Personal Injury News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[07/03] Crowley Marine Servs. Inc. v. Maritrans Inc.
In an action arising out of the collision of plaintiff's tug boat with defendants' oil tanker, a district court's reallocation of fault in the matter is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in considering the coordinated nature of the tug escort, the tug boat's violations of Rules 5 and 17(b), or the negligence of both plaintiff and the tug's captain; and 2) it did not err in apportioning 70% of the responsibility for the collision to the tug boat.

[07/03] Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc.
In an action arising from an accident with fireworks, order granting defendant-fireworks manufacturer leave to amend and remand for a new trial on the plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claim in addition to plaintiff husband's pendent consortium claim is reversed in part where: 1) the district court did not apply the good-cause standard in ruling on motion to amend; 2) and the district court abused its discretion in allowing the amendment; 3) and the error was not harmless as it significantly affected plaintiffs' claims.

[07/02] Anderson v. Commerce Construction Services, Inc.
In an action for negligence arising out of a Nebraska subcontractor's employee's injuries while performing demolition work in Kansas, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) Kansas courts would have applied the lex loci delicti choice of law rule whereby the state where the tort occurred governs the merits of the litigation; 2) Kansas courts have only applied section 185 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws to cases dealing with subrogation; and 3) application of section 184's most significant relationship test would result in defendant prevailing.

[07/02] Allen v. Brown Clinic, P.L.L.P
In a medical malpractice suit, jury verdict for defendant-doctor is affirmed over claims that the district court erred when it denied his motion to exclude for cause: 1) all jurors who had ever received medical treatment at a particular clinic or with a particular doctor; 2) all jurors who had family members who had been treated at the clinic or by the doctor; and 3) two jurors who had relatives with connections to the defendants. A claim that the district court erred in denying a motion to exclude defendants' medical expert is also rejected.

[07/02] Rodriguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp. of Carolina
In a medical malpractice case against defendant-hospital presenting the issue of whether an Asset Purchase Agreement entered between past and present owners of the hospital absolved the current owner's liability for acts or omissions by the hospital's previous owners and/or operators, the circuit court finds that the terms of the asset purchase agreement not only could, but did, absolve the present owners from liability.

[07/02] Ellison v. US
In an action brought against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) arising from a motorcycle accident with a vehicle driven by a United States Postal Service employee, dismissal of the complaint on timeliness grounds is affirmed where: 1) the FTCA requires claimants to file their claims within six months of an agency's written denial of a claim; 2) plaintiff filed this lawsuit almost seven months after the Postal Service denied her claim; and 3) plaintiff's alternative readings of the FTCA were unconvincing.

[07/02] S.S. v. E. Kentucky Univ.
In a suit raising Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. section 1983, and state law claims alleging discrimination while plaintiff attended a middle school run by defendants, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in denying both an overbroad discovery request and a request for an increase in the page limit for a pleading; 2) plaintiff's ADA and section 504 claims failed because the alleged disparate treatment originated from the fact that defendant investigated every incident plaintiff complained about and determined a different response depending on the circumstances; 3) dismissal of procedural due process claims was proper; 4) a substantive due process claim failed; 5) section 1983 equal protection claims failed because any difference in treatment was due to defendant's attempts to protect plaintiff from harassment or to discipline him when he was responsible for incidents with other classmates; and 6) state law claims failed as they did not raise a genuine issue of material fact.

More...