Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

A service dog attacked a young child in a restaurant, leading the child's parents to sue several parties, including a medical doctor who had written letters for the dog's owner, stating that her service animals helped with her anxiety disorder. The parents did not dispute the doctor's diagnosis but argued that he was negligent for not verifying whether the dog was appropriately trained as a service animal, which they claimed led to their daughter's injuries.The trial court denied the doctor's motion to dismiss, which argued that the claims were health care liability claims (HCLCs) requiring an expert report. The Court of Appeals affirmed, stating that the claims did not concern the doctor's medical diagnosis or treatment and thus did not constitute HCLCs.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that the claims against the doctor were not HCLCs. The court held that the doctor's failure to verify the dog's training did not involve a departure from accepted standards of medical care. Therefore, an expert report was not required. The court affirmed the lower courts' decisions and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Leibman v. Waldroup" on Justia Law

The Government of Mexico filed a lawsuit against seven American gun manufacturers, alleging that the companies aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels. Mexico claimed that the manufacturers failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent trafficking of their guns into Mexico, resulting in harm from the weapons' misuse. The complaint included allegations that the manufacturers knowingly supplied firearms to retail dealers who sold them illegally to Mexican traffickers, failed to impose controls on their distribution networks, and made design and marketing decisions to stimulate demand among cartel members.The U.S. District Court dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the decision. The First Circuit found that Mexico had plausibly alleged that the defendants aided and abetted illegal firearms sales, thus satisfying the predicate exception under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Mexico's complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers. The Court concluded that the allegations did not meet the requirements for aiding and abetting liability, as they did not show that the manufacturers took affirmative acts to facilitate the illegal sales or intended to promote the criminal activities. Consequently, PLCAA barred the lawsuit, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos" on Justia Law

A four-year-old child suffered severe brain damage due to a massive air embolism during surgery in July 2018. The child's parents, John and Amelia Tullis, sued the healthcare providers, including the University of Utah, in 2019, alleging negligence and seeking damages for pain, anguish, and future medical expenses estimated to exceed $22 million.The University of Utah sought to limit the potential recovery by invoking the 2017 Governmental Immunity Act of Utah (GIA), which capped damages at $745,200. The Third District Court of Salt Lake County denied the University's motion for partial summary judgment, reasoning that the decision in Condemarin v. University Hospital, which found a different damages cap unconstitutional as applied to University Hospital, necessarily determined that the 2017 GIA’s damages cap was also unconstitutional as applied to the University.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether Condemarin controlled the current issue. The court concluded that Condemarin, a plurality decision with a narrow holding, did not control the case. The court noted that Condemarin’s holding was limited to the specific statutes at issue in that case, which imposed a $100,000 cap, whereas the 2017 GIA set a higher limit and included a mechanism for adjusting for inflation. The court emphasized that Condemarin’s holding did not automatically apply to the revised statute with different terms.The Utah Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, noting that the district court should consider the Tullises' request for discovery on the applicability of the damages cap. View "University of Utah Hospital v. Tullis" on Justia Law

Lois Ann Brown slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart in Lynchburg, Virginia, on January 28, 2021, following a snowstorm the previous night. The snowstorm ended by 6:15 AM, and Brown fell at approximately 8:30 AM. Brown did not see any salt or deicing chemicals on the ground or on her clothing after the fall. The store manager, Anthony Ware, confirmed that he did not see any salt or chemicals in the parking lot. Surveillance footage showed the contractor's truck driving around the parking lot but not stopping or applying any deicing measures.Brown initially filed a negligence lawsuit against Wal-Mart in state court, seeking $300,000 in damages. Wal-Mart removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, holding that Brown failed to show that Wal-Mart had actual or constructive notice of the specific patch of ice and that Brown did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that Wal-Mart breached its duty of care.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the snowstorm itself provided Wal-Mart with notice of the ice and snow in the parking lot, creating a duty to use reasonable care to remove the hazards. The court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Wal-Mart breached its duty of care. The evidence, including conflicting testimonies and surveillance footage, suggested that a reasonable jury could find for either party. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP" on Justia Law

Julie Sprafka underwent knee replacement surgery in August 2016 using the ATTUNE knee replacement system designed by DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. Four years later, she required revision surgery due to the debonding of the tibial baseplate. Sprafka filed a lawsuit against DePuy, claiming strict liability, negligent products liability, and breach of warranties. She later withdrew the warranty claims and proceeded with the products liability claims, alleging defective design and failure to warn.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota reviewed the case. DePuy moved to exclude the opinions of Sprafka’s design defect expert, Dr. Mari S. Truman, and for summary judgment. The district court granted DePuy’s motions, excluding Dr. Truman’s opinions for failing to meet the requirements of Rule 702 and Daubert standards. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of DePuy, as Sprafka could not prove her design defect claim without expert testimony.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that Dr. Truman’s opinions were unreliable and speculative. The appellate court noted that Dr. Truman’s opinions were not based on independent research and lacked scientific scrutiny. The court also found that Sprafka did not preserve the argument that Dr. Kristoffer Breien’s expert opinion alone could support her design defect claim. Additionally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment, as Sprafka failed to provide sufficient expert testimony to support her claims. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Sprafka v. Medical Device Bus. Services" on Justia Law

Mark Mullee, an expert-level skier, was injured at Whitefish Mountain Resort (WMR) after losing control on a beginner-level ski trail and falling down an embankment into a streambed. Mullee had skied this trail over 100 times before the accident. On January 16, 2019, he lost control after exiting a skier’s tunnel and fell, seriously injuring his hip. Mullee claimed that Winter Sports, Inc. (WSI), the operator of WMR, was negligent for not maintaining a fence that would have prevented his fall.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, granted summary judgment in favor of WSI, determining that WSI had no duty to maintain a fence capable of catching Mullee and preventing his fall. The court found that Mullee’s accident was an inherent risk of skiing, for which WSI was not liable under the Montana Skier Responsibility Act (MSRA). The court also granted summary judgment on Mullee’s premises liability claim.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that WSI did not owe a duty of reasonable care to install and maintain fencing to catch Mullee after he lost control. The court emphasized that skiing involves inherent risks, including collisions with natural objects and variations in terrain, which skiers must accept. The court also noted that imposing such a duty on ski area operators would be contrary to public policy and the economic viability of the ski industry. Therefore, the court concluded that WSI was not negligent and upheld the summary judgment in favor of WSI. View "Mullee v. Winter Sports" on Justia Law

Karen Orr tripped on a soft drink display at a Dollar General store in Ackerman, Mississippi, and subsequently fell. After Orr's death, Sandie Keister, on behalf of Orr's estate, sued Dolgencorp for premises-liability negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. During discovery, Dolgencorp failed to produce security camera footage, data from the store’s daily planner, and safety-check data. The district court found that Dolgencorp lost or could not access this evidence. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and Keister also filed a motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granted summary judgment for Dolgencorp on all claims and denied Keister’s motions for summary judgment and sanctions. Keister appealed, arguing that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Dolgencorp on her premises liability claim and in denying her motion for sanctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and affirmed the decision. The court held that Keister failed to provide evidence that Dolgencorp breached its duty to warn Orr of the dangerous condition. Keister's arguments, including the mode-of-operation theory and the duration of the dangerous condition, were insufficient to establish Dolgencorp's liability. The court also affirmed the denial of Keister’s motion for sanctions, finding no evidence that Dolgencorp intended to deprive her of the missing evidence and noting that the request for a jury instruction became moot after summary judgment was granted.The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Keister v. Dolgencorp" on Justia Law

Fire-Dex, a manufacturer of personal protective equipment for firefighters, faced lawsuits from firefighters and their spouses alleging exposure to carcinogens from Fire-Dex's products. These lawsuits were consolidated in multidistrict litigation in South Carolina. Fire-Dex had general commercial liability insurance policies with Admiral Insurance Company and requested Admiral to defend and indemnify it against the lawsuits. Admiral refused, leading to a declaratory judgment action in federal court in Ohio, where the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio initially had diversity jurisdiction over Admiral's declaratory judgment action but chose to abstain from exercising it, a decision affirmed by the Sixth Circuit. Subsequently, Fire-Dex filed a lawsuit in Ohio state court seeking a declaration that Admiral must defend and indemnify it, along with compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract and bad faith. Admiral removed the case to federal court and filed counterclaims for declaratory judgment. Fire-Dex moved to remand the case to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision to remand the declaratory claims and stay the damages claims. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred in abstaining from the declaratory claims under Thibodaux abstention, as the case did not involve unsettled questions of state law intimately involved with state sovereignty. The court also found that abstaining from the declaratory claims was an abuse of discretion because the declaratory and damages claims were closely intertwined, and no traditional abstention doctrine applied to the damages claims. The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Fire-Dex, LLC v. Admiral Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Fatima Belhak experienced complications during childbirth, leading Dr. Denice Smith to perform an episiotomy. Post-delivery, Belhak suffered from pain and infection due to a misdiagnosed fourth-degree laceration, which required delayed reconstructive surgery. Belhak and her husband sued Smith and her employer, Women’s Care Specialists, P.C., for negligence.The Iowa District Court for Scott County held a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict favoring Belhak, awarding her $3.25 million in damages. Smith moved for a new trial, citing insufficient evidence and misconduct by Belhak’s lawyer during closing arguments. The district court denied the motion. Smith appealed, and the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the jury verdict, finding insufficient evidence to support one of the negligence claims.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and vacated the Court of Appeals decision, affirming the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on alleged misconduct by Belhak’s lawyer. The court also held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Smith’s use of 4-0 sutures, which were too weak, caused the wound to break down, leading to infection and delayed surgery. The court concluded that the jury could reasonably infer causation from the expert testimony provided. View "Belhak v. Smith" on Justia Law

A private fencing coach alleged that during a flight, a university’s assistant fencing coach sexually harassed and assaulted her. She reported the incident to the university’s head coach, who discouraged her from reporting it further and, along with the assistant coach, allegedly retaliated against her within the fencing community. The university later investigated and confirmed the harassment but found no policy violation. The coach sued the university, the two coaches, and the Title IX coordinator, claiming violations of Title IX and state-law torts.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina transferred the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania due to improper venue and judicial efficiency. After the transfer, the plaintiff amended her complaint, and the defendants moved to dismiss. The transferee court dismissed the entire suit, holding that the plaintiff, as neither a student nor an employee, was outside the zone of interests protected by Title IX. It also dismissed the state-law tort claims as untimely or implausible.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that the zone-of-interests test applies to Title IX claims and that the plaintiff’s claims related to her exclusion from university-hosted fencing events and retaliation manifesting on campus were within that zone. The court affirmed the dismissal of the state-law tort claims against the university and its employees, except for the claims against the assistant coach, which were not time-barred under North Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations. The case was vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Oldham v. Penn State University" on Justia Law