Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Several estates filed a lawsuit against Tyson Foods Inc. and several of its corporate executives and plant supervisors, alleging gross negligence and fraud after four former workers at Tyson Foods’ pork processing plant in Waterloo died from COVID-19. The plaintiffs claimed that Tyson failed to implement adequate safety measures and misled workers about the risks of COVID-19, leading to the workers' deaths.The Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County dismissed the case, concluding that Iowa’s Workers’ Compensation Act (IWCA) provided the exclusive remedy for the estates’ claims, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead gross negligence to fall within an exception to the IWCA and that the claims were improperly "lumped" together without specifying each defendant's duty or claim.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded gross negligence against the executive and supervisor defendants, thus falling within the IWCA’s exception. The court found that the petition provided fair notice of the claims and that the allegations met the elements of gross negligence: knowledge of the peril, knowledge that injury was probable, and a conscious failure to avoid the peril. The court also held that the fraudulent misrepresentation claims against the supervisor defendants were not preempted by the IWCA, as intentional torts fall outside its scope.However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the corporate defendants, Tyson Foods and Tyson Fresh Meats, as the IWCA’s exclusivity provisions barred any direct tort claims against employers. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the breach-of-duty claims against Adams and Jones due to waiver. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s opinion. View "Mehmedovic v. Tyson Foods Inc." on Justia Law

Douglas Wilson underwent hip replacement surgery at Shenandoah Medical Center (SMC) and was injured in a fall while recovering. He and his wife sued the hospital for professional negligence in his postoperative care. They identified a nursing expert but failed to certify this expert by the agreed deadline. The certification was only made three months later, after SMC moved for summary judgment. The plaintiffs argued that expert testimony was not required and blamed defense counsel’s silence for missing the deadline.The Iowa District Court for Page County found good cause for the delay, citing defense counsel’s silence and ongoing scheduling negotiations. The court did not decide whether expert testimony was necessary. SMC appealed, and the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, with a dissenting opinion arguing that the plaintiffs had not shown good cause.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the district court abused its discretion in finding good cause for the plaintiffs’ delay. The court held that defense counsel is not obligated to remind opposing counsel of expert certification deadlines and that an adversary’s silence cannot excuse missing the statutory deadline by three months. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs’ three-month delay was a serious deviation and that the lack of prejudice to the defendant alone was insufficient to establish good cause.The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, reversed the district court’s judgment, and remanded the case for the district court to determine whether the plaintiffs’ claims require expert testimony to avoid summary judgment. View "Wilson v. Shenandoah Medical Center" on Justia Law

Melissa Hubbard sought medical treatment from Dr. Carol Neuman for reproductive health issues and was diagnosed with severe endometriosis. Dr. Neuman advised Hubbard to consider removing her left fallopian tube and ovary, but Hubbard did not consent. Dr. Neuman then referred Hubbard to Dr. Michael McGauley for colon surgery. Hubbard alleges that Dr. Neuman and Dr. McGauley planned the surgery without her knowledge, including a recommendation by Dr. Neuman to remove Hubbard’s ovaries, which Dr. McGauley ultimately did during the surgery.The Rock County Circuit Court denied Dr. Neuman’s motion to dismiss Hubbard’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Dr. Neuman argued that she was not the physician who removed Hubbard’s ovaries and thus not liable under Wisconsin’s informed consent statute, WIS. STAT. § 448.30. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision, concluding that Hubbard’s allegations were sufficient to claim that Dr. Neuman was a “physician who treats a patient” under the statute.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that Hubbard’s complaint sufficiently alleged that Dr. Neuman was involved in the treatment process, even though she did not perform the surgery herself. The court emphasized that when examining the sufficiency of a complaint, all facts and reasonable inferences must be accepted as true. The court concluded that Hubbard’s allegations, if true, could entitle her to relief under the informed consent statute, thus Dr. Neuman’s motion to dismiss was properly denied. View "Hubbard v. Neuman" on Justia Law

John P. Middleton filed a defamation lawsuit against Roy Lee, The Hollywood Reporter LLC, and Gary Baum in the Southern District of Florida. The case stemmed from a professional and personal fallout between Middleton and Lee, which began and ended in California. Middleton had sued Lee in California for millions of dollars, and during the ongoing legal battle, Middleton relocated to Florida. In June 2020, The Hollywood Reporter published an article by Baum that detailed the feud and contained allegedly false statements about Middleton. Middleton claimed these statements were defamatory and filed the lawsuit in June 2022.The district court dismissed Middleton's action, applying California's one-year statute of limitations for defamation claims, which rendered the claims time-barred. The court concluded that Florida's borrowing statute and choice-of-law rules required the application of California law due to the significant relationship factors. The court also denied Middleton's motion to amend the complaint, deeming it futile as the proposed amendments did not alter the determination that California's statute of limitations applied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that California had the most significant relationship to the defamation claims, considering factors such as the place where the injury and conduct causing the injury occurred, the domicile and residence of the parties, and where the relationship between the parties was centered. Consequently, California's one-year statute of limitations applied, and Middleton's claims were time-barred. The court upheld the dismissal of the action and the denial of the motion to amend the complaint. View "Middleton v. The Hollywood Reporter LLC" on Justia Law

Christopher Doby was shot on August 23, 2019, at South Park Village Apartments in Laurel, Mississippi. Christopher and Cheyveon Doby filed a lawsuit against South Park Village Apartments, its management company, Millennia Housing Management, and its owners, South Park MS, LLC, and South Park MS Investment, LLC. The complaint alleged that South Park failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, provide adequate security, repair or maintain fences, gates, and locks, and warn tenants and guests of dangerous conditions. It also claimed that South Park knew or should have known of prior criminal acts on the property and failed to take reasonable measures to prevent future criminal activity.The Jones County Circuit Court dismissed the complaint under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that the complaint alleged only general negligence and did not contain allegations that South Park affirmatively impelled the third party’s conduct. The court also dismissed Cheyveon Doby’s claims, noting that the complaint made no specific allegations concerning him. The Dobys filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied, leading to the current appeal.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case de novo and held that the allegations in the complaint, taken as true, were sufficient to state a claim for relief under Mississippi’s notice pleading standard. The court found that the complaint provided reasonable notice of the claims against South Park and demonstrated a recognized cause of action upon which Christopher Doby might prevail. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Cheyveon Doby’s claims due to the lack of specific allegations pertaining to him. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding Christopher Doby’s claims. View "Doby v. South Park Village Apartments" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, William Boggs, was injured on August 9, 2016, while transferring liquid asphalt from a tanker truck to a distribution truck in Framingham, Massachusetts. He was sprayed with liquid asphalt, resulting in burns and permanent injuries. Boggs was employed by All States Asphalt, Inc. (All States), which accepted his workers' compensation claim. Boggs filed a complaint against Johnston Asphalt, LLC, alleging negligence in maintaining the truck that caused his injuries.The Kent County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Johnston Asphalt on February 27, 2024. The court found no genuine issues of material fact and concluded that Johnston Asphalt owed no duty to Boggs. The court noted that the truck was owned and maintained by All States, and the only person who worked on the truck was an All States employee, Michael Kelly. The court also rejected Boggs' argument to pierce the corporate veil, finding no evidence that Johnston Asphalt and All States were not separate entities.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that Boggs failed to present competent evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding Johnston Asphalt's duty of care. The court found that the single piece of mail addressed to Kelly at Johnston Asphalt's address was insufficient to establish that Kelly was an employee of Johnston Asphalt. The court also upheld the lower court's decision not to pierce the corporate veil, as Boggs did not meet the burden of proof required to disregard the corporate entity. View "Boggs v. Johnston Asphalt, LLC" on Justia Law

Jacob Severson sought treatment from Dr. Shabnum Gupta at a Sanford facility in Fargo for the removal of four genital warts using cryotherapy. Following the procedure, Severson experienced blistering and scarring in the genital area and returned to Sanford multiple times for treatment. He later sought mental health support, claiming the procedure caused his issues. Severson also visited a dermatologist for additional warts and was referred to the urology department for a physical abnormality. In January 2024, Severson filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Sanford and Dr. Gupta.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Severson's motion to amend his complaint. Severson argued that his claim fell under exceptions to the North Dakota Century Code (N.D.C.C.) § 28-01-46, which requires an expert affidavit in medical negligence cases. He claimed his case involved an "obvious occurrence" of negligence, which does not require expert testimony. The district court disagreed, finding that the intricacies of cryotherapy and its potential adverse effects were not within the knowledge of a layperson and that the wrong organ exception did not apply.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Severson's claim did not meet the "obvious occurrence" exception and that he failed to provide the required expert affidavit within three months of commencing the lawsuit. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Severson's motion to amend his complaint to allege medical battery, as the amendment would have been futile based on the existing record. The judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. View "Severson v. Gupta" on Justia Law

Restaurant patrons filed personal injury lawsuits after becoming ill from eating contaminated cilantro. The distributor, Martin Produce, Inc., who sold the cilantro to the restaurants, filed a third-party complaint for contribution against the wholesalers, Jack Tuchten Wholesale Produce, Inc., and La Galera Produce, Inc., from whom it purchased the cilantro. The issue was whether Martin satisfied its obligation to notify the wholesalers of its claim of breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).The circuit court of Cook County granted summary judgment in favor of the wholesalers, finding that Martin failed to provide direct notice of its claim as required by the UCC. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the wholesalers had actual knowledge of the defect due to the personal injury lawsuits filed against them, which informed them of the alleged contamination.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court's judgment. The court held that the wholesalers had actual knowledge of the defect because they were named as defendants in the personal injury lawsuits, which provided them with sufficient notice of the alleged contamination. The court concluded that Martin was not required to provide direct notice under the UCC because the wholesalers were already aware of the specific transactions and the alleged defects. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings on Martin's breach of implied warranty of merchantability complaint against the wholesalers. View "Andrews v. Carbon on 26th, LLC" on Justia Law

Melvin G. Welch died in 2023 from mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. His widow, Donna B. Welch, sued Atlas Turner, Inc. and other defendants, alleging their products caused his death. Atlas Turner, a Canadian company, produced and sold asbestos insulation, which was shipped to South Carolina. Welch was likely exposed to these products while working in Greenwood, South Carolina. The case was brought in Richland County and assigned to Judge Jean H. Toal, who oversees the South Carolina asbestos docket.Atlas Turner moved to dismiss the claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the trial court denied the motion and ordered Atlas Turner to participate in discovery. Atlas Turner ignored deposition notices and refused to comply with discovery orders, claiming it had no knowledgeable witnesses and that the Québec Business Concerns Records Act (QBCRA) prohibited it from disclosing information. The trial court held Atlas Turner in contempt, struck its answer, and placed it in default. The court also appointed a Receiver over Atlas Turner's Insurance Assets.The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's sanctions and the appointment of the Receiver over Atlas Turner's Insurance Assets. The court found that Atlas Turner's refusal to comply with discovery was willful and that the QBCRA did not excuse its non-compliance. The court also held that the trial court had the authority to appoint a Receiver before judgment due to Atlas Turner's conduct, which indicated an intent to evade responsibility. However, the Supreme Court reversed the portion of the Receivership order that granted the Receiver authority beyond investigating and collecting Atlas Turner's Insurance Assets. View "Welch v. Atlas Turner, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jennifer Restivo was skateboarding on a residential street in Petaluma, California, when her skateboard wheel caught in a large crack, causing her to fall and sustain a serious arm injury. She alleged that the City of Petaluma was negligent in maintaining the street and that the city had sufficient notice of the dangerous condition to repair it before her accident. The city moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had neither actual nor constructive notice of the dangerous condition.The Sonoma County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The court found that there was no triable issue of material fact regarding the city's notice of the dangerous condition. The court noted that the city had maintained records of complaints about city streets for over ten years and had received no complaints about the street in question. Additionally, the city engineer testified that the city had conducted inspections of the street and found no significant issues that required repair.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the city had neither actual nor constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The court emphasized that the city's inspection and maintenance practices, including the bi-annual pavement condition reports and subsequent inspections, did not reveal the specific crack that caused the plaintiff's fall. The court also noted that the plaintiff's expert's opinion did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the city had notice of the dangerous condition.The main holding of the appellate court was that the city did not have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff's injury, and therefore, the city was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The judgment in favor of the city was affirmed. View "Restivo v. City of Petaluma" on Justia Law