Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Kevin Niedzialek died after being restrained by Riverside County Sheriff’s Department deputies. The deputies responded to a 911 call reporting a man having a psychotic episode. Upon arrival, they found Niedzialek bleeding from the head and acting erratically. After he advanced towards one of the deputies, they used a taser to subdue him and handcuffed him while he was prone. Niedzialek continued to struggle but eventually became unresponsive. The deputies did not move him into a recovery position or perform CPR before paramedics arrived. Niedzialek died the next day.In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a civil jury found that the deputies did not use excessive force under the Fourth Amendment but acted negligently under California law. The jury awarded $1.5 million to Niedzialek’s successor-in-interest, Tracy Alves. The defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the jury’s mixed verdicts were irreconcilable because the legal standard for reasonableness was the same for both claims. The district court denied the motion, stating that California’s negligence standard is broader than the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the jury’s verdicts were reconcilable because California’s “reasonable care” standard considers the totality of circumstances more broadly than the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard. The jury could have found that the deputies did not use excessive force but still breached their duty of care by failing to monitor Niedzialek’s condition or place him in a recovery position. The court concluded that it was possible to reconcile the jury’s verdicts based on the evidence and theories presented at trial. View "Alves v. Riverside County" on Justia Law

In this case, Iran provided material support for a Taliban attack that killed thirty Americans, including Navy special forces operator Kraig Vickers. Vickers' family sued Iran under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which allows for such suits against state sponsors of terrorism. The district court awarded damages to most of Vickers' family but dismissed the claim of his daughter, K.E.F.V., who was born two months after his death.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held a three-day evidentiary hearing and concluded that Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism that had provided material support for the attack. The court then determined damages for twenty-three plaintiffs and appointed special masters to recommend damages for the remaining plaintiffs, including the Vickers family. The special master recommended solatium damages for each family member, but the district court dismissed K.E.F.V.'s claim, stating that she could not recover solatium because she was born after her father's death.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the FSIA does not preclude after-born plaintiffs from recovering solatium and that well-established state tort law, including wrongful death statutes, supports the recovery of damages by children born after a parent's death. The court concluded that K.E.F.V. is entitled to solatium for the loss of her father's comfort and society, regardless of her birth date relative to his death. The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "K.E.F.V. v. Islamic Republic of Iran" on Justia Law

Myranda De la Cruz tripped on a pothole in a parking lot at a Mission Hills shopping center, which was managed by Triwell Properties. De la Cruz sued Mission Hills Shopping Center LLC and Triwell Properties (collectively referred to as Mission) for her injuries. Mission moved for summary judgment based on a contract between Mission and De la Cruz’s employer, a tenant in the shopping center. The contract contained an exculpatory clause relieving Mission from liability for negligent or wrongful acts. However, De la Cruz had not signed this contract.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Mission’s motion for summary judgment, accepting the argument that the exculpatory clause in the contract applied to De la Cruz. The court did not address why De la Cruz, who was not a party to the contract, would be bound by its terms.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because Mission failed to establish a legal basis for binding De la Cruz to a contract she had not signed. The court emphasized that contracts require mutual assent, and it was Mission’s burden to demonstrate why De la Cruz was bound by the contract. The appellate court exercised its discretion to consider De la Cruz’s argument, despite it not being raised in the trial court, due to the foundational nature of the legal error.The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded the case, instructing the trial court to enter a new order denying Mission’s summary judgment motion. The appellate court also awarded costs to De la Cruz. View "De la Cruz v. Mission Hills Shopping Center LLC" on Justia Law

Ryan Rose, an electrical technician, sued Nissan North America, Inc. after suffering an electric shock while working at Nissan’s plant in Canton, Mississippi. Rose was employed by Automated Power, Inc., an electrical engineering firm hired by Nissan to repair damaged equipment following an electrical fault. Rose was injured while working in the plant’s A-B tiebreaker cubicle, which he believed was de-energized. However, the cubicle was still energized on one side, leading to his injury.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgment in favor of Nissan. The court found that Automated Power was an independent contractor and that both Automated Power and Rose knew or should have known about the dangers associated with the work. Under Mississippi law, a premises owner is not liable for injuries to an independent contractor or its employees resulting from known dangers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Automated Power was indeed an independent contractor and that the company and Rose were aware of the potential dangers. The court concluded that Mississippi Code § 11-1-66 shielded Nissan from liability, as the statute exempts premises owners from liability for injuries to independent contractors or their employees resulting from known dangers. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding Automated Power’s knowledge of the danger, thus affirming the summary judgment in favor of Nissan. View "Rose v. Nissan North America" on Justia Law

Marquise Johnson was injured when his friend, André Lewis, accidentally shot him while attempting to disassemble a handgun in a car. Lewis believed the gun could not fire without the magazine, but it discharged, hitting Johnson in the legs. Johnson sued the gun's manufacturer, importer, and seller, alleging the gun was defective for lacking certain safety features.The Lyon District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, citing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which provides immunity to firearm manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits when their products are misused criminally. The court found that Lewis' act of pulling the trigger was volitional and constituted a criminal offense under Kansas law, specifically the strict-liability crime of discharging a firearm on a public road.The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, interpreting the PLCAA to require an intentional discharge for immunity to apply. The majority held that because Lewis did not intend to fire the gun, the PLCAA did not bar Johnson's lawsuit. A dissenting judge argued that the PLCAA should apply because Lewis' act of pulling the trigger was volitional.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that the PLCAA bars product-liability actions if a volitional act causes the gun to discharge and the shooting constitutes a criminal offense. The court found that Lewis' deliberate trigger pull was a volitional act and that discharging a firearm on a public road is a strict-liability crime under Kansas law. Therefore, the PLCAA provided immunity to the defendants, and the district court's summary judgment was affirmed. The case was remanded to the district court. View "Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World " on Justia Law

An elderly woman with severely impaired cognitive functioning was a resident at a skilled nursing facility. While an employee was helping her shower, the employee took a personal video call and propped her phone in a way that displayed the resident’s nude body to the caller. The resident’s conservator sued the facility for invasion of privacy. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the facility, and the plaintiff appealed. During the appeal, the resident died, and her estate was substituted as the plaintiff.The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the complaint stated a valid claim for invasion of privacy based on intrusion upon seclusion and that the claim did not abate upon the resident’s death. The defendant facility was granted permission to appeal on the issue of abatement.The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the case and held that under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-5-102, a cause of action for invasion of privacy based on intrusion upon seclusion does not abate upon the death of the person whose privacy was invaded. The court determined that the statutory exception for “wrongs affecting the character of the plaintiff” did not apply to this case. Therefore, the court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that the claim for intrusion upon seclusion did not abate upon the resident’s death and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Jones v. Life Care Centers of America" on Justia Law

Yadira Ordonez, individually and as mother and next friend of her minor daughter, S.C.O., sued Capitol Farmers Market, Inc. (CFMI) in the Montgomery Circuit Court seeking damages for injuries S.C.O. sustained from hot soup purchased at Capitol International Market. CFMI moved for summary judgment, claiming it did not operate the market. Ordonez opposed the motion and requested more time for discovery. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CFMI, and Ordonez appealed.The trial court entered summary judgment for CFMI, finding that CFMI did not operate the grocery store or the deli where the incident occurred. Ordonez argued that more discovery was needed, particularly the deposition of CFMI's owner, John Yim, to test the veracity of his statements. The trial court denied Ordonez's motion for a continuance to conduct further discovery and granted summary judgment to CFMI.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and found that the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying Ordonez's motion for a continuance under Rule 56(f) to take Yim's deposition. The court noted that the health department records and other evidence raised questions about CFMI's assertions that it had no employees and did not operate the grocery store or deli. The court concluded that Yim's deposition was critical to Ordonez's opposition to the summary judgment motion. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ordonez v. Capitol Farmers Market, Inc." on Justia Law

In December 2021, Officer Shelton Davis of the Montgomery Police Department, while pursuing a fleeing suspect, collided with Madilyn Shuford's vehicle at an intersection in Montgomery. Officer Davis was responding to a woman's plea for help, who claimed a man was trying to kill her. The suspect, Eugene Osborne Jr., fled in a vehicle, prompting Officer Davis to pursue him with activated lights and sirens. During the pursuit, Officer Davis slowed down at a red light but collided with Shuford's vehicle when she pulled into the intersection.Shuford sued the City of Montgomery and Officer Davis, alleging negligence and wanton conduct, and claimed the City was vicariously liable. The City and Officer Davis moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity under § 6-5-338, Ala. Code 1975, and Ex parte Cranman. They provided evidence, including Officer Davis's affidavit and body camera footage, showing he was performing his duties with activated lights and sirens. Shuford opposed, arguing Officer Davis did not use proper signals and took unreasonable risks.The Montgomery Circuit Court denied the summary judgment motion without explanation. The City and Officer Davis petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus to vacate the denial and grant summary judgment based on immunity.The Supreme Court of Alabama granted the petition, holding that Officer Davis was entitled to immunity as he was performing his law enforcement duties and exercising judgment. The court found no substantial evidence from Shuford to refute this. Consequently, the City was also entitled to immunity. The trial court was directed to enter summary judgment in favor of the City and Officer Davis. View "Shuford v. City of Montgomery" on Justia Law

An employee, Sharon Dunn, was injured while working as an emergency-department nurse for East Texas Medical Center Athens (ETMC Athens), a nonsubscriber to the Texas workers’ compensation program. Dunn alleged that an emergency medical technician (EMT), who was not employed by ETMC Athens, negligently pushed a stretcher into her, causing a serious back injury. Dunn initially sued the EMT and his employer, but those claims were dismissed due to her failure to timely serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act. Dunn then amended her pleadings to assert negligence claims against ETMC Athens.The trial court granted ETMC Athens's motion to designate the EMT and his employer as responsible third parties under the Texas proportionate-responsibility statute. However, eleven months later, Dunn moved to strike the designations, arguing that her suit was an action to collect workers’ compensation benefits, to which the proportionate-responsibility statute does not apply. The trial court granted Dunn’s motion, and the court of appeals denied ETMC Athens’s petition for mandamus relief.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by striking the designations. The court held that the proportionate-responsibility statute applies because Dunn’s negligence claim against ETMC Athens is not an action to collect workers’ compensation benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The court also held that the Act does not prohibit nonsubscribing employers from designating responsible third parties and that there was sufficient evidence of the third parties’ responsibility. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted ETMC Athens’s petition for mandamus relief, ordering the trial court to vacate its order striking the designations. View "IN RE EAST TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER ATHENS" on Justia Law

Mara Lindsey was involved in a car accident where she was rear-ended by Carlos Pantoja, resulting in personal injuries. Lindsey sought compensation for her medical expenses and, after settling with Pantoja’s insurer for his policy limit of $50,000, she filed a claim with her own insurer, State Farm, under her underinsured motorist (UIM) policy. Dissatisfied with State Farm’s settlement offer of $689.58, Lindsey sued State Farm under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) for declarations regarding Pantoja’s liability, her damages, and her entitlement to UIM benefits. She also sued State Farm and its claims adjuster for Insurance Code violations, alleging bad faith in handling her claim.The trial court denied State Farm’s motions to abate the extracontractual claims and to quash the deposition notice of its corporate representative. The court of appeals denied State Farm’s mandamus petitions without substantive explanation. State Farm then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for mandamus relief.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying State Farm’s motions. The court ruled that extracontractual claims must be abated until the insured obtains a favorable judgment on the UIM coverage, as these claims are dependent on the right to receive UIM benefits. The court also held that discovery on extracontractual matters is improper before establishing entitlement to UIM benefits. Additionally, the court found that State Farm had demonstrated that the deposition of its corporate representative was not proportional to the needs of the case, given the lack of personal knowledge and the burden of the proposed discovery.The Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted State Farm’s petition for writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to vacate its previous orders and grant State Farm’s motions to abate the extracontractual claims and to quash the deposition notice. View "IN RE STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY" on Justia Law