Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Richard Mabee died from a methamphetamine overdose while confined in the Wheatland County Jail. He had traveled from Washington to Montana, violating his probation, and was arrested after a traffic stop. During booking, officers did not observe signs of drug use or find contraband, but video footage later showed Mabee disposing of a small object in his cell. Early the next morning, Mabee exhibited signs of methamphetamine intoxication, which were observed by Deputy Sweet, who monitored him via video but did not physically check on him until he was found unresponsive. Despite attempts at CPR, Mabee was pronounced dead from an overdose. The source of the methamphetamine was unclear, but the County theorized Mabee had concealed it prior to his confinement.The Estate of Richard Mabee sued Wheatland County for negligence, alleging the jailers failed to provide adequate medical care. The County asserted that Mabee’s own negligence contributed to his death and should diminish or bar recovery. The Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Wheatland County, allowed the County to present a comparative negligence defense and approved a special verdict form for the jury to apportion fault. The jury found both parties negligent, attributing 95% of the fault to Mabee and 5% to the County. As a result, the District Court entered judgment for the County, denying damages to the Estate.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court erred in permitting the comparative negligence defense. The Court held that, absent “special circumstances” where a jailer knows or should know a detainee is at risk of harm, comparative negligence applies and the factfinder may apportion fault. The Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment, concluding the Estate did not preserve any error regarding jury instructions on “special circumstances” and failed to show reversible error. View "Est. of Mabee v. Wheatland County" on Justia Law

A security services company and its sole shareholder, who is also its president and CEO, provided security services to two Iowa cities under separate contracts. After the shareholder published a letter criticizing media coverage of law enforcement responses to protests, a local newspaper published articles highlighting his critical comments about protestors and the Black Lives Matter movement. Subsequently, a city council member expressed concerns about the shareholder’s views, and the city council voted unanimously to terminate the company’s contract. The council member also pressured officials in the other city to end their contract with the company. Facing negative publicity, the company voluntarily terminated its second contract to avoid harm to a pending business transaction.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against the city, the council member, and other council members, alleging First Amendment retaliation, tortious interference with business contracts, and defamation. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6). It found that the shareholder lacked standing to assert a First Amendment retaliation claim for injuries to the corporation, and that the corporation failed to state a retaliation claim because only the shareholder engaged in protected speech. The court dismissed the tortious interference claim for lack of sufficient factual allegations and because the contract was terminated voluntarily. The defamation claim was dismissed for failure to identify any actionable statements by the defendants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the shareholder’s First Amendment retaliation and defamation claims, but directed that these dismissals be without prejudice. The court reversed the dismissal of the corporation’s First Amendment retaliation and tortious interference claims, finding that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss, and remanded those claims for further proceedings. View "Conley v. City of West Des Moines" on Justia Law

Steven Douglas Coleman, a well-known jazz saxophonist, brought a defamation claim under New York law against his former pupil, Maria Kim Grand. The dispute arose from a seven-page letter Grand circulated privately to friends and colleagues in the music industry, describing her complex sexual and professional relationship with Coleman from 2011 to 2016. In the letter, Grand recounted various incidents and interactions, characterizing Coleman’s conduct as sexual harassment and describing situations where she felt pressured to be intimate with him in exchange for mentorship and professional opportunities. Grand used a pseudonym for Coleman and stated her intent was to contribute to the broader conversation about sexism in the music industry.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Grand, finding that Coleman failed to present facts from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Grand acted with actual malice. The court also determined that the statements in Grand’s letter were non-actionable opinions rather than demonstrably false factual assertions, and that the letter disclosed the underlying facts supporting Grand’s opinions.On appeal, Coleman argued that the district court misapplied New York law, erred in finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding actual malice, and incorrectly classified the challenged statements as non-actionable opinion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the statements Coleman challenged were Grand’s subjective opinions supported by disclosed facts, and thus not actionable as defamation under New York law. The court concluded that none of the statements at issue were defamatory and affirmed the dismissal of Coleman’s claim. View "Coleman v. Grand" on Justia Law

Rebecca Blakesley, a nurse, ended her marriage with Andrew Blakesley in early 2021 after a tumultuous relationship marked by alleged abuse. Shortly after she obtained a protective order and filed for divorce, Andrew’s mother, Colleen Marcus, and his sister-in-law, Jennifer Marcus, reported Rebecca to various public and private organizations. They accused her of violating patient confidentiality, fraudulent billing, academic dishonesty, and faking a COVID test. These reports led to investigations, the loss of Rebecca’s employment, and the suspension of her application for a professional license.Rebecca filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging defamation and intentional interference with business relations. She claimed the Marcuses’ actions were motivated by retaliation for her divorce. The Marcuses responded with a special motion to dismiss under the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP statute, which is designed to protect individuals from lawsuits intended to chill their right to petition the government. The district court denied the motion, finding that Rebecca’s claims were not based solely on petitioning activity because the Marcuses’ reports to private employers and a nursing school did not qualify as protected petitioning under the statute.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed whether the anti-SLAPP statute applied. The court held that the Marcuses failed to show their conduct was solely petitioning activity, as required by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s recent clarification in Bristol Asphalt, Co. v. Rochester Bituminous Prods., Inc. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, holding that mixed claims involving both petitioning and non-petitioning conduct are not subject to dismissal under the statute, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Blakesley v. Marcus" on Justia Law

A young woman was seriously injured when the passenger airbag in a 1998 Infiniti QX4 deployed during a low-speed collision, causing permanent vision loss in one eye. She was wearing her seatbelt at the time. The accident occurred when another vehicle exited a parking lot and collided with the Infiniti. The injured party, initially represented by her mother as next friend, sued the vehicle’s manufacturer, alleging that the airbag system was defectively designed and that safer alternative designs were available at the time of manufacture.The case was tried in the Mobile Circuit Court. During voir dire, two jurors failed to disclose their prior involvement as defendants in civil lawsuits, despite being directly asked. After a jury awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages to the plaintiff on her Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine (AEMLD) claim, Nissan discovered the nondisclosures and moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur. The trial court denied all motions, finding that substantial evidence supported the verdict and, although it believed probable prejudice resulted from the jurors’ nondisclosures, it felt bound by Alabama Supreme Court precedent to deny a new trial.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the denial of Nissan’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that the plaintiff presented substantial evidence of a safer, practical, alternative airbag design. However, the Court reversed the denial of the motion for a new trial, concluding that the trial court erred in believing it lacked discretion due to prior case law. The Supreme Court clarified that the trial court retained discretion to determine whether the jurors’ nondisclosures resulted in probable prejudice and remanded the case for the trial court to exercise that discretion. View "Nissan North America, Inc. v. Henderson-Brundidge" on Justia Law

A 68-year-old man experiencing abdominal pain was brought to a hospital emergency room in Bayamón, Puerto Rico, in January 2016. After a delayed CT scan revealed a perforated intestine, he underwent surgery and remained in intensive care until his death in February 2016. His son, a physician residing in Florida, later learned of the seriousness of his father’s condition during a visit. The son filed a lawsuit against several doctors, the hospital, and related entities, alleging that negligent medical care led to his father’s death.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico reviewed the case after a contentious discovery period. The court granted summary judgment in favor of five defendants: three doctors, a corporate entity managing the emergency room, and the emergency room’s medical director. The court found that the claims against the doctors and the corporate entity were time-barred under Puerto Rico’s one-year statute of limitations for tort claims, and that Puerto Rico law did not provide a basis for liability against the medical director, as he had not directly treated the patient. The court also disregarded certain evidence submitted by the plaintiff and denied his motion for reconsideration.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that the district court erred in converting two doctors’ motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment without giving the plaintiff adequate notice or an opportunity to present evidence. The appellate court also held that the district court abused its discretion in disregarding the plaintiff’s declaration regarding when he learned of one doctor’s involvement. The court vacated and remanded the summary judgments for the three doctors and the medical director on the first cause of action, but affirmed summary judgment for the corporate entity and the medical director on the second cause of action. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. View "Calderon-Amezquita v. Rivera-Cruz" on Justia Law

A same-sex married couple, one a U.S. citizen residing in California and the other a Saudi citizen, spent part of each year living together in Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is punishable by death. In 2021, after U.S. travel restrictions eased, they booked tickets with a German airline to fly from Saudi Arabia to San Francisco. The airline, which operates extensively in California, required them to confirm their marital status for entry into the U.S. During check-in in Riyadh, a senior airline employee publicly disclosed and questioned their relationship, and copies of their marriage certificate and passports were sent electronically to airline headquarters despite their concerns about Saudi government surveillance. After the trip, the Saudi government updated one plaintiff’s official status to “married,” and he feared returning to Saudi Arabia due to potential severe penalties. The couple alleged that the airline’s actions led to significant personal, financial, and health consequences.The couple filed suit in California state court against the airline and its U.S. subsidiary, alleging breach of contract and several torts. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting diversity and federal question jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially remanded for clarification of the subsidiary’s citizenship, after which the district court allowed amendment of the removal notice to reflect the correct citizenship.Upon renewed review, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court had both specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants and subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. The court found that the airline purposefully availed itself of California’s market, the claims arose from the airline’s California-related activities, and exercising jurisdiction was reasonable. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "DOE V. DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT" on Justia Law

Three public school teachers in Washington developed health problems after working in an older school building that contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) manufactured by Monsanto. The teachers sued Pharmacia, Monsanto’s successor-in-interest, alleging injuries from PCB exposure and brought claims under the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA) for design defect, construction defect, and failures to warn, while also seeking punitive damages under Missouri law. After a seven-week trial, the jury found for the teachers on all claims, awarding substantial compensatory and punitive damages.The Snohomish County Superior Court, where the case was tried, ruled that Missouri law governed the issues of repose and punitive damages, while Washington law governed the substantive elements of liability. The court also admitted expert testimony estimating historic PCB exposure levels. Pharmacia challenged the verdict, but the trial court denied its post-trial motions. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that Washington’s statute of repose applied, limiting the plaintiffs’ claims, and that the verdict form was insufficient for punitive damages because it did not specify which theory of liability supported the award. The Court of Appeals also found error in the admission of certain expert testimony.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and partially reversed the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that, under Washington’s established choice of law principles, Missouri law governs both the issues of repose and punitive damages because Missouri has the most significant relationship to those issues. The Court also held that the jury instructions and special verdict form were sufficient to sustain the punitive damages award under Missouri law, and that the challenged expert testimony was admissible under the Frye standard and ER 702. The Supreme Court reinstated the jury’s verdict and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Erickson v. Pharmacia LLC" on Justia Law

After a car accident in which the defendant, while driving a marked police vehicle, rear-ended the plaintiff’s car, the plaintiff sought medical treatment at a hospital and received an initial bill for $7,175.77 for emergency care and $92 for an eye exam. However, due to a preexisting contract between the plaintiff’s health insurer and the hospital, the insurer paid a reduced, negotiated amount—$4,395.75 for the emergency care—which fully satisfied the bill. The plaintiff then sued the defendant for negligence, seeking special damages for past medical expenses based on the gross charges listed on the hospital bill.In the Third District Court, Salt Lake County, both parties filed motions in limine regarding the admissibility of the gross charges versus the negotiated charges. The district court ruled that, under the collateral source rule, evidence of the negotiated charges paid by the plaintiff’s insurance was inadmissible, and only the gross charges could be considered. At a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiff special damages based on the gross charges, less a deduction for amounts already reimbursed by the defendant to the plaintiff’s car insurance provider.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah addressed whether the collateral source rule requires exclusion of evidence of the negotiated charges for an insured plaintiff’s medical care. The court held that the collateral source rule does not require exclusion of the negotiated charges, because the gross charge does not reflect the plaintiff’s actual loss; neither the plaintiff nor the insurer was ever obligated to pay the gross amount. The court concluded that only the negotiated charge represents the compensable loss for special damages. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Utah vacated the special damages award and remanded for a new trial on that issue. View "Gardner v. Norman" on Justia Law

A plaintiff brought suit against a defendant for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and related claims after the defendant published false and damaging material about her online. The defendant initially participated in the litigation with counsel, but later became self-represented and provided a P.O. box as his address. After failing to appear or defend the action, his answer was stricken, and the plaintiff mailed a statement of damages to the address he provided. The court entered a default judgment against the defendant for over $1 million, which was later renewed nearly a decade after its entry.Prior to the current appeal, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion and struck his cross-complaint after direction from the California Court of Appeal, which also awarded attorney fees to the plaintiff. After the defendant’s answer was stricken for nonappearance, the plaintiff served a statement of damages and obtained a default judgment. Years later, the plaintiff renewed the judgment, and the defendant moved to vacate the renewal, arguing the default judgment was void due to improper notice of damages and defective service.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the renewal of judgment. The court held that the plaintiff’s claims for defamation and related torts qualified as personal injury actions, making a statement of damages appropriate. The court further held that use of a custom statement of damages form, rather than the Judicial Council form, did not render the judgment void, and that service by mail to the defendant’s provided address was proper under the applicable statutes. The court affirmed the order denying the motion to vacate the renewal of judgment. View "Backlund v. Stone" on Justia Law