FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Injury & Tort Law

Daily personal injury and tort law case summaries, brought to you by

Freestream Aircraft (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Aero Law Group

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that Nevada could constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants who allegedly defamed an aircraft company at an aviation industry conference in Las Vegas. The defendants contended that the suit must be dismissed because they lacked minimum contacts with Nevada. Disagreeing, the Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal of the complaint. The panel also clarified what it described as the circuit's confusing case law as to the proper analytical approach to specific jurisdiction.
Posted: September 18, 2018, 8:00 am

In re Johnson and Johnson Talcum Powder Products Litigation

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that a consumer who purchased baby powder without being informed that it increased the risk of ovarian cancer (as she alleged it did) had no standing to pursue claims for economic injury. The plaintiff argued that she and other consumers would not have purchased the baby powder in the first place had they been properly informed about its alleged risks. Emphasizing that she was asserting only economic harm, the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of her class-action complaint, explaining that the product had functioned for her as expected.
Posted: September 6, 2018, 8:00 am

Dent v. National Football League

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that federal labor law did not preempt retired football players' claims that the National Football League encouraged them to take pain-masking medications without warning them of the drugs' risks. The NFL contended that the players' claims were preempted by sections 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Rejecting the league's argument, the Ninth Circuit concluded that, as pleaded, the players' negligence and other state law claims did not arise from collective bargaining agreements or require their interpretation. The panel therefore reversed dismissal of the proposed class action suit.
Posted: September 6, 2018, 8:00 am

Lemelson v. Bloomberg L.P.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a defamation suit brought by a hedge fund manager who claimed Bloomberg News falsely reported that he was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The plaintiff brought suit against Bloomberg, as well as the reporter and editor of the story, alleging that they had defamed him and committed other common-law torts. Agreeing with the district court, the First Circuit held that the plaintiff was required to plausibly allege actual malice because he was at least a limited-purpose public figure and that he had failed to allege such facts.
Posted: August 30, 2018, 8:00 am

G and G Productions LLC v. Rusic

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated a lawsuit alleging that a woman stole an oil painting worth millions of dollars from her former husband, an Italian film producer. The woman, an Italian citizen, argued that the claims against her were time-barred under California's borrowing statute, because the applicable 10-year Italian statute of limitations would bar those claims in an Italian court; the district court agreed with her. Vacating in part, the Ninth Circuit remanded for further proceedings on the replevin and unjust enrichment claims and on the request for declaratory relief.
Posted: August 29, 2018, 8:00 am

Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that a defendant in a product liability action could introduce industry custom-and-practice evidence. The plaintiff, who alleged that he was severely injured in an accident because his pickup truck lacked a particular safety feature, objected to the fact that the jury was allowed to hear that no vehicle manufacturer at the time included this safety feature as standard equipment. Unpersuaded by his arguments, the California Supreme Court concluded that the custom-and-practice evidence was admissible for the limited purpose of helping the jury evaluate whether the product was as safely designed as it should be, considering the feasibility and cost of alternative designs.
Posted: August 27, 2018, 8:00 am

VanDevender v. Blue Ridge of Raleigh, LLC

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Held that plaintiffs bringing three wrongful death nursing home malpractice claims were entitled to punitive damages. The nursing homes argued that they were not liable for punitive damages because there was no aggravating factor justifying such an award, and the trial court granted their JMOL motion. Reversing, the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had presented evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to award punitive damages under North Carolina law.
Posted: August 27, 2018, 8:00 am

Williams v The Pep Boys

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed in part and remanded. Plaintiffs, the surviving children of decedent J.D. Williams who died of mesothelioma allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos in brakes purchased from defendant. A San Francisco trial court found for defendants as to claims barred by statute of limitations and that damage awards on remaining claims were offset by settlements before trial. The California First District Appellate court affirmed the statute of limitations and the offset of damages, but reversed the decision not to award damages for home health services and the award of expert fees under a section 998.
Posted: August 23, 2018, 8:00 am

King v. CompPartners, Inc.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed the dismissal of an employee's negligence suit against a workers' compensation utilization review management company. The employee claimed that he was harmed when he was denied further prescriptions of a certain medication without being allowed a weaning regimen or warned of the possible side effects of abruptly ceasing the medication. However, the California Supreme Court held that his tort suit was barred by the principle that workers' compensation provides an injured employee's exclusive remedy against an employer for compensable work-related injuries.
Posted: August 23, 2018, 8:00 am

Encompass Insurance Co. v. Stone Mansion Restaurant Inc.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that an automobile insurance company that settled claims against a driver arising out of a car crash could bring a contribution suit against a restaurant that allegedly over-served alcoholic beverages to the driver. The restaurant insisted that Pennsylvania's Dram Shop Law subjected it to liability only to injured individuals themselves. However, the Third Circuit concluded that the Dram Shop Law did not prevent the insurance company from bringing a suit against the restaurant under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act. The panel therefore reversed dismissal of the insurer's complaint.
Posted: August 22, 2018, 8:00 am

Shaw v. US

(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that the U.S. government did not breach its obligations under a settlement arising out of injuries to a child born at a military hospital. The parents brought this suit alleging that the government was contractually liable because the settlement provided for the purchase of several annuities that would make periodic damages payments, but in 2012 the issuer of the annuities was liquidated and the payments were substantially reduced. Affirming summary judgment for the government, the Federal Circuit held that the settlement agreement did not obligate the government to act as a guarantor of the future periodic annuity payments.
Posted: August 20, 2018, 8:00 am

Soto-Cintron v. US

(United States First Circuit) - Held that the U.S. government was not liable for the actions of agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who stopped a pickup truck at gunpoint and handcuffed and detained an innocent man for up to 20 minutes. The man brought this suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging false imprisonment. Affirming the district court, the First Circuit held that the government was entitled to summary judgment.
Posted: August 20, 2018, 8:00 am

Webster v. Claremont Yoga

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed summary judgment against a yoga student's claim that her instructor caused her injury while adjusting her posture during a yoga class. According to the student, the instructor harmed her when he moved her leg, lower back, and neck. On appeal, the California Second Appellate District agreed with the yoga instructor that there was no triable issue as to causation, because the student had offered no evidence conflicting with that of the instructor's experts, who opined that the student's medical issues were unrelated to the yoga class.
Posted: August 16, 2018, 8:00 am

In re W.R. Grace and Co.

(United States Third Circuit) - Remanded for reconsideration of whether former employees of an asbestos mining and processing operation in Montana could bring a negligence suit against the now-bankrupt company's insurers. The insurers sought a declaratory judgment that the former employees, who now suffer from asbestos disease, were barred from proceeding with their lawsuit because the bankruptcy court had already created a trust to compensate persons injured by the company's asbestos. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part.
Posted: August 14, 2018, 8:00 am

Hass v. RhodyCo Productions

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the organizer of a half-marathon race potentially could be liable for the cardiac-arrest death of one of the runners. Surviving family members of the runner alleged that the race organizer was negligent or grossly negligent with respect to the provision of emergency medical services. Affirming in part and reversing in part, the First Appellate District held that summary judgment was not warranted based on primary assumption of the risk and that a triable issue of material fact existed regarding gross negligence.
Posted: August 13, 2018, 8:00 am

Ramirez v. City of Gardena

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed summary judgment in favor of a city that was sued for wrongful death when its police officers pursued a vehicle and caused it to crash. California Vehicle Code section 17004.7 provides public agencies immunity from liability for collisions resulting from police chases if the agencies implement certain policies regarding vehicular pursuits. Here, a crash victim's mother argued that the city lacked immunity because some police officers had not certified in writing that they had read and understood the vehicle pursuit policy. Disagreeing, the California Supreme Court held that 100-percent compliance with the certification requirement is not a prerequisite to receiving the immunity.
Posted: August 13, 2018, 8:00 am

Holzhauer v. Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a boat owner was not liable under maritime law for causing his recreational speedboat to crash into a passenger ferry. The wife of an individual who died in the accident argued that the boat owner was negligent. Affirming judgment as a matter of law for the boat owner, the Ninth Circuit held that a boat owner who is a passenger on the boat has no duty to keep a lookout unless the owner was jointly operating the boat or the owner knows from past experience or from conduct that day that the person operating the boat is likely to be inattentive or careless.
Posted: August 10, 2018, 8:00 am

Doe v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a torture victim who had obtained a court judgment against a terrorist organization was not entitled to attach funds from the organization's blocked electronic fund transfers. The torture victim wanted several banks to turn over $36 million to him in order to satisfy a court judgment he had obtained against the terrorist organization in a U.S. court. In a 2-1 decision affirming the district court, the Second Circuit held that the punitively sanctioned organization's blocked assets were not subject to attachment.
Posted: August 9, 2018, 8:00 am

Cochrum v. Costa Victoria Healthcare, LLC

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a nursing home was liable for negligence but not elder abuse in connection with the death of a resident who died after choking on a meal he could not swallow and which was not on his prescribed diet. The resident's niece, who brought the suit, argued that the evidence supported liability for elder abuse and that the trial court should not have granted a JNOV motion on that claim. However, the Fourth Appellate District found no error and affirmed.
Posted: August 8, 2018, 8:00 am

Alfaro v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a ruling that denied costs to Colgate-Palmolive Co. after it prevailed in a suit alleging that its talcum powder products caused the plaintiff to develop mesothelioma. Colgate argued that the trial court should have granted its request for over $300,000 in costs. The Second Appellate District agreed that the trial court abused its discretion in denying all costs on grounds of inability to pay and also that the trial court erred in failing to determine whether Colgate made its offer to compromise under section 998 in good faith.
Posted: August 8, 2018, 8:00 am

Rodriguez v. Swartz

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a U.S. Border Patrol agent did not have qualified immunity for allegedly shooting and killing a teenage Mexican citizen walking down a street in Mexico while the agent was standing on American soil. The border patrol agent moved to dismiss the complaint filed by the boy's mother based on qualified immunity. However, the Ninth Circuit held in a 2-1 decision that, under the facts as alleged, the agent was not immune from suit and, further, the boy's mother had a cause of action against the agent for money damages.
Posted: August 7, 2018, 8:00 am

Anselmo v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed the dismissal of a suit filed by a student athlete volleyball player against a community college after she was injured during a tournament game when she dove into the sand and her knee struck a rock. The community college argued that it was protected by an immunity covering field trips and excursions, as set forth in section 55220 of title 5 of the California Code of Regulations. Rejecting this argument, the Fourth Appellate District held that this provision did not apply to an injury suffered by a member of a visiting team during an intercollegiate athletic event. The panel therefore reversed an order granting a demurrer and remanded.
Posted: August 3, 2018, 8:00 am

Jones v. Sorenson

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a claim that a homeowner was liable for injuries that a gardener's helper suffered by falling from a ladder while trimming a tree. The gardener's helper argued that the gardener was negligent and that the homeowner was liable in tort under a respondeat superior theory by virtue of being their employer. On appeal, the Third Appellate District held that the negligence claim could proceed to trial, reversing the entry of summary judgment.
Posted: August 2, 2018, 8:00 am

Staats v. Vintner's Golf Club, LLC

(California Court of Appeal) - Reinstated a claim that a golf club was negligent in failing to protect patrons from yellow jacket wasps. The plaintiff, who was attacked by a swarm of yellow jackets while taking a golf lesson, argued that the golf club owed a duty to protect patrons from the insects even if they came from an undiscovered nest on the course. On appeal, the First Appellate District agreed that a duty of care existed in this situation, requiring actions such as reasonable inspections, and it therefore reversed summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Posted: August 1, 2018, 8:00 am

Peredia v. HR Mobile Services, Inc.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a workplace safety consultant was not entitled to summary judgment against a claim that it negligently caused an employee's accidental death. The safety consultant, hired by a dairy farm, argued that it owed no duty of care to the farm's employees, including a teenage boy who had been run over by a tractor. On appeal, the Fifth Appellate District concluded that there were disputed issues of material fact related to the existence of a duty of care and other elements of the boy's parents' wrongful death claim.
Posted: July 30, 2018, 8:00 am

Tunac v. US

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a suit alleging that a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center caused a veteran's death by delaying urgently needed medical treatment. The veteran's spouse alleged negligence, but the Ninth Circuit held that, to the extend it had jurisdiction over her claims, the claims were barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act's statute of limitations and that some of her claims could be heard only by the Federal Circuit.
Posted: July 30, 2018, 8:00 am

Hernandez v. City of San Jose

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to the city police officers and dismissed the City of San Jose's appeal. A group of attendees of a political rally for Donald Trump were attacked by anti-Trump protesters. These attendees suffered damages when the police allegedly herded them into the violent protesters. The court reasoned that the attendee’s complaint sufficiently alleged that the officers acted with deliberate indifference to the danger of the protesters and as such were not entitled to immunity at this stage of the proceedings.
Posted: July 27, 2018, 8:00 am

Sconiers v. US

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed that a driver involved in a crash with a U.S. Postal Service vehicle had waited too long to sue. The driver contended that her claim against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act was timely because she had initiated it within two years of the tort. However, the Third Circuit disagreed, explaining that she additionally was required to file her lawsuit within six months of the postal service's written denial of her administrative tort claim, which she had not done, and consequently her lawsuit was time-barred.
Posted: July 24, 2018, 8:00 am

Willhide-Michiulis v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area LLC

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a ski area was not liable for injuries that a snowboarder suffered when she collided with a snowcat and snow-grooming tiller. The snowboarder, who was seriously hurt, argued that the ski resort was grossly negligent and thus liable for her injuries despite the liability waiver she had signed as part of her season-pass agreement. However, the Third Appellate District concluded that the operation of snow-grooming equipment on a snow run is an inherent risk of snowboarding and that there was no gross negligence, affirming summary judgment against her claims.
Posted: July 18, 2018, 8:00 am

Morales v. US

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit filed by a deceased pilot's estate after his helicopter struck an unmarked cable suspended forty feet above a river and crashed. In its suit, the estate claimed that the U.S. Geological Survey was negligent for failing to mark the cable, which had been installed as part of a system to collect streamflow measurements. In affirming the dismissal, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the government's decision not to mark the cable fell squarely within the discretionary function exception, so the FTCA claim was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Posted: July 13, 2018, 8:00 am

L.G. v. M.B.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion brought by a wife who had been sued by a former nanny for defamation and other torts for allegedly making negative statements about her in a marital dissolution action. The wife's anti-SLAPP motion sought to dismiss the nanny's suit on the ground that statements made in judicial proceedings are privileged and nonactionable. However, in denying the wife's anti-SLAPP motion, the appellate court held that under the so-called divorce proviso the statements in question were not shielded, even though they also appeared in a request for a domestic violence restraining order.
Posted: July 13, 2018, 8:00 am

Richardson v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed summary judgment dismissing a tort suit filed by an injured motorcycle rider against the Department of Motor Vehicles for lifting the suspension of the 93-year-old woman who had caused the accident that left him paralyzed. In affirming the summary judgment, the appellate court held that the plaintiff could not proceed to trial because the DMV was entitled to immunity under Government Code section 818.4 for exercising its discretion to remove the license suspension once the woman passed certain medical, vision and other tests.
Posted: July 11, 2018, 8:00 am

Hajdusek v. US

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a Federal Tort Claims Act claim filed by a marine recruit who alleged that he suffered serious physical injuries while participating in the Marine Corps Delayed Entry Program. In affirming the dismissal, the First Circuit held that the recruit was barred from pursuing his claim for damages because it stemmed from a government official's performance of a discretionary function and the government had not waived its sovereign immunity.
Posted: July 11, 2018, 8:00 am

Pellegrino v. Transportation Security Admin.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of tort claims against the Transportation Safety Administration brought by a married couple after an airport screening, on the grounds that the claims were barred by sovereign immunity. While the Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for certain intentional torts committed by investigative or law enforcement officers, in addressing a question of first impression, the Third Circuit determined that TSA screeners do not fall into either category so no waiver applied.
Posted: July 11, 2018, 8:00 am

Sindi v. El-Moslimany

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part in a defamation case where a scientist accused two women of falsely alleging that she was an academic and scientific fraud in an internet posting. Plaintiff had prevailed at trial and on appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment in most respects, but held that the district court should not have issued an injunction barring the two women from making further defamatory statements because this imposed a prior restraint on speech. The appeals court therefore vacated the post-trial injunction.
Posted: July 11, 2018, 8:00 am

Conte v. Emmons

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed the denial of a post-trial JMOL motion. In overturning a $1.3 million jury verdict, the appeals court held that a business owner failed to prove that two prosecutors and an investigator in the Nassau County District Attorney's Office tortiously interfered with his contracts in violation of New York law when they conducted a fraud investigation against a media company he owned but then did not ultimately file charges against him. The appeals court concluded that there was no evidence that anyone stopped performing under a specific contract because of anything said or done by the defendants.
Posted: July 10, 2018, 8:00 am

B.B. v. County of Los Angeles

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part an order for summary adjudication in a wrongful death lawsuit brought after a man had a heart attack during a violent struggle with several sheriff's deputies who had come to arrest him. In reversing, the appeals court held that the trial court erred in holding one of the deputies liable for the full amount of the noneconomic damages award because comparative fault principles mandated proportional liability. The appeals court also held that plaintiffs' claims for civil rights violations under Civil Code section 51.2 should have been allowed to proceed to trial rather than being dismissed on summary adjudication.
Posted: July 10, 2018, 8:00 am

Walsh v. Defenders, Inc.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed an order remanding a consumer class action to state court. The defendant home security equipment businesses had removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, but the plaintiffs showed that an exception to CAFA jurisdiction applied. The Third Circuit noted that under the local-controversy exception, a district court must decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class action involving a uniquely local controversy, as defined in the statute.
Posted: July 9, 2018, 8:00 am

Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act by the son of woman killed by police officers during a 911 call. The district court dismissed the complaint because the biological son had been adopted by other parents as an infant and thus had no legal interest as a successor. The Ninth Circuit held that the California survival statute applied and plaintiff did not meet the requirements of standing under that statute.
Posted: July 3, 2018, 8:00 am

Williams v. Atria Las Posas

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remanded an order denying a petition to compel arbitration. Plaintiff suffered major injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, in a bicycle accident and was admitted to a residential care facility. Due to his cognitive impairment, plaintiff walked away from the facility and was found several hours later lying in a ditch. He suffered kidney failure, respiratory arrest, heat stroke, and a second traumatic brain injury. Defendant, a residential care facility, petitioned to compel arbitration based upon an arbitration agreement, but the trial court denied the petition because of an integration clause. The appeals court reversed as to the integration clause, but remanded to the trial court with directions to consider other objections to the arbitration agreement.
Posted: June 27, 2018, 8:00 am

Peralta v. Vons Co.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff slipped and fell at a Vons grocery store and sued for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for Vons as they found no triable issues for the jury and that Vons did not breach its duty of care and did not cause the plaintiff's injuries through any act or omission.
Posted: June 26, 2018, 8:00 am

Carroll v. E One Inc

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed. Firefighters-plaintiffs allege hearing loss from manufacturer-defendant’s fire sirens. District court dismissed the case with prejudice and awarded defendant attorney fees and costs, because the lawsuit was time-barred and hearing loss for one firefighter was not related to siren noise. Plaintiff appealed the award of attorney’s fees and cost as improper under Rule 41(a)(2). The appellate court affirmed the award stating that fees and costs could be awarded when exceptional circumstances exist. In this case, the court found that plaintiff’s counsel made a habit of suing defendant-manufacturer all across the country bringing meritless claims and then dismissing them with prejudice after the opposing party and the judicial system had incurred substantial costs.
Posted: June 20, 2018, 8:00 am

Newland v. County of Los Angeles

(California Court of Appeal) - Vacated and remanded. Plaintiff appealed from a judgment that found an employer not liable for an employee using a personal vehicle for his regular commute, even though at other times the employee used his personal vehicle for work. The appeals court agreed and directed the trial court to enter a new order granting the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court reasoned that an employee must be driving a personal vehicle in the course and scope of employment at the time of the accident for an employer to be liable.
Posted: June 18, 2018, 8:00 am

Doherty v. Merck

(United States First Circuit) - Plaintiffs filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act and for product liability when the Merck manufacture implantable contraceptive device failed to prevent her pregnancy. Defendants moved to dismiss the action based on the Maine Wrongful Birth statute that would prevent her recovery of damages. Plaintiff amended her complaint to allege the Maine statute was unconstitutional. The district court dismissed the complaint. The appellate court determined that the Maine statute was not unconstitutional under the open courts clause of the Maine constitution or the US Constitution.
Posted: June 18, 2018, 8:00 am

Horne v. WTVR LLC

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed. In this defamation action, plaintiff appealed from a judgment against her. Defendant, a television news agency, ran a news story about a county in Virginia hiring a plaintiff, a convicted felon and implying that she lied on her job application. Although plaintiff had a prior conviction she disclosed that on her application and was hired anyway. Plaintiff sued the news organization. The trial court ruled that plaintiff was a public figure and as such she would need to prove actual malice. The trial court granted defendants motion for directed verdict, concluding that plaintiff had failed to show actual malice. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the judgment.
Posted: June 18, 2018, 8:00 am

Coyle v. Historic Mission Inn Corp.

(California Court of Appeal) - The judgement of dismissal and order granting summary judgment are reversed in this suit for negligence and premises liability. While eating lunch at defendants restaurant, plaintiff sustained a black widow spider bite that sent her to the hospital. Plaintiff alleged that defendant knew or should have known that spiders were present at its restaurant and that it had a duty to take reasonable care for its patrons. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgement that the trial court granted. The appellate court held that the trial court erred in granting a summary judgment motion when there were issues of fact that could be decided in plaintiffs favor.
Posted: June 15, 2018, 8:00 am

Shiver v. Laramee

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming a trial court ruling in favor of respondent's motion for summary judgment in the case of an accident caused by road rage dismissing the suit the driver of a loaded tractor trailer because the respondents were not liable under the sudden emergency doctrine when, while acting with reasonable care, they were suddenly and unexpectedly confronted by an emergency they didn't cause.
Posted: June 12, 2018, 8:00 am

Havensight Capital LLC v. Nike, Inc.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Dismissing for lack of jurisdiction the plaintiff's appeal of sanctions imposed against a vexatious litigant and the denial of multiple other orders in a suit where a company sought to show that Nike allegedly infringed upon its soccer brand and rapid-filed suits and motions in its quixotic attempts to prove this was the case.
Posted: June 7, 2018, 8:00 am

In Re: World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacating and remanding the grant of summary judgment against workers who participated in post-9/1 cleanup efforts that allegedly caused them to develop respiratory illnesses because a public benefit corporation treated like the State for the purpose of capacity could not challenge the constitutionality of a state statute unless it qualifies for one of the limited exceptions, which it did not in this instance.
Posted: June 6, 2018, 8:00 am

Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Company, Inc.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirming that when a third party sues an employer for the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of an employee who intentionally injured a third party this can count as an occurrence under the employer's commercial general liability policy because the injury can be considered accidental in a suit involving an assistant superintendent to a middle school construction project that was accused of sexually abusing a 13 year old student.
Posted: June 4, 2018, 8:00 am