Wendy McKenzie was injured by a falling tree branch while jogging in Lower Bidwell Park, a municipal park owned by the City of Chico, California. She and her husband, Leslie McKenzie, real parties in interest, sued the City for personal injuries. The City sought a preemptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its denial of its motion for summary judgment and to grant the motion, arguing the trial court, in denying the motion, failed to recognize the City was immune from liability for injuries caused by a natural condition of unimproved public property, under Government Code section 831.2. The Court of Appeal concurred with the City and issued the requested writ. View "City of Chico v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Samantha Gerson was allegedly sexually abused when she was 15 years old by an employee (the Perpetrator) at Logan River Academy, a residential treatment facility in Logan, Utah. She filed suit against Logan River a decade later in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, from which the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Logan River moved to dismiss on the ground that the suit was barred by Utah’s applicable statute of limitations. Gerson responded that the suit was timely under California law. The district court applied California’s choice-of-law doctrine, determined that Utah’s statute of limitations governed, and granted the motion to dismiss. Finding no reversible error in that decision, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal. View "Gerson v. Logan River Academy, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals remanding this case to the trial court and reinstated the circuit court's domestic violence protective order in this case, holding that the trial court's factual findings were readily apparent upon review of the record and, therefore, remand was not required.The circuit court issued a domestic protective order against Jason McCoy restraining him from having contact with E.S., the daughter of McCoy's girlfriend. The trial court made oral findings of fact and conclusions of law and filled out Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Form 275.3, order of protection. The court of appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case, concluding that the trial court failed to make written factual findings as required by Ky. R. Civ. P. 52.01. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that family courts are not required to transcribe their clear oral findings in protective order cases when they also completely and accurately fill out AOC Form 275.3 and issue a written order explicitly incorporating their clear oral factual findings. View "Smith v. McCoy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the opinion and order of the circuit court which upheld the district court's entry of an interpersonal protection order (IPO) between an eleven-year-old petitioner and a thirteen-year-old respondent, holding that any IPO hearing involving either a minor petitioner or respondent must be made confidential by the presiding court.Jane Smith filed a petition for an IPO on behalf of her eleven-year-old son, Brian. The respondent was John Doe, age thirteen. The district court entered an IPO against Doe, and the circuit court affirmed. The court of appeals reversed on several grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in holding that the general division of the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to preside over this case; (2) a guardian ad litem must be appointed to unrepresented minor petitioners and respondents in IPO cases; and (3) it was reversible error for the district court to permit Doe's mother to represent Doe in lieu of appointing a guardian ad litem to represent him. View "Smith v. Doe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this personal injury action, holding that the trial court properly granted summary judgment.Roy Prather was crossing a path between barns at a horse sale at Keeneland Association when a horse broke loose from his handler. While attempting to flee, Prather fell and fractured his shoulder. Prather and his wife (together, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Keeneland and Sallee Horse Vans, Inc., the transportation company that agreed to transport the horse to its destination (together, Defendants), alleging negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding that the claims were barred by Ky. Rev. Stat. 247.402, a provision of the Farm Animals Activity Act (FAAA). The court of appeals reversed, raising a new legal theory sua sponte. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the FAAA applied and that summary judgment was properly granted. View "Keeneland Ass'n v. Prather" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that a police officer was entitled to qualified official immunity from liability for the decision to initiate a police pursuit that ended in a fatal automobile accident, holding that that the officer was shielded from liability.The deceased child's estate and the parents of the other injured children in this case initiated civil actions against Defendants, including the officer. The officer moved to dismiss the actions against him on immunity grounds. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that he was not entitled to immunity. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly held that the officer's actions were discretionary and that Appellants did not establish that the officer did not act in good faith. View "Meinhart v. Louisville Metro Government" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court affirming the decision of the South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation (Department) concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim seeking workers' compensation benefits, holding that the Department had the authority to adjudicate Plaintiff's claim.Plaintiff was injured in Wyoming while working at a job for Defendant, a corporation formed and headquartered in South Dakota. Plaintiff applied for and received workers' compensation benefits in Wyoming. Later, Plaintiff sought benefits in South Dakota, which has more favorable workers' compensation statutes. The South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation dismissed the petition, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that South Dakota had a substantial connection to the parties' employment relationship sufficient to provide the Department with authority to adjudicate Plaintiff's claim. View "Anderson v. Tri State Construction, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the judgment of the court of appeals applying the law of the case doctrine to this appeal of an award of workers' compensation benefits but affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals upholding the Workers Compensation Commission's award of benefits to Plaintiff, holding that the evidence supported the award.Plaintiff's claim was initially denied on the basis that, although Plaintiff had clearly suffered an injury, he failed to establish an identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event that caused the injury. The Commission reversed the Deputy Commissioner's ruling and entered an award of benefits. The court of appeals ultimately affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in its application of the law of the case doctrine; and (2) the evidence supported the Commission's award of benefits to Plaintiff. View "City of Charlottesville v. Sclafani" on Justia Law