Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Appellants Marilyn Kubichek and Dorothy Baldwin were injured on October 11, 2019, when they were struck by a Segway operated by Eduardo Samonte during a guided tour run by Unlimited Biking Washington, D.C., LLC. They filed two complaints on December 30, 2022, alleging negligence by Samonte and failure to train and supervise by Unlimited Biking. The complaints were filed after the three-year statute of limitations for negligence had expired.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia consolidated the two cases and granted Samonte's motion to dismiss, concluding that the COVID-19 emergency orders did not toll the statute of limitations for the appellants' claims. The court determined that the tolling orders only applied to deadlines that fell within the tolling period or arose from claims that accrued during the tolling period. Since the Segway accident occurred before the tolling period began and the statutory deadline was after the tolling period expired, the court ruled that the limitations period was not tolled.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The Court of Appeals held that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that must be raised by the defendant and should not be raised sua sponte by the court. However, in this case, the trial court did not act entirely sua sponte because Samonte had asserted the limitations defense, and the appellants had the opportunity to litigate the issue. The Court of Appeals also confirmed that the Superior Court's tolling orders during the COVID-19 pandemic did not toll the limitations period for the appellants' negligence claims, as the orders only applied to deadlines that expired during the emergency period, which was not the case here. The dismissal of the complaints was affirmed. View "Kubichek v. Unlimited Biking Washington, DC, LLC" on Justia Law

In June 2015, Dylann Roof shot and killed nine people at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, including M.P.'s father, Reverend Clementa Pinckney. M.P., a minor, filed a lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.) and its subsidiaries, alleging that Facebook's algorithm recommended harmful content that radicalized Roof, leading to the murders. M.P. asserted claims of strict products liability, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress under South Carolina law, as well as a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for conspiracy to deprive her of her civil rights.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina dismissed M.P.'s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), concluding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred her state law tort claims. The court also found that M.P. failed to plausibly allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that M.P.'s state law tort claims were barred by Section 230 because they sought to hold Facebook liable as a publisher of third-party content. The court also determined that M.P. failed to plausibly allege proximate causation under South Carolina law, as her complaint did not provide sufficient factual foundation linking Roof's Facebook use to his crimes. Additionally, the court found that M.P. forfeited her challenge to the dismissal of her Section 1985 claim by not adequately addressing it in her appellate brief. The court also concluded that any potential claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment granting Facebook's motion to dismiss. View "M.P. v. Meta Platforms Inc." on Justia Law

D.G. sued the Orange County Social Services Agency and the County of Orange for negligence, alleging that he was sexually abused by his foster father from the mid-1970s until he was a teenager. D.G. claimed he informed his social worker that "bad people are hurting me," but no action was taken. The County moved for summary judgment, arguing there was insufficient evidence that it was aware of any abuse or risk of abuse while D.G. was in the foster home. The trial court agreed, finding the information reported was insufficient to make the abuse foreseeable and that discretionary immunity applied.The Superior Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of the County, concluding that there was no duty to protect D.G. from the unforeseeable criminal conduct of his foster father and that the social worker was immune under Government Code section 820.2 for discretionary acts. D.G. appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that the County failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that a duty of care did not exist and that discretionary act immunity did not apply. The court held that the failure to investigate potential abuse when indicators were present made the harm foreseeable, thus imposing a duty of care. Additionally, the court found no evidence that the social worker made a considered decision regarding the potential abuse. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "D.G. v. Orange County Social Services Agency" on Justia Law

Gregory Cohane filed a lawsuit against The Home Missioners of America, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, and Al Behm, alleging child sexual abuse by Behm and negligence by the other defendants. Cohane claimed that Behm, a clergyman employed by Glenmary and supervised by the Diocese, groomed and sexually abused him over several years, starting when he was nine years old. Behm's abuse continued even after he was transferred to different locations due to other allegations of misconduct. Cohane's lawsuit was filed in 2021, invoking the revival provision of the SAFE Child Act, which allows previously time-barred claims of child sexual abuse to be brought within a specific two-year window.The Superior Court of Mecklenburg County dismissed Cohane's claims against Glenmary and the Diocese, ruling that the revival provision only applied to direct abusers, not to institutions that enabled the abuse. Cohane appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the plain language of the revival provision was broad enough to include claims against both direct abusers and enablers.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the revival provision of the SAFE Child Act, which revives any civil action for child sexual abuse otherwise time-barred under N.C.G.S. § 1-52, applies to claims against both direct abusers and those who enabled the abuse. The court emphasized that the plain language of the statute did not distinguish between different types of defendants and that traditional tort principles allow for recovery from both direct tortfeasors and those who contributed to the harm. Thus, Cohane's claims against Glenmary and the Diocese were revived under the SAFE Child Act. View "Cohane v. The Home Missioners of America" on Justia Law

Former Spokane police officer Jeffery Thurman was the subject of a June 13, 2019 article in the Spokesman-Review, owned by Cowles Co., which alleged he was fired for racial slurs, sexual harassment, and talk of killing black people. On June 14, 2021, Thurman filed a defamation lawsuit against Cowles Co. Shortly after, on July 25, 2021, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) took effect. Thurman amended his complaint on December 3, 2021, adding new factual allegations and a claim under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).The trial court partially granted Cowles' special motion for expedited relief under the UPEPA, dismissing Thurman’s CPA claim but denying the motion to dismiss the defamation claim, reasoning that the defamation claim was part of the original complaint. Cowles appealed the denial of expedited relief for the defamation claim, and Thurman cross-appealed the dismissal of his CPA claim.The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the UPEPA applied to both Thurman’s defamation and CPA claims. The majority reasoned that the defamation claim was "asserted" on a continuing basis on the UPEPA’s effective date. The dissent argued that the defamation claim was not "asserted" on or after July 25, 2021, and thus the UPEPA did not apply.The Washington Supreme Court held that Thurman’s amended defamation claim relates back to the original complaint filed on June 14, 2021, and is not subject to the UPEPA. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings, deciding the case on statutory grounds and declining to address the constitutional arguments. View "Thurman v. Cowles Co." on Justia Law

In this case, Joely Ng filed a complaint against Los Alamitos Medical Center, Inc. and several doctors, alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death following the death of her husband, Kenneth Ng. Kenneth was admitted to the Medical Center due to a malfunction of his G-tube, which was improperly placed by Dr. McMahon. Subsequent doctors failed to confirm the correct placement, leading to Kenneth developing sepsis and dying three months later. Joely Ng sought noneconomic damages for both wrongful death and medical malpractice claims.The Superior Court of Orange County granted the Medical Center’s motion to strike portions of Ng’s complaint that sought two separate caps on noneconomic damages under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA). The court reasoned that the wrongful death claim was not separate from the medical negligence claim and thus could not be subject to a separate MICRA cap. The court denied leave to amend but allowed for the possibility of future amendments if Ng could allege facts supporting the claims as separate and distinct.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court concluded that wrongful death and survival claims, even when based on the same medical malpractice, are separate and distinct. Therefore, Ng is entitled to seek two separate MICRA caps for noneconomic damages. The appellate court granted the petition, directing the trial court to vacate its order granting the motion to strike and to issue a new order denying the motion. View "Ng v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Paula Russell, an assistant manager at Wal-Mart, injured her back in 2009 and reached maximum medical improvement in 2011, receiving a seven percent disability rating for her lumbar spine. She was awarded workers' compensation benefits based on this rating. However, her condition worsened, and in December 2011, she sought additional medical treatment and benefits due to a change in her condition. In 2013, a single commissioner found her condition had changed and awarded her continued medical treatment and temporary total disability benefits.The Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission reversed this decision, concluding that Russell had not proven her condition had worsened. This led to a series of appeals and remands between the court of appeals, the single commissioner, and the Appellate Panel. In 2019, the South Carolina Supreme Court remanded the case to the Appellate Panel for immediate and final review. The Appellate Panel again found that Russell failed to prove a change of condition, and the court of appeals affirmed this decision.The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the Appellate Panel's denial of Russell's change of condition claim was not supported by substantial evidence. The court found that the Appellate Panel had improperly weighed the MRI scans over the uncontradicted medical opinions of Russell's doctors, who testified that her condition had worsened. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the Workers' Compensation Commission with instructions to award Russell benefits. View "Russell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Robert E. Dupuis and twelve other plaintiffs filed lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, seeking damages for sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated by the Bishop’s clergy when the plaintiffs were minor children. Their claims were previously barred by the statute of limitations. The Bishop moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that 14 M.R.S. § 752-C(3) (2022), which purports to revive the plaintiffs’ claims, deprives the Bishop of a constitutionally protected vested right.The Business and Consumer Docket (McKeon, J.) denied the Bishop’s motions but reported its orders to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court under Maine Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(c). The court accepted the report to determine whether the retroactive application of section 752-C(3) is constitutional.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the retroactive application of section 752-C(3) contravenes centuries of precedent and multiple provisions of the Maine Declaration of Rights, as well as the Constitution’s provisions regarding separation of powers. The court concluded that once a statute of limitations has expired for a claim, a right to be free of that claim has vested, and the claim cannot be revived. Therefore, section 752-C(3) is unconstitutional as applied to expired claims. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Dupuis v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland" on Justia Law

Timothy Davis accidentally shot himself in the leg with his Sig Sauer P320 X-Carry pistol while getting out of his truck. Davis claimed the gun was fully holstered and that he did not pull the trigger. He alleged that the P320 was defectively designed, making it prone to accidental discharge, and that alternative designs could have prevented his injury. Davis filed a products-liability lawsuit against Sig Sauer under Kentucky law, citing strict liability and negligence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted Sig Sauer’s motions to exclude Davis’s expert witnesses and for summary judgment. The court found that Davis’s experts, James Tertin and Dr. William J. Vigilante, Jr., did not investigate the exact circumstances of the shooting and thus could not opine on causation. Without expert testimony, the court held that Davis could not pursue his products-liability claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s exclusion of the experts’ opinions on causation but reversed the exclusion of their testimonies on design defects and reasonable alternative designs. The appellate court found that the experts’ opinions were admissible to prove that the P320 was defectively designed and that reasonable alternative designs existed. The court held that Davis had demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the P320 was defectively designed and caused his injury. Consequently, the court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Davis v. Sig Sauer, Inc." on Justia Law

Devin Nunes, a former Member of Congress, along with NuStar Farms, LLC, and its owners, sued journalist Ryan Lizza and Hearst Magazine Media, Inc., for defamation. The lawsuit stemmed from an article published by Esquire, which implied that Nunes and his family were hiding the fact that NuStar Farms employed undocumented labor. The plaintiffs alleged both express defamation and defamation by implication.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa initially dismissed Nunes's express defamation claim but allowed the defamation by implication claim to proceed. On remand, Nunes filed an amended complaint focusing solely on defamation by implication. NuStar Farms and its owners also filed a new lawsuit alleging both express defamation and defamation by implication. The district court consolidated the cases and ultimately granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact on certain elements of their defamation claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court concluded that Nunes did not present sufficient evidence to prove special damages, which are required under California law for defamation claims when general and exemplary damages are not recoverable due to failure to comply with the notice and demand statute. Nunes's claims of impaired career opportunities and diminished fundraising ability were unsupported by evidence.For the NuStar plaintiffs, the court applied Iowa law and found insufficient evidence of economic harm or reputational damage. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a preexisting good reputation that could have been damaged by the article. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Nunes v. Ryan" on Justia Law