Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

In 2019, Steven Watts, an automotive repair shop owner, was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer caused by asbestos exposure. He and his wife, Cindy Watts, filed a lawsuit against 28 defendants, later adding eight more. By the time of trial, only one defendant, Pneumo Abex, LLC (Abex), a brake linings manufacturer, remained. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $2,943,653 in economic damages, $6.75 million in noneconomic damages, and $1 million for loss of consortium, attributing 60% fault to Abex, 25% to other brake manufacturers, and 15% to Watts.The trial court directed a verdict against Abex on its sophisticated user defense and made several rulings on the allocation of fault. Abex appealed, arguing for a new trial on all issues, particularly challenging the directed verdict on the sophisticated user defense and the allocation of fault.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred in directing a verdict against Abex on the sophisticated user defense, as there was substantial evidence that Watts, as a trained mechanic and business owner, should have known about the dangers of asbestos. The court also found errors in the trial court's rulings on the allocation of fault, including the exclusion of joint compound manufacturers from the verdict form and the preclusion of Watts's interrogatory responses.The appellate court concluded that these errors warranted a new trial. The court reversed the September 15, 2022 judgment, the November 28, 2022 order, and the March 20, 2023 amended judgment, and remanded the case for a new trial. Abex was awarded its costs on appeal. View "Watts v. Pneumo Abex" on Justia Law

Eva Osborne, the plaintiff, sued Pleasanton Automotive Company, LOP Automotive Company LP, HAG Automotive Investments LP, and Bob Slap, alleging workplace misconduct by Slap during her four years as his executive assistant. The claims included discrimination, retaliation, harassment, failure to prevent harassment and retaliation, and wage and hour violations. Slap later filed a cross-complaint against Osborne, alleging libel, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional interference with contractual relations, and negligence based on statements Osborne made in a letter to HAG’s HR director.The Alameda Superior Court granted Osborne’s special motion to strike Slap’s cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that her statements were protected activity and rejecting Slap’s arguments that they were extortionate and illegal. The court held that Slap could not establish minimal merit in his claims because Osborne’s statements were both absolutely and conditionally privileged under Civil Code section 47, and Slap failed to show malice to overcome the conditional privilege. Slap appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, applied de novo review and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court rejected Slap’s attempt to invoke an exception to the anti-SLAPP statute for activity that is illegal as a matter of law. The court concluded that the litigation privilege barred Slap’s claims, preventing him from meeting his burden under the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis to show his claims had minimal merit. The court did not address Osborne’s alternative arguments regarding the conditional privilege, malice, or the prima facie showing on Slap’s claims. View "Osborne v. Pleasanton Automotive Co., LP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Lorenza Maksimow slipped and fell on a patch of ice in a public parking lot in the City of South Lake Tahoe. She sued the City, alleging the ice patch was a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code sections 830 and 835. The City moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, entering judgment in favor of the City. Maksimow appealed, arguing there were triable issues of material fact regarding the City’s actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.The Superior Court of El Dorado County granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Maksimow failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition. The court sustained the City’s objections to certain evidence presented by Maksimow, including climatological data and expert testimony, and found no evidence that the City had actual or constructive notice of the ice patch.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that there was no triable issue of material fact regarding the City’s actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The court found that while City employees may have had general knowledge of snowfall and the presence of the Mitsubishi, there was no evidence they had actual notice of the specific ice patch that caused Maksimow’s fall. Additionally, the court concluded that the evidence did not support an inference that the ice patch existed for a sufficient period of time to impute constructive notice to the City. The judgment in favor of the City was affirmed. View "Maksimow v. City of South Lake Tahoe" on Justia Law

The decedent, suffering from Parkinson’s disease, dysphagia, and dementia, was admitted to Elmcrest Care Center in February 2013. On August 4, 2017, he was found nonresponsive on the floor by Elmcrest staff, who administered CPR and called 911. He was transported to a hospital and passed away four days later. The Estate of Jose de Jesus Ortiz, represented by Ericka Ortiz, filed a civil action against Elmcrest and its staff, alleging elder abuse, neglect, negligence, willful misconduct, and fraud. The trial court compelled arbitration based on an agreement signed upon the decedent’s admission to Elmcrest.The arbitrator issued a First Interim Award on March 30, 2022, finding that the Estate did not meet its burden of proof on any of its claims. The award was labeled "interim" and allowed for further submissions by the parties to address any omitted issues. The Estate filed a request to amend the First Interim Award, arguing that damages for pre-death loss of dignity were not considered. The arbitrator issued a Second Interim Award on May 26, 2022, awarding $100,000 in damages for pre-death pain and suffering, and invited the Estate to file for attorney fees and costs.The trial court initially denied the Estate’s petition to vacate the First Interim Award, ruling it was not final. However, it later vacated the Final Award and confirmed the First Interim Award, reasoning that the First Interim Award had resolved all necessary issues. The Estate appealed.The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the First Interim Award was not final as it expressly reserved jurisdiction for further proceedings. The court concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority in issuing the Final Award, which included the omitted decision on pre-death loss of dignity. The trial court was directed to enter a new order confirming the Final Award. View "Ortiz v. Elmcrest Care Center, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Grace Gonzalez slipped and fell on oranges in the common walkway of the Ontario Mills Shopping Center, owned by Ontario Mills Limited Partnership (OMLP) and maintained by Interstate Cleaning Corporation (ICC). Gonzalez and her granddaughters did not see the oranges before the fall, nor did they know how long the oranges had been there. An employee from a nearby store helped Gonzalez after the fall, and a security guard escorted her to a family car.Gonzalez filed a premises liability lawsuit against OMLP and ICC. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they had no actual or constructive knowledge of the spilled oranges and could not have remedied the condition in time. They provided evidence of their rigorous training and maintenance regimens, including the use of an electronic tracking system called "Lighthouse" to monitor janitorial inspections. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding no triable issue of material fact regarding the defendants' lack of knowledge of the spill.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the defendants conducted reasonable and frequent inspections of the floors, including the area where Gonzalez fell. The court found that the eight- to nine-minute interval between the last inspection and the fall was insufficient to establish constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Therefore, the defendants could not be held liable for Gonzalez's injuries. The court also noted that Gonzalez did not challenge the trial court's evidentiary rulings on appeal, and thus, the excluded evidence could not be considered. View "Gonzalez v. Interstate Cleaning Corp." on Justia Law

Marites Murphy was involved in a head-on car collision in Petaluma in February 2020. Fire Department paramedics Jude Prokop and Shay Burke responded to the scene. Murphy repeatedly told the paramedics she was not injured and did not want medical assistance, even after being warned she might have a serious injury. The paramedics assessed her capacity to refuse treatment and left the scene. Hours later, Murphy suffered a debilitating stroke due to a hypertensive crisis triggered by the collision. She sued the City of Petaluma and the paramedics for medical negligence, alleging they failed to properly assess her condition and transport her to a hospital.The Sonoma County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the paramedics did not assume a duty of care to provide the medical assistance Murphy claimed was owed. The court found that the paramedics did not initiate medical care but merely offered it, which Murphy refused.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the paramedics did not owe Murphy a duty to provide medical assistance under the negligent undertaking doctrine because she repeatedly refused such assistance. The court distinguished this case from others where first responders had undertaken to provide medical care. The court concluded that the paramedics' actions did not increase the risk of harm to Murphy and that they left her in the same condition as when they arrived. Therefore, the paramedics did not assume a duty to provide the level of medical care Murphy alleged was required. View "Murphy v. City of Petaluma" on Justia Law

In 2015, the plaintiff was injured when his vehicle was rear-ended by a truck driven by the defendant, who was employed by KLS Transportation, Inc. The plaintiff experienced significant pain and underwent extensive medical treatment, including surgeries and the implantation of a spinal cord stimulator. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant and KLS, with National Liability & Fire Insurance Company intervening on behalf of KLS.The Superior Court of Sacramento County entered a judgment awarding the plaintiff $3,299,455 in damages for past and future economic earnings and noneconomic loss. The defendants challenged the awards for past and future medical damages, lost earnings, future noneconomic damages, and the award for costs and prejudgment interest. The trial court denied the defendants' motions for a new trial and partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court reversed the awards for past and future medical expenses, finding that the trial court had improperly interpreted the scope of the Hospital Lien Act (HLA) and admitted evidence of the reasonable value of services that exceeded the amounts paid by the plaintiff or his insurer. The court also found that the award for future medical expenses was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding the need for a dorsal root ganglion stimulator. The court affirmed the awards for past and future lost earnings, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusions. The award for future noneconomic damages was also upheld, as the evidence established that the plaintiff would suffer severe pain and emotional distress in the future. The court vacated the award for costs and prejudgment interest and remanded the matter for a new trial limited to the issues of past and future medical expenses. View "Yaffee v. Skeen" on Justia Law

Mark Uhlenbrock was convicted by a jury for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) by posting nude images and videos of his ex-girlfriend, YT, on Reddit, along with explicit stories written in her name. Some of the images were taken with her consent during their relationship, while others were recorded without her knowledge. Uhlenbrock's posts included personal details about YT, such as her occupation and employer, and invited men to proposition her. YT discovered the posts through a family friend and reported Uhlenbrock to the FBI.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied Uhlenbrock's motion to dismiss the indictment on First Amendment and vagueness grounds. During the trial, the court allowed testimony about Uhlenbrock's prior similar conduct, which included a 2016 guilty plea for cyberstalking YT. The jury found Uhlenbrock guilty, and the district court sentenced him to 60 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and restitution. The court also revoked his supervised release from the 2016 case and sentenced him to an additional 12 months in prison. Uhlenbrock appealed both the new conviction and the revocation of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that Uhlenbrock's posts constituted unprotected defamation and that the application of § 2261A(2)(B) did not violate the First Amendment. The court also found that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Uhlenbrock's prior conduct. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Uhlenbrock intended to harass or intimidate YT and that his conduct caused her substantial emotional distress. The court also rejected Uhlenbrock's claims of constructive amendment of the indictment and double jeopardy. View "USA v. Uhlenbrock" on Justia Law

A disabled woman, T.M.B., was sexually assaulted by an employee of West Mont, a nonprofit organization contracted by the State of Montana to provide community-based services for developmentally disabled individuals. T.M.B. sued both the State and West Mont, alleging they owed her a nondelegable duty of care. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants, concluding neither owed a nondelegable duty of care for the employee’s criminal acts. T.M.B. appealed.The District Court of the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County, found that the State had satisfied its statutory obligations by contracting with West Mont to provide services and did not owe a nondelegable duty to T.M.B. because she was not under state custody or control. The court also found that West Mont did not owe a nondelegable duty, as there was no statute or rule explicitly stating such a duty existed for state contractors operating community homes.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It affirmed the District Court’s decision regarding the State, agreeing that the State did not have a close, continuing relationship with T.M.B. that would impose a nondelegable duty. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision regarding West Mont, finding that the relationship between West Mont and T.M.B. was sufficiently close and continuing to impose a nondelegable duty under Restatement (Second) of Agency § 214. The court held that West Mont had a duty to protect T.M.B. from harm due to her dependence on their care and supervision. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "T.M.B v. West Mont" on Justia Law

Jack Greener, a Brazilian jiu jitsu (BJJ) student, suffered a fractured neck and spinal cord injury during a sparring session at Del Mar Jiu Jitsu Club, owned by M. Phelps, Inc. Greener sued, alleging negligence by his instructor, Francisco Iturralde, and vicarious liability by M. Phelps, Inc. The defendants argued that the primary assumption of risk doctrine absolved them of liability, as BJJ is an inherently risky sport.The Superior Court of San Diego County instructed the jury using option 2 of CACI No. 471, which holds a sports instructor liable if they unreasonably increased the risks to the student beyond those inherent in the sport. The jury found in favor of Greener, awarding him $46 million in damages. The defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in its jury instructions and verdict form, and in excluding certain evidence.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the trial court correctly instructed the jury on option 2 of CACI No. 471, as the evidence showed that Iturralde's actions unreasonably increased the risk of injury to Greener. The court emphasized that Iturralde, as an instructor with superior knowledge and skill, should be held to a different standard than a student coparticipant. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence, as it was either irrelevant or cumulative.The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court properly applied the increased risk standard and that the exclusion of evidence did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The court suggested that the Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions consider revising CACI No. 471 to minimize confusion and avoid the need to cross-refer to other instructions. View "Greener v. M. Phelps, Inc." on Justia Law