Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

An employee at a quarry died after falling through an unsecured catwalk gate into dangerous machinery. The machinery, used for processing lime, was typically secured by metal linchpins, but at the time of the accident, the gate was fastened only with a metal wire instead of the pins. The worker’s family brought suit against two of his co-employees, a supervisor and a safety director, alleging gross negligence for failing to prevent the accident. Both defendants testified that they did not know the securing pins were missing, and there had been no prior similar accidents since safety rails were installed decades earlier.After a jury trial in the Iowa District Court for Benton County, the plaintiffs were awarded damages totaling approximately $2.84 million. The district court denied the defendants’ post-trial motions. On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the evidence supported the conclusion that injury was probable under the circumstances, and relied in part on what the defendants should have known.The Supreme Court of Iowa reviewed the case and determined that, under Iowa law, recovery for co-employee gross negligence requires proof that the defendants had actual knowledge of the specific peril—the missing pins that left the gate unsecured. The court found that there was no evidence either defendant actually knew about the missing pins or unsecured gate. As a result, the legal standard for gross negligence was not met. The Supreme Court of Iowa vacated the decision of the court of appeals, reversed the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case for dismissal, holding that the plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy was under the state’s workers’ compensation statute. View "Griffith v. Kulper" on Justia Law

A woman underwent cervical spine surgery and subsequently developed neurological symptoms, including balance problems, dizziness, and sensory changes. Her surgeon referred her to a neurologist at a specialty clinic, where she was evaluated by a physician who ordered a brain MRI. The MRI report noted findings that could not exclude multiple sclerosis (MS), but the neurologist did not inform the patient of these results, believing there were no dangerous findings that required immediate notification. The patient was not scheduled for further follow-up and continued to experience worsening symptoms over the next 19 months. Eventually, her primary doctor referred her to another neurologist, who diagnosed her with MS and began treatment, after which her condition stabilized.The patient and her husband filed a medical malpractice suit in Madison Circuit Court, alleging that the neurologist and the clinic negligently failed to inform her of her abnormal MRI results and failed to provide appropriate follow-up, leading to a significant delay in her MS diagnosis and treatment. During discovery, the plaintiffs’ expert testified that the delay worsened her symptoms, but when questioned, he stated he could not say with certainty that an earlier diagnosis would have changed her outcome. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding insufficient evidence of causation, and later struck the expert’s postjudgment affidavit as untimely.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the circuit court’s decision to strike the late-filed affidavit but reversed the summary judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that, when viewing the expert’s testimony as a whole and in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether the neurologist’s failure to inform and follow up probably worsened the patient’s condition. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Keister v. Neurology Consultants of Huntsville, P.C." on Justia Law

A Pennsylvania-based company operating an online marketplace for firearms was sued under New Hampshire law by a former Boston police officer and his wife. Their claims alleged that the company’s website facilitated the sale of a firearm in New Hampshire in 2015, which was later used to shoot the officer in Boston in 2016. The plaintiffs asserted causes of action including negligence, aiding and abetting tortious conduct, public nuisance, loss of consortium, and loss of support, based on the website’s alleged design and operation in encouraging illegal gun sales.Previously, the plaintiffs had filed a similar suit in the Massachusetts Superior Court against the company and other defendants, but that court dismissed the claims against the company based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, without ruling on personal jurisdiction. After jurisdictional discovery, the Massachusetts Superior Court subsequently dismissed the claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs then filed the present action in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, which denied their request for jurisdictional discovery and dismissed their claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding the company had not purposefully availed itself of the protections of New Hampshire’s laws.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling in part and vacated it in part. The First Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie case of purposeful availment based on contacts up to 2016, but concluded that evidence of thousands of “New Hampshire” firearm listings on the website from 2018 onward, when considered with other evidence, sufficed for a prima facie showing of purposeful availment. The court remanded for consideration of relatedness and reasonableness and affirmed denial of jurisdictional discovery. View "Stokinger v. Armslist, LLC" on Justia Law

A plaintiff was injured in a collision at an intersection controlled by a malfunctioning traffic signal. Both drivers claimed to have stopped at the flashing red light and to have the right of way. The defendant was driving a truck for his employer, who was also named in the suit under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The plaintiff alleged negligence by the truck driver in failing to maintain control, keep a proper lookout, and yield, and sought damages for injuries and loss of consortium. The employer denied negligence and asserted contributory negligence by the plaintiff.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Lincoln County, South Dakota, granted the employer’s motion to exclude two of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses, finding their testimony would not aid the jury. The court also denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint shortly before trial, which sought to add direct negligence claims against the employer and violations of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). Additionally, the court refused a jury instruction on those regulations. At trial, the jury found the defendant negligent but determined the plaintiff was contributorily negligent to a degree greater than slight, awarding no damages.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the appeal. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend as to direct negligence claims against the employer due to untimeliness and prejudice, but erred in denying amendment as to the truck driver’s alleged FMCSR violations, since those allegations provided statutory grounds for existing negligence claims and were not prejudicial or futile. The Supreme Court also held that excluding the expert testimony was an abuse of discretion, as it would have assisted the jury, and that refusal to instruct the jury on FMCSRs was erroneous. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Hamer V. Duffy" on Justia Law

After her criminal charge for false reporting was dismissed, Rebeca Hinds filed a civil complaint in county court against Corrine Foreman, alleging that Foreman knowingly made false and defamatory statements to law enforcement, which led to Hinds being charged. Foreman responded by filing a special motion to dismiss under Colorado's anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that her statements to police were protected as they related to a public issue and were made in an official proceeding. The county court found that while Hinds met her burden to show the statements’ falsity, she failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual malice. The court granted Foreman's motion to dismiss, entered a final judgment dismissing the case with prejudice, and awarded Foreman fees and costs.Hinds appealed the county court’s judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals, relying on statutory provisions that appeared to authorize appeals of anti-SLAPP dismissals directly to that court. The Court of Appeals noted a jurisdictional issue because the Colorado Constitution and relevant statutes generally require appeals from county courts’ final judgments to be made to the district court or the Colorado Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals. The division requested a determination of jurisdiction from the Supreme Court of Colorado.The Supreme Court of Colorado held that the statutes authorizing the Court of Appeals to review final judgments from county courts in anti-SLAPP cases are unconstitutional to the extent they conflict with article VI, section 17 of the Colorado Constitution. The court ruled that appellate review of a county court’s final judgment must be by the district court or the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and granted Hinds leave to refile her appeal out of time in district court. View "Hinds v. Foreman" on Justia Law

Three children attending a government-owned daycare center at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia suffered physical and emotional abuse at the hands of two childcare workers. The children’s parents, who had entrusted them to the Center and paid for their care, alleged that the government had provided assurances of safety and had adopted formal criteria to prevent and respond to child abuse. The parents claimed that the Center’s director failed to report the abuse to authorities and that the government breached its duty to protect the children.The parents brought suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, alleging negligence in failing to protect the children. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were barred by the FTCA’s intentional tort exception, which preserves sovereign immunity for claims arising out of certain intentional torts, including assault and battery. The district court agreed, finding that the parents’ claims were dependent on the employment status of the abusers and thus fell within the exception. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied the parents’ motion to amend, reasoning that amendment would be futile.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the FTCA’s intentional tort exception did not apply because the government’s duty to care for and protect the children was independent of the employment status of the abusers. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal and denial of leave to amend, and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to consider whether the parents had stated a claim for relief. View "John Doe, 1 v. USA" on Justia Law

Monica Moreno Goodwin, while employed as a mental health technician, sustained injuries to her right shoulder and neck following an incident with a patient. Her employer admitted the injuries and designated a treating physician. Goodwin subsequently amended her workers’ compensation claim to include additional body parts, notably a consequential injury to her right arm. The employer denied responsibility for the right arm injury. An Independent Medical Examiner determined the right arm injury was consequential to the original shoulder injury, leading to an order for the employer to provide medical treatment for the right arm.The employer selected a physician who diagnosed the arm injury but determined that no further treatment was necessary. Goodwin then sought enforcement of the previous order for medical treatment and requested a change of treating physician for her right arm. The Administrative Law Judge granted the change of physician, finding that the statute did not limit the number of changes per claim. The Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed the ALJ’s ruling. However, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that only one change of physician per case was allowed.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case de novo, focusing on the interpretation of 85A O.S.Supp.2013 § 56(B) under the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act. The Court held that the statute mandates the first change of treating physician but is silent regarding subsequent changes. Therefore, it does not prohibit multiple changes of treating physician per claim. The Court vacated the order of the Court of Civil Appeals and affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s decision, allowing the change of treating physician for Goodwin’s right arm. View "St. Anthony v. Goodwin" on Justia Law

Alexander Rudnicki suffered permanent brain damage at birth due to Dr. Peter Bianco’s negligent use of a vacuum extractor, resulting in lifelong medical needs and disabilities. Nine years after the injury, Rudnicki’s parents filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Bianco on his behalf. Their individual claims were dismissed as time-barred, but the claim for Alexander proceeded. A jury found Bianco liable and awarded $4 million in damages. The trial court found good cause to exceed Colorado’s Health Care Availability Act ("HCAA") $1 million damages cap, citing the unfairness of limiting recovery given Rudnicki’s extensive care requirements. The court reduced the award by $391,000, excluding pre-majority medical expenses based on then-existing precedent. On appeal, this reduction was reversed by the Colorado Supreme Court, which reinstated the $391,000 in damages.After remand, the trial court reinstated the previously excluded damages and awarded prejudgment interest, including $319,120 in prefiling interest, resulting in a total judgment of about $1,357,000. The court maintained its finding of good cause and awarded the full amount, holding that the statutory cap did not limit the inclusion of prejudgment interest. Bianco appealed, arguing that prefiling interest could only be awarded up to $1 million, even if the good cause exception applied. The Colorado Court of Appeals disagreed, interpreting the HCAA to treat prefiling interest as part of economic damages, subject to the cap and the good cause exception.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the statutory language and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It held that prefiling interest accruing on economic damages is part of the economic damages award and thus falls within the good cause exception to the HCAA’s $1 million cap. The Court clarified that prefiling interest is not a separate category of damages and overruled conflicting precedent. View "Bianco v. Rudnicki" on Justia Law

Chance and Erin Gresser sued Banner Health on behalf of their minor daughter, C.G., alleging medical malpractice during labor, delivery, and postpartum care that resulted in severe, permanent injuries to C.G., including neurological damage and cerebral palsy. The jury found Banner Health negligent and awarded the Gressers over $27 million in economic damages, including past and future medical expenses and lost wages. Given Colorado’s Health Care Availability Act (HCAA) generally imposes a $1 million cap on such damages, the Gressers moved to exceed the cap based on good cause and unfairness, while Banner Health sought to reduce the award to the statutory limit.The Weld County District Court determined that imposing the statutory cap would be unfair under the circumstances and found good cause to exceed it. The court concluded its role was limited to a binary choice: either impose the cap or allow the full jury award, subject only to challenges for insufficient evidence or excessive damages. After finding the evidence supported the jury’s award and that the amount was not manifestly excessive or based on improper motives, the court entered judgment for the full amount, nearly $40 million with interest. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, though it reasoned the trial court retained some discretion in determining damages after finding good cause to exceed the cap.On certiorari review, the Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. The court held that, once a trial court finds good cause and unfairness under section 13-64-302(1)(b) of the HCAA to exceed the damages cap, the amount of damages is governed by common law. The jury retains authority to determine the amount of damages, subject only to remittitur and sufficiency-of-evidence review by the court. The Supreme Court thus affirmed the full judgment awarded to the Gressers. View "Health v. Gresser" on Justia Law

A passenger was seriously injured after the driver of a remotely rented vehicle, accessed via a membership-based car-sharing service, crashed while under the influence of alcohol. The driver, a university student and approved member of the rental service, reserved the vehicle through a mobile app late at night after consuming alcohol at a party. The process for renting and accessing the car involved no face-to-face interaction with company staff, and the company had no prior knowledge of the driver’s intoxication or any history of impaired driving. Following the crash, the driver was convicted of felony DUI causing injury.The injured passenger sued the car-sharing company and its affiliated vehicle owner in the Superior Court of Yolo County, alleging negligent entrustment for providing the car to an unfit driver, negligent maintenance for failing to include technology to detect driver impairment, and vicarious liability based on vehicle ownership. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The trial court ruled for the defendants, holding that the company owed no duty to inquire about a renter’s impairment at the time of a remote rental, had no duty to install alcohol-detection devices, and was shielded from vicarious liability by federal law (the Graves Amendment).On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that remote rental car companies are exempt from statutory requirements to inspect for signs of impairment at the time of rental, per Civil Code section 1939.37, and that courts should not impose additional investigatory duties absent legislative action. The court also held that the Graves Amendment preempts state law claims of vicarious liability based solely on vehicle ownership. Judgment for the defendants was therefore affirmed. View "Tavares v. Zipcar, Inc." on Justia Law