Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

A college student was killed in a single-car accident when his vehicle left a city street, traveled over sixty feet off the paved road, and struck a large concrete planter situated more than six feet from the road in the City of Milton. The student’s parents brought a suit against the city, alleging negligence in failing to remove the planter, which they contended was a “defect” in the public road, and also claimed the planter constituted a nuisance.After a jury found the city liable under both negligence and nuisance theories, awarding damages reduced for comparative fault, the City of Milton appealed. The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the judgment, concluding that the city’s sovereign immunity had been waived under OCGA § 36-33-1(b) because the city has a ministerial duty to maintain streets in a reasonably safe condition. The appellate court analyzed the claim under OCGA § 32-4-93(a), reasoning that the planter was “in the public road” as it was on the city’s right-of-way, and found there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine it was a defect of which the city had notice.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to clarify the relationship between OCGA § 36-33-1(b) (waiving immunity for ministerial duties) and OCGA § 32-4-93(a) (limiting municipal liability for road defects). The Court held that OCGA § 32-4-93(a) does not itself waive municipal immunity. While OCGA § 36-33-1(b) can waive immunity for negligence in performing ministerial duties, the ministerial duty to keep streets safe applies only to ordinary travel on parts of the street intended for such use—not to areas outside travel lanes, even if within the right-of-way. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "Milton v. Chang" on Justia Law

A woman with a long history of lupus, a chronic autoimmune disease, was under the care of a rheumatologist who managed her symptoms with medications over several years. In early 2018, the patient experienced severe joint pain and other symptoms, and her physician adjusted treatments accordingly. In February, she visited a walk-in clinic with fever and chills; tests were negative for infection, but a chest X-ray showed a possible abnormality. As a precaution, antibiotics were prescribed, and her symptoms improved. In March, she again presented with a fever and minor symptoms. The rheumatologist ordered new tests and increased her medication but did not urgently refer her to an infectious disease specialist or order new chest imaging. Over the following weeks, her symptoms worsened, leading to hospitalization, emergency surgery, and ultimately her death from intestinal tuberculosis.Her spouse, representing her estate, filed a medical malpractice suit against the treating physician and clinic, alleging a failure to meet the standard of care by not acting more urgently on March 1 and 2. Both sides presented expert testimony about the standard of care. The plaintiff objected to a jury instruction allowing the jury to consider whether the physician’s exercise of judgment in choosing among alternative treatments was reasonable, arguing it was unwarranted and prejudicial. The Snohomish County Superior Court gave the instruction, and the jury found for the defense.The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that evidence supported the instruction because the physician made choices among treatments and exercised clinical judgment. The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed whether the record contained sufficient evidence to justify the "exercise of judgment" instruction. The court held that such an instruction is proper when the record contains evidence that the physician’s decision-making process and treatment choices complied with the applicable standard of care. The court affirmed, concluding the trial court acted within its discretion. View "Beard v. Everett Clinic, PLLC" on Justia Law

An individual, after experiencing ongoing conflicts with employees of a residential bunker community, confronted one employee about reckless driving near his home. Later that day, another community employee, upset by the earlier confrontation, decided to confront the resident directly. The employee sent text messages expressing his intent to physically confront and “educate” the resident. After being warned by a mutual acquaintance of the employee’s intentions, the resident armed himself. When the employee arrived, he shouted threats and claimed to have killed someone with his bare hands. As the employee advanced toward the resident, the resident shot him once in the chest, resulting in non-fatal injuries. The resident then provided medical aid until emergency responders arrived.A grand jury was convened to consider the resident’s conduct. It declined to indict him for the shooting but did charge him with simple assault for his earlier physical contact with the first employee. The injured employee then filed a civil lawsuit for assault and battery. The resident moved to dismiss, asserting self-defense immunity under South Dakota statutes and requesting a stay of discovery. The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit held an evidentiary hearing limited to the immunity issue. The court excluded a grand jury transcript from evidence, denied the plaintiff’s motion for a continuance, and found the resident’s testimony credible.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the continuance and whether it erred in finding civil immunity. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion regarding the continuance, and that the resident was justified in using deadly force in self-defense under SDCL 22-18-4.1, making him immune from civil liability under SDCL 22-18-4.8. The decision of the circuit court was affirmed. View "Anderson v. Streeter" on Justia Law

Caryl Rosen brought a negligence suit against a hospital after she tripped and fell on a large entryway mat in the hospital’s main lobby. She alleged that the mat’s condition caused her fall and resulting injuries. After the incident, hospital security preserved video footage from one camera that captured Rosen’s fall and provided it to her attorney. There were two other cameras in the area, but the hospital’s security supervisor stated that neither captured the fall. Rosen claimed that video from before the fall, as well as footage from the other cameras, might have shown the mat’s condition and supported her case.Rosen moved for spoliation sanctions in the Lake Superior Court, asserting that the hospital failed in its duty to preserve relevant evidence. The trial court denied her motions, finding that the hospital had not spoliated evidence because the additional footage did not capture the fall. The trial court also excluded mention of unpreserved video at trial and refused Rosen’s proposed jury instruction allowing an adverse inference from the absence of that evidence. The jury returned a verdict for the hospital.On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by finding no spoliation and by refusing the adverse inference instruction. The appellate court reasoned that unpreserved footage might have shown the mat’s condition. The Indiana Supreme Court, upon granting transfer and vacating the appellate opinion, held that the trial judge’s decisions were within her discretion. The Court concluded that the hospital’s evidence preservation was reasonable and that the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding the evidence and refusing the adverse inference instruction. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the hospital. View "Rosen v. Community Healthcare System" on Justia Law

Several individuals brought lawsuits against New Jersey public school districts, alleging that they were sexually abused by teachers when they were high school students. One plaintiff alleged that a science teacher sexually abused him at the teacher’s home when he was fifteen years old, and claimed the school board was vicariously liable for the abuse and had breached a fiduciary duty. Three other plaintiffs alleged that a different teacher sexually assaulted them during and after school hours, including on school property, and sought to hold the school district vicariously liable under the Child Victims Act.In the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, the trial court denied the school board’s motion to dismiss the vicarious liability and fiduciary duty claims in the first case, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding the claims could not proceed. In the three consolidated cases, the trial court granted the school district’s motion to dismiss, and the Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the statute did not allow for vicarious liability for sexual abuse outside the scope of employment.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the cases. It held that the relevant provision of the Child Victims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:2-1.3(a)(1), does not categorically bar vicarious liability claims against public entities for sexual abuse by employees outside the scope of employment, and such claims should not be dismissed at the pleading stage. The Court adopted a new standard for determining such liability, requiring a fact-specific inquiry. However, it also held that a public school does not owe a fiduciary duty to a student. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Appellate Division’s decision in the first case, and reversed in the three consolidated cases, remanding all matters for further proceedings under the new standard. View "Simpkins v. South Orange-Maplewood School District" on Justia Law

A two-year-old child was struck and killed by a vehicle in the drive-through lane of a Chick-fil-A in Yukon, Oklahoma. The child’s parents sued Chick-fil-A, alleging that its design for pedestrian access, which required crossing the drive-through lane, created a dangerous condition. They claimed Chick-fil-A breached its duty to provide reasonably safe premises. The parents served discovery requests seeking documents and communications about adverse pedestrian incidents at all Chick-fil-A restaurants nationwide over a ten-year period, later offering to limit the scope to five years and incidents involving pedestrians in parking lots.Chick-fil-A objected, arguing the requests were overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not limited to substantially similar incidents. Chick-fil-A said it would provide information only for substantially similar incidents within Oklahoma in the preceding five years. The District Court of Oklahoma County, presided over by Judge Richard Ogden, granted the parents’ motion to compel but limited the requests to pedestrian incidents in parking lots of any Chick-fil-A with a drive-through in the United States within five years prior to the incident. Chick-fil-A sought extraordinary relief from this order.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma assumed original jurisdiction and found the district court abused its discretion by not requiring the parents to show how their overly broad discovery requests were relevant to any claim or defense, as now required by 12 O.S. 2021 § 3226. The Supreme Court emphasized that discovery must be proportional and relevant to a party’s claim or defense, not just to the subject matter. The Supreme Court issued a writ of prohibition, barring enforcement of the lower court’s order and authorizing reconsideration of the motion to compel in line with its opinion. View "CHICK-FIL-A v. OGDEN" on Justia Law

A woman with a Medtronic infusion pump for fentanyl died from an overdose while hospitalized for a hernia repair. Her doctors included her pain management physician, who managed her pump, and a surgeon at a hospital. After surgery, she continued receiving fentanyl from the pump and self-administered additional doses. Hospital staff noticed changes in her mental status, but the actuator allowing self-administration was not removed. The family alleged that the managing pain doctor treated her at the hospital without proper staff privileges and failed to turn off the pump when asked.Her children filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Yuba County, initially against other medical providers, and later amended their complaints several times to add the pain management physician as a defendant, more than four years after their mother’s death. They asserted claims for professional negligence, lack of informed consent, wrongful death, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and elder abuse.The Superior Court of Yuba County sustained the pain management physician’s demurrer to the fifth amended complaint without leave to amend. It found that the medical negligence claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the complaint did not sufficiently allege elder abuse. Judgment was entered for the physician, and the plaintiffs appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the judgment. The court held that the statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 applied to the negligence-based claims because the alleged acts constituted “professional negligence” and did not fall within exclusions for acts outside the scope of hospital-imposed restrictions. The court also found no factual basis for tolling the statute for intentional concealment and concluded that the claims did not relate back to the original complaint against fictitiously named defendants. Finally, the court agreed that the elder abuse allegations were deficient and found no abuse of discretion in denying further leave to amend. View "Nichols v. Alghannam" on Justia Law

The plaintiff underwent a total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, performed by a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist at a medical center. Subsequently, she experienced symptoms that led to the discovery of a ureteral injury requiring surgical repair at a different facility. She alleged that the defendants were negligent in both the performance of the surgery and the postoperative care. To support her claims, she designated a board-certified urologist as her expert witness to opine on the applicable standard of care and alleged breach.After the expert’s deposition, the defendants moved to strike his testimony, arguing that he was not qualified under Iowa Code section 147.139 because he was not board-certified in the same or a substantially similar specialty as the defendant physician. The Iowa District Court for Polk County agreed, concluding that urology was not substantially similar to obstetrics and gynecology, and therefore the plaintiff’s expert was not qualified to testify about the standard of care or breach. Lacking a qualified expert, the district court also granted summary judgment for the defendants, effectively dismissing the case.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Iowa reviewed whether the district court erred in its application of the statutory requirements for expert qualification. The court held that, while both physicians were licensed to practice medicine, the statute required that, where the defendant is board-certified, the plaintiff’s expert must also be board-certified in the same or a substantially similar specialty. The court concluded that urology and obstetrics/gynecology are not substantially similar specialties. As a result, the Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the district court’s decision to strike the expert and grant summary judgment for the defendants. View "Jones v. Lindell" on Justia Law

A family visiting Arkansas stopped at the Lydalisk Bridge, a low-water crossing over the Middle Fork of the Little Red River. The bridge, owned by The Nature Conservancy, created a pool upstream where water flowed through narrow culverts beneath the bridge. There were no warning signs posted. A seven-year-old child swam in the pool and was pulled by the river’s current into a culvert, becoming trapped and subsequently dying. The Nature Conservancy had commissioned engineering reports about this and a similar nearby bridge, but received the report warning of risks at the Lydalisk Bridge only after the incident.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas reviewed the parents’ negligence and malicious failure-to-warn claims against The Nature Conservancy and its insurers. The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court found that the Arkansas Recreational Use Statute (ARUS) generally relieves landowners from a duty of care to recreational users, unless there is a malicious failure to warn of an ultra-hazardous condition actually known to the owner. The court held that the complaint’s allegations did not plausibly show malice, only recklessness. The court also found that the Arkansas Direct-Action Statute (DAS) did not allow direct suit against the insurers, because The Nature Conservancy was not immune from suit—only from liability.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Eighth Circuit held that, under ARUS, Allen’s allegations did not satisfy the requirement for malicious conduct, and thus he failed to state a claim for breach of duty. The court further held that ARUS provides immunity from liability but not from suit, making DAS inapplicable to the insurers. The dismissal by the district court was affirmed. View "Allen v. Nature Conservancy" on Justia Law

An individual died from a heroin overdose while incarcerated in a county jail, after another inmate smuggled the drug into the facility and provided it to him. The jail had a known, ongoing issue with inmates smuggling drugs and evading searches, and the person who brought in the drugs had a history of such behavior but was not thoroughly searched. The decedent’s estate sued the county, alleging negligence for failing to prevent the smuggling and resultant death.The Superior Court denied the county’s motion for summary judgment, in which the county sought to invoke two statutory defenses: the felony bar defense (RCW 4.24.420) and the intoxication defense (RCW 5.40.060). The court certified the case for interlocutory review. The Washington Court of Appeals accepted review, focusing on whether the jailer’s special common law duty to protect inmates precluded the county from asserting these statutory defenses. The Court of Appeals concluded that the county could not invoke the statutory defenses, based on prior Washington Supreme Court decisions interpreting the jail’s special duty.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case. It held that the existence of the jailer’s special common law duty to protect incarcerated individuals does not preclude the county from raising the statutory felony and intoxication defenses enacted by the legislature. The court concluded that these statutes do not abrogate the jailer’s duty but create separate affirmative defenses that, if proven, bar liability. The court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the county may assert both statutory defenses. View "Anderson v. Grant County" on Justia Law