Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

A Massachusetts resident, Barbara, began smoking Marlboro and Parliament cigarettes manufactured by Philip Morris as a teenager and continued for decades, becoming addicted and unable to quit despite many attempts. In 2015, after finally quitting, she was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer and died two years later. Her husband and two children, individually and on behalf of her estate, sued Philip Morris for wrongful death, alleging breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, negligent design and marketing, fraud, civil conspiracy, and deceptive trade practices.The Superior Court (trial court) dismissed claims against other defendants and tried the remaining claims against Philip Morris before a jury. The jury found for the plaintiffs on most claims, awarding $8.014 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages. The judge, after post-trial motions, reduced (remitted) the punitive damages to about $56 million—seven times the compensatory damages—finding the original award excessive. The judge also denied Philip Morris’s motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, concluding that the jury was not swayed by passion or prejudice and that the compensatory and punitive damages were supported by the evidence.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case after transferring it from the Appeals Court. The court held that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in denying a new trial or further remittitur, and that the remitted punitive damages were constitutionally permissible in light of the egregious conduct by Philip Morris. The court also rejected Philip Morris’s arguments that the trial should have been bifurcated, that a higher burden of proof was required for punitive damages, that federal preemption barred certain claims, and that evidentiary rulings were improper. The judgment and denial of post-trial motions were affirmed. View "Fontaine v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

A former Army specialist was seriously injured in a suicide bombing at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan. The attack was carried out by Ahmad Nayeb, a Taliban operative hired by Fluor Corporation, a military contractor, as part of a program encouraging the hiring of Afghan nationals. The Army’s investigation concluded that Fluor was primarily responsible due to negligent supervision and failure to enforce proper security procedures, including allowing Nayeb to check out tools used in the bombing and to move about the base unsupervised. The plaintiff sued Fluor in federal court in South Carolina, seeking damages under state law for negligent supervision, negligent entrustment, and negligent retention of Nayeb.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted summary judgment to Fluor, holding that state-law tort claims were preempted under Fourth Circuit precedent whenever they arose out of combatant activities in a wartime setting. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, adopting a broad “battlefield preemption” doctrine. It reasoned that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s (FTCA) combatant-activities exception, which preserves government immunity for claims arising out of military combatant activities, reflected an intent to bar all tort suits against contractors connected with those activities, regardless of whether the contractor followed or violated military instructions.The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case. The Court held that the Fourth Circuit erred in finding the state-law tort claims preempted where the federal government neither ordered nor authorized the challenged conduct. The Supreme Court clarified that neither the Constitution, federal statutes, nor its precedents support such broad preemption. Preemption applies only if the contractor was following government directives or if there is a significant conflict between federal interests and state law, which was not the case here. View "Hencely v. Fluor Corp." on Justia Law

A patient experienced severe complications following a routine appendectomy at a county hospital in Wyoming, leading to a diagnosis of short bowel syndrome. The surgery was performed by a hospital-employed physician. The following day, the patient suffered further abdominal issues and was transferred to another hospital, where emergency surgery resulted in substantial removal of her small intestine. The patient, initially a minor, sued the hospital and two of its physicians for medical malpractice, alleging their negligence under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. The hospital admitted the physicians were employees and that it was vicariously liable for their actions. As a defense, the hospital asserted that liability was limited by statute to $1 million.After these events, the District Court of Converse County denied the patient’s constitutional challenge to the statutory limitation, finding it was a limit on the waiver of immunity rather than damages. The case went to trial, where the jury awarded $8 million in total damages, with $3.2 million allocated against the hospital and the physician found liable. The court entered judgment for the full $3.2 million, despite the statutory limit. Motions for relief and further summary judgment followed, with the patient arguing the hospital’s operation of a statewide commercial healthcare enterprise should negate the statutory cap. The district court denied these motions, but clarified the hospital was not required to pay above the statutory limit.The Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming reviewed the case. It held the liability of the hospital and its physician is limited to $1 million under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act, unless there is excess insurance coverage. The court found that operating a statewide commercial healthcare enterprise does not constitute a waiver of this statutory limitation. The judgment exceeding $1 million was reversed, and the case was remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the statutory cap. View "Memorial Hospital of Converse County v. Gates" on Justia Law

The case involves a decedent who developed and died from mesothelioma, a disease caused by exposure to asbestos both at his workplace and at home. His wife, acting as executrix of his estate, pursued and settled product liability claims against manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos-containing products, with the majority of the settlement proceeds attributed to nonoccupational exposure. She also filed claims for workers’ compensation benefits, which were awarded based on findings that both occupational and nonoccupational exposures were significant factors in causing his disease.An administrative law judge for the Workers’ Compensation Commission found that, because the decedent’s work-related asbestos exposure was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma, the disease constituted a compensable occupational disease under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The judge awarded workers’ compensation benefits to the estate and the surviving spouse. The judge further concluded that the decedent’s employers—the state and the town—were entitled under Connecticut General Statutes § 31-293(a) to a lien on the net amount of the tort settlement proceeds received by the estate, including those attributable to nonoccupational exposure. The Compensation Review Board affirmed this decision.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the decisions below. It held that when a single occupational disease is caused in substantial part by both occupational and nonoccupational factors, and workers’ compensation benefits are awarded accordingly, the employer’s statutory lien on any third-party recovery extends to the entire net proceeds, including those attributable to nonoccupational causes. The court also held that the statute’s reference to a “person” liable for damages is not limited to parties with an employment relationship to the decedent. The decision of the Compensation Review Board was therefore affirmed. View "Dodge v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

The case concerns a fatal helicopter crash during a sightseeing tour in Hawaii, resulting in the deaths of all aboard, including the plaintiffs’ daughter. The helicopter, manufactured by Robinson Helicopter Company in 2000, had its main rotor hub and blades replaced with new, identical parts from Robinson in December 2018, which was over eighteen years after the helicopter’s initial delivery. The plaintiffs alleged that defects in the replaced rotor hub and blades caused the crash, and brought claims for negligence, strict products liability, and failure to warn.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii heard the case first. Robinson invoked the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA), which generally bars actions against manufacturers eighteen years after delivery of the aircraft. The plaintiffs argued for exceptions under GARA’s “rolling provision”—which restarts the repose period for newly replaced parts—and the “fraud exception”—which removes the bar if the manufacturer concealed or misrepresented material information to the FAA. The district court granted summary judgment for Robinson, holding that the rolling provision did not apply because the replacement parts were not substantively altered from the originals, and that the plaintiffs failed to plead fraud with the necessary specificity. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion to further amend their complaint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in requiring a “substantive alteration” for the rolling provision to apply, as GARA only requires that a new part replaces an old one. The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment in part and remanded for a new causation analysis regarding the replaced parts. However, the court affirmed the lower court’s determinations that the plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements for the fraud exception and that denying leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion. View "MCAULIFFE V. ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY" on Justia Law

The plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure involving multiple surgical staplers, one of which was used to create an anastomosis that subsequently leaked. In October 2021, the plaintiff filed a products liability suit against several manufacturers of surgical staplers. Over the course of pretrial proceedings, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina issued multiple scheduling orders, ultimately extending the plaintiff’s expert disclosure deadline to March 15, 2024. The plaintiff failed to disclose any experts by this deadline. Twenty days later, the plaintiff moved to extend the expert disclosure deadline, citing delays in obtaining discovery and the model number of the stapler at issue.The district court denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling order, finding that he had not shown “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), and entered summary judgment for the defendants due to the absence of expert testimony needed to support the plaintiff’s claims. The court noted that the plaintiff had not acted diligently, as required by Rule 16(b)(4), and had not filed a motion to compel or otherwise timely challenged the adequacy of discovery responses. The district court also relied on the plaintiff’s own representations regarding when he learned the model number of the stapler.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the denial of the motion to amend for abuse of discretion and the grant of summary judgment de novo. The appellate court held that the district court correctly applied Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard to the request to extend the expert disclosure deadline and did not abuse its discretion in finding a lack of diligence. Because the plaintiff failed to offer expert evidence, the court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings in full. View "Eichin v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, LLC" on Justia Law

A developer purchased property in the Brookland neighborhood that included a historic mural and an adjacent parking lot providing clear sightlines to the mural. Another individual, who sought to preserve the mural, had previously contracted to buy the property but the deal fell through amid allegations of contract forgery by the seller. The developer, holding a promissory note secured by a deed of trust, initiated foreclosure and ultimately purchased the property at auction. The unsuccessful buyer accused the developer of fraud and publicly made statements labeling him as corrupt and claiming he had “problems with the DOJ” and had taken the property “by theft and fraud.” These statements were repeated online via a media outlet controlled by the unsuccessful buyer.The developer sued for defamation and false light in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The defendant moved to dismiss under the District’s Anti-SLAPP Act, arguing that his statements were protected advocacy on matters of public interest and that the developer was a limited-purpose public figure, thus requiring proof of actual malice. The trial court found the developer to be a limited-purpose public figure and denied most of the motion, allowing the claims to proceed except those related to certain statements outside the statute of limitations.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It held that the Anti-SLAPP Act applied because the statements addressed issues of public interest, such as urban development and historic preservation. The court concluded that the developer was a limited-purpose public figure and therefore must show actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. The court found that the developer failed to demonstrate that the statements were false or made with actual malice. As a result, the court reversed the trial court’s denial of the Anti-SLAPP motion and remanded for further proceedings. View "Capitol Intelligence Group, Inc. v. Waldman" on Justia Law

Monica Sparrow accompanied her daughter to a hospital appointment during the COVID-19 pandemic, when special entry and exit procedures were in place. After her daughter’s appointment, Sparrow was instructed by a nurse to exit the hospital through an employee parking garage to retrieve her car. While leaving through this route, which she was unfamiliar with, Sparrow slipped on a wet, partially concealed, and allegedly slick drainage grate that shifted under her weight. Sparrow sustained a serious knee injury requiring surgery. She claimed that the hospital required her to use an unreasonably dangerous route and failed to warn her of its dangers.The case was first heard in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court. Rush Health Systems, the hospital operator, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the drainage grate was an obvious, non-dangerous condition and that Sparrow was a licensee to whom limited duties were owed. The hospital contended that the grate's presence and condition were not unreasonably dangerous and that Sparrow was at fault for not watching where she was walking. Sparrow presented evidence, including her own and expert testimony, suggesting the grate was slick, poorly lit, shifted under weight, and that she was directed by hospital staff to use that exit. The trial court denied summary judgment, finding that genuine factual disputes remained as to whether the condition was dangerous and whether Sparrow was an invitee or licensee.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the denial of summary judgment de novo. The Court held that Sparrow had presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the drainage grate constituted a dangerous condition and her status as an invitee or licensee at the time of her fall. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Rush Health Systems, Inc. v. Sparrow" on Justia Law

After Paula Denison was declared dead at a hospital in Meridian, Mississippi, her family consented to organ donation. She was transferred to a transplant facility, where it was later discovered that she was actually alive. Denison was then returned to the original hospital, where her condition deteriorated and she was pronounced dead the following day. Denison’s estate, through her daughter Brooke Denison as administratrix, and Brooke individually, brought separate lawsuits against the Mississippi Organ Recovery Agency, Dr. Shirley Schlessinger, and Dr. Dustin Shea Allen, among others, alleging claims such as negligence and infliction of emotional distress.In the Lauderdale County Circuit Court, the defendants moved to dismiss both complaints. In the estate’s case, the court granted dismissal based on the immunity provisions of the Revised Mississippi Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, finding the defendants acted in good faith and in reliance on the family’s authorization. In Brooke’s individual case, the court granted dismissal because her complaint did not allege that she was present or witnessed any negligent acts, thus failing to establish bystander liability. Brooke and the estate appealed these decisions.The Supreme Court of Mississippi consolidated the appeals. The Court held that the trial court erred by considering material outside the pleadings in the estate’s case without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, and thus reversed and remanded that case for further proceedings. However, the Court found that Brooke’s individual allegations failed to meet the requirements for bystander liability under Mississippi law and affirmed the dismissal of her claims. The Court expressly declined to decide whether immunity under the Anatomical Gift Act applied, noting the need for further factual development. View "Denison v. Mississippi Organ Recovery Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

A woman with a complex medical history, including autoimmune hepatitis and cirrhosis, was admitted to a regional medical center with symptoms of weakness, nausea, and vomiting. After consultation and diagnostic imaging suggested gallstones and cholecystitis, a general surgeon evaluated her and determined she was not a surgical candidate due to end-stage liver disease. She was treated non-surgically, showed some improvement, and was discharged. Two days later, she was admitted to another hospital with sepsis and subsequently died from cardiopulmonary arrest due to urosepsis.Her daughter, on behalf of her wrongful-death beneficiaries, filed a medical malpractice suit against, among others, the general surgeon. The plaintiff sought to introduce a board-certified interventional radiologist as her medical expert, whose testimony suggested that the surgeon failed to meet the standard of care by not pursuing further diagnostic testing or recommending non-surgical interventions. The Washington County Circuit Court struck this expert’s testimony, holding that the radiologist was not qualified to testify about the standard of care for a general surgeon, and granted summary judgment for the surgeon.The Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the circuit court abused its discretion in excluding the expert. Upon further review, the Supreme Court of Mississippi found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702 in excluding the expert’s testimony, as the expert did not demonstrate sufficient familiarity with the field of general surgery or with the relevant procedures. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstated, and affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, thereby upholding the exclusion of the expert testimony and the grant of summary judgment. View "Lee v. Doolittle" on Justia Law