Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In August 2014, a train operated by BNSF Railway Company collided with a pickup truck driven by Paul Watson at a railroad crossing in Pawnee County, Oklahoma. Watson, who was not wearing a seatbelt, died instantly, while his wife Terri and their minor child, both belted, survived with injuries. Terri Watson, on behalf of herself, her child, and as a representative of her deceased husband's estate, filed a wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit against BNSF, alleging negligent maintenance of the crossing and failure to install adequate safety features.The case went to trial, and after three weeks of testimony and evidence, the jury found in favor of BNSF on all claims. The plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, found prejudicial errors in the jury instructions, specifically noting that the instructions were biased in favor of BNSF and required an excessive degree of care from Watson. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case on certiorari. The court found that the jury instructions, when considered as a whole, were not so prejudicial as to mislead the jury. The court noted that the instructions accurately reflected Oklahoma law and did not impose a higher standard of care on Watson than required. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, affirmed the trial court's judgment, and reinstated the jury's verdict in favor of BNSF. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "WATSON v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY" on Justia Law

The case involves the Schrivers, who sought damages after their cat, Gypsy, died following a veterinary procedure and was subjected to an unauthorized necropsy by Dr. Raptosh and Lakeshore Animal Hospital. The Schrivers claimed non-economic damages for emotional distress and loss of companionship, arguing that the emotional bond between pet and owner should be compensable. They also sought economic damages based on the pet's value to them.The District Court of the Third Judicial District of Idaho granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Raptosh and Lakeshore on several claims, including negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and lack of informed consent. The court denied the Schrivers' claim for emotional distress damages related to trespass to chattels/conversion but allowed the "value to owner" measure of economic damages for the loss of Gypsy.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court's decision in part and reversed in part. The court upheld the denial of emotional distress damages for trespass to chattels/conversion, agreeing that such damages are limited to independent torts of negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court also affirmed the summary judgment on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, holding that veterinarians do not have a duty to prevent emotional harm to pet owners. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim related to the unauthorized necropsy, finding that a jury should decide if the conduct was extreme and outrageous. The court affirmed the use of the "value to owner" measure of damages, excluding sentimental value.The case was remanded for further proceedings on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The Schrivers were awarded costs on appeal, but attorney fees were not granted to Dr. Raptosh and Lakeshore, as the primary issue of liability remains unresolved. View "Schriver v. Raptosh" on Justia Law

Aletha Porcaro was admitted to The Heights of Summerlin, a skilled nursing facility, for rehabilitation after surgery. Upon her discharge, she contracted COVID-19 and died eight days later. Her daughter, Rachelle Crupi, filed a lawsuit against The Heights and its parent companies, alleging that they failed to implement effective COVID-19 safety protocols. The claims included negligence, wrongful death, and other related causes of action.The Heights removed the case to federal court, which remanded it back to state court. In state court, The Heights moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) and Nevada’s Emergency Directive 011 granted them immunity from Crupi’s claims. The district court dismissed the professional negligence claim but allowed the other claims to proceed.The Heights then petitioned the Supreme Court of Nevada for a writ of mandamus, seeking to dismiss the remaining claims based on the same immunity arguments. The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the petition and concluded that the PREP Act does not apply to a lack of action or failure to implement COVID-19 policies. The court also determined that Directive 011 does not grant immunity to health care facilities, as it applies to individual medical professionals, not facilities.The Supreme Court of Nevada denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that neither the PREP Act nor Directive 011 provided immunity to The Heights for the claims brought by Crupi. The court affirmed the district court’s decision to allow the remaining claims to proceed. View "The Heights of Summerlin, LLC v. District Court" on Justia Law

In this case, an automobile collision occurred on November 5, 2018, involving Raymond and Florence Trigger, who were struck by a truck driven by Benjamin C. Deese. Florence died at the scene, and Raymond succumbed to his injuries in January 2019. Jerald Brown, as the administrator of both estates, sued Deese for wrongful death, alleging negligence and wantonness. The jury awarded $50,000 for Florence's death and $1 for Raymond's death. Brown moved for a new trial, arguing that the $1 award was inadequate and violated equal protection principles. The Houston Circuit Court granted the motion for a new trial, and Deese appealed.The Houston Circuit Court had initially instructed the jury on negligence, wantonness, contributory negligence, and damages, including nominal damages. The jury's initial verdict awarded $0 for Raymond's death, which the court rejected, instructing the jury that a $0 award was not permissible. The jury then awarded $1 for Raymond's death. Brown's motion for a new trial argued that the $1 award was inadequate and inconsistent with the $50,000 award for Florence's death. The trial court granted the motion without stating reasons.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's order. The Court held that the adequacy of punitive damages in wrongful-death cases is not subject to review, as established in Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Street. The Court also found that the jury's verdicts were not inconsistent, as the jury was instructed, without objection, that it could award different amounts for each death. The Court concluded that the trial court exceeded its discretion in granting a new trial and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment on the jury's verdicts. View "Deese v. Brown" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Dakota Miller, was injured when a vehicle crashed into a business he was patronizing, located on property owned by T & J Land Co., LLC. Miller filed a lawsuit against T & J Land nearly two years after the incident, alleging negligence and seeking punitive damages. He claimed the property owner failed to protect patrons from such accidents.The Knox Circuit Court dismissed Miller's lawsuit, ruling it was untimely under the one-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims as per Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 413.140(1)(a). The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the two-year statute of limitations under the Motor Vehicle Reparations Act (MVRA) applied, as Miller was a victim of a motor vehicle accident.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that the MVRA's two-year statute of limitations did not apply to Miller's premises liability claim against T & J Land. The Court reasoned that the MVRA is intended for claims involving the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of motor vehicles, which was not the nature of Miller's claim. The Court emphasized that Miller's lawsuit was fundamentally about premises liability, not a motor vehicle accident, and thus fell under the one-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reinstated the Knox Circuit Court's order of dismissal, concluding that Miller's claims were indeed time-barred under the applicable one-year statute of limitations. View "T & J LAND CO., LLC V. MILLER" on Justia Law

In October 2020, Elliot Fama, employed by Sanford Contracting, was working on a project in Scarborough, Maine. After work, he and his co-worker, Robert Clarke, consumed alcohol at a hotel and a tavern. Later, in the hotel parking lot, Clarke struck Mr. Fama, causing him to fall and sustain fatal injuries. Laureen Fama, Mr. Fama’s widow, settled a workers’ compensation claim in Massachusetts for $400,000.Laureen Fama then filed a lawsuit in Cumberland County Superior Court against Bob’s LLC, which operated the tavern, and Clarke. She alleged liquor liability, wrongful death, loss of consortium, and battery. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the workers’ compensation settlement precluded the lawsuit. The Superior Court denied these motions, leading to the current appeal.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. It held that under Maine’s Workers’ Compensation Act (MWCA), Ms. Fama’s settlement barred her from suing Clarke, as the Act’s immunity provisions extend to co-employees. Consequently, Clarke was exempt from the lawsuit. The court further held that because Clarke could not be retained as a defendant, the claims against Bob’s LLC failed under the “named and retained” provisions of Maine’s Liquor Liability Act (MLLA).The court vacated the Superior Court’s order denying summary judgment and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Bob’s LLC and Clarke. View "Fama v. Bob's LLC" on Justia Law

Mark Glen Spencer died from sepsis two days after a surgical procedure performed by Dr. Lana Nelson at Norman Regional Medical Authority. Spencer's brother, Jimmy Wayne Spencer, acting as the Special Administrator of the estate, filed a wrongful death action against the hospital and Dr. Nelson, alleging negligent and grossly negligent treatment. The hospital delayed providing complete medical records, which were essential for evaluating the claim.The District Court dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the potential claim before the statutory deadline and that Dr. Nelson, as a hospital employee, was immune from individual liability under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA). The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the discovery rule did not apply to wrongful death claims under the GTCA and that Dr. Nelson could not be individually sued for actions within the scope of her employment.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion. The Supreme Court held that the discovery rule applies to wrongful death actions arising from medical negligence under the GTCA. It also ruled that governmental employees have no immunity under the GTCA for gross negligence or acts outside the scope of employment. The court found that the trial court erred in making factual determinations on a motion to dismiss and that it should have taken the plaintiff's allegations as true. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "SPENCER v. NELSON" on Justia Law

Brett Favre, a former professional football player, sued Shannon Sharpe, another former player and sports talk show host, for defamation. Sharpe had made statements on his show accusing Favre of stealing funds from a government program intended for impoverished individuals. These comments were made in the context of a widely reported welfare scandal in Mississippi, where federal funds were misused, and Favre was alleged to have received some of these funds. Favre had not been criminally charged but was involved in a civil suit filed by the Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS) to recover misused funds.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed Favre's defamation suit on the pleadings. The court ruled that Sharpe's comments were rhetorical hyperbole and thus not actionable. The court found that no reasonable person would interpret Sharpe's statements as literal accusations of theft, given the context of the broadcast.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court did not analyze the rhetorical hyperbole argument but instead focused on whether Sharpe's statements were protected opinions based on disclosed facts. The court concluded that Sharpe's statements were strongly stated opinions based on widely reported facts about the welfare scandal. The court noted that the broadcast included corrections and clarifications about the facts, and Sharpe's comments did not imply undisclosed false facts. Therefore, the statements were nonactionable as they were opinions based on truthful, established facts.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Favre's defamation claim, holding that Sharpe's statements were protected opinions and did not constitute defamation. View "Favre v. Sharpe" on Justia Law

Ryan Davis and Anthony Crane ordered wet ready-mix concrete from Simon Contractors for a garage floor project. Both had limited experience with concrete, though Davis had experience with a similar product called thinset. The concrete was delivered in two truckloads, and Davis and Crane worked without proper protective equipment. They suffered severe chemical burns from prolonged contact with the wet concrete.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska held a jury trial. Davis and Crane claimed Simon Contractors was negligent for failing to warn about the dangers of wet concrete. The jury found in favor of Simon Contractors. Davis and Crane appealed, arguing errors in jury instructions and the admission of evidence about Davis’s prior litigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court correctly instructed the jury on the sophisticated user and assumption of risk defenses under Nebraska law. The court held that Davis and Crane’s experience with similar products and the warnings provided were sufficient for the jury to conclude they knew or should have known the risks. The court also found no error in the assumption of risk instruction, as evidence showed Davis and Crane were aware of the dangers and failed to take necessary precautions.Regarding the cross-examination about Davis’s prior litigation, the court ruled that any error in admitting this evidence was harmless. The probative questions were about Davis and Crane’s knowledge of the risks, and the evidence on these issues was clear. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Simon Contractors. View "Davis v. Simon Contractors, Inc." on Justia Law

Daniel McCurry and Carie Powell sued Dr. Inder Singh for malpractice, alleging he violated a duty of care by refusing to treat their mother, Carol McCurry, who died while awaiting transfer to another hospital. Carol was brought to Methodist Hospital with shortness of breath and was diagnosed with an aortic dissection and a possible heart attack. Dr. Michael Brandon, the treating emergency physician, consulted Dr. Singh, an on-call interventional cardiologist at Mercy General Hospital. Dr. Singh initially agreed that Carol needed acute catheterization but later decided she was not a candidate for the procedure. Consequently, Dr. Singh did not accept her transfer, and Carol died before she could be transferred to another facility.The Superior Court of Sacramento County granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Singh, ruling that he did not owe a duty of care to Carol because no physician-patient relationship existed between them. The court found that Dr. Singh did not affirmatively treat or directly advise Carol, and thus, no legal duty was established.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that a physician's duty of care arises only when a physician-patient relationship is established, which did not occur in this case. Dr. Singh's consultation with Dr. Brandon and his decision not to treat Carol did not create such a relationship. The court also declined to apply the reasoning from an Arizona case cited by the plaintiffs, emphasizing that under California law, the duty of care is contingent upon the existence of a physician-patient relationship. Therefore, the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Singh was affirmed. View "McCurry v. Singh" on Justia Law