FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Injury & Tort Law

Sherwood v. Marquette Transp. Co., LLC

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 7th Cir., Admiralty, Civil Procedure, Contracts, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Government Law, Injury And Tort Law, Labor & Employment Law) In plaintiff's suit against his employer under the Jones Act and general maritime law for injuries he suffered while working as a deckhand, defendant-employer's appeal of a district court's denial of its motion to stay the suit in favor of arbitration is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. section 16(a)(1)(A) as: 1) section 16 is part of the Federal Arbitration Act, and as such, under the language of section 1, does not apply to any employment contract involving a seaman; and 2) section also is inapplicable, and defendant's motion for a stay did not rely on it.

Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc.

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Injury And Tort Law, Insurance Law, Remedies) In an action arising from injuries plaintiff sustained in a vehicle accident caused by the negligent driving of defendant's employee, grant of defendant's motion to reduce by $130,286.90 a jury's special verdict award for plaintiff's past injury-related medical related expenses to $59,691.73 is reversed and remanded where in a personal injury case in which the plaintiff has private health care insurance, the negotiated rate differential is a benefit within the meaning of the collateral source rule, and thus the plaintiff may recover the amount of the differential as part her recovery of economic damages for the past medical expenses she incurred for care and treatment of her injuries.

Jameson v. Desta

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Criminal Law & Procedure, Health Law, Injury And Tort Law, Professional Malpractice) In plaintiff's medical malpractice suit against defendant-doctor who treated plaintiff while he was incarcerated at a correctional facility, dismissal of the suit is reversed as the trial court erred in dismissing the action on the ground that plaintiff failed to appear telephonically at a case management conference and a at a subsequent hearing on an order to show case, as the record clearly indicates that plaintiff notified the trial court on numerous occasions that prison personnel were not allowing him to communicate telephonically with the court, yet the record does not indicate that the trial court made any inquiry into plaintiff's contentions.

Lee v. Astoria Generating Co.

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:00:02 PDT

(N.Y., Admiralty, Government Benefits, Injury And Tort Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an action for indemnification arising out of an accident that occurred on navigable waters, the Appellate Division's order reversing summary judgment for defendants is reversed where a barge containing an electricity generating turbine is a vessel under 33 U.S.C. section 905(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, and that provision preempted plaintiff's New York State Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6) claims.

Snyder v. Bronfman

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:00:02 PDT

(N.Y., Contracts, Injury And Tort Law) In an action to recover the value of plaintiff's services in helping to achieve a corporate acquisition, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiff's quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims were barred by the statute of frauds contained in General Obligations Law section 5-701 (a)(10).

Hukic v. Aurora Loan Serv.

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Commercial Law, Contracts, Injury And Tort Law) In plaintiff's suit against defendants claiming breach of contract, tortious interference, and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, arising from a six-figure mortgage he obtained at an interest rate of 10.65% where he was to make monthly payments as well as taxes, insurance premiums and other charges and fees, summary judgment in defendants' favor and dismissal of plaintiff's claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress is affirmed because plaintiff did not comply with the terms of his agreement that required him to submit proof of payment.

Nelson v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Injury And Tort Law, Probate, Trusts & Estates, Property Law & Real Estate, Remedies) In plaintiff-trust's suit against defendant-Exxon claiming contamination of its water supply and other allegations, judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) trial court's order substituting Cook Endeavors for the Trust as plaintiff in this action is affirmed; and 2) peremptory writ of mandate is issued directing the superior court to vacate its order granting Exxon's motion for summary adjudication on plaintiff's punitive damages claim.

Jennings v. Jones

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Injury And Tort Law) In plaintiff's civil rights case against the state of Rhode Island and a State Police representative and other police officers who had executed a search warrant of his workplace at the Narrangansett Indian Tribe "smoke shop", jury's verdict in favor of defendant in the second trial is affirmed as: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in granting a new trial based on the ground that, even if the jury verdict had unambiguously rested on the increased force theory, that theory would have been contrary to the weight of the evidence; and 2) there was no waiver of the new trial motion by defendant.

Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Injury And Tort Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In plaintiff's suit against the defendant-Mobile Park for refusing to permit the installation of a new mobile home in its mobile home park to replace an older one that plaintiff had inherited, trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit is affirmed where: 1) the complaint fails to state a cause of action for statutory violation; 2) the complaint fails to state a tort cause of action for interference with contract; 3) the complaint fails to state a contract cause of action; and 4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.

Johnson v. Honeywell Int'l Inc.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Consumer Products, Injury And Tort Law, Manufacturing, Product Liability) In plaintiff's suit against the defendants arising from injuries he sustained as an HVAC technician while working on defendants' air conditioning equipment, trial court's judgment in favor of defendants is reversed as the sophisticated user defense applies to the negligence cause of action, but not to the strict liability cause of action.

Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Attorney's Fees, Civil Procedure, Government Law, Health Law, Injury And Tort Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In plaintiff's suit against the defendant for sparking a brush fire that caused a significant damage to his ranch, judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) defendant forfeited any error in the jury's verdict form; 2) jury's award of restoration damages in excess of the property's value was supported by substantial evidence and was not excessive as a matter of law; 3) the undisputed evidence established that plaintiff did not reside on the property at the time of the trespass, and his storage of personal property there was not the type of "occupancy" that would justify his recovery of annoyance and discomfort damages; 4) tree damage caused by a negligently spread fire is wrongful injury to trees caused by a trespass subject to mandatory doubling pursuant to Civil Code section 3346, notwithstanding the general provision governing fire damage in Health and Safety Code section 13007; and 5) substantial evidence supported trial court's finding that plaintiff intended to use the property for raising livestock, entitling him to an award of attorney's fees under Code of Civ. Proc. section 1021.9.

US ex rel Ondis v. City of Woonsocket

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Procedure, Evidence, Government Law, Injury And Tort Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In plaintiff's qui tam action against a city under the False Claims Act claiming that the city had defrauded the federal government by making false statements to the Department of Housing and Urban Development when applying for federal grants, dismissal of the case is affirmed where the was no error in a conclusion that the FCA's public disclosure bar applied to divest the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over the action as: 1) the city's alleged misrepresentation and what the plaintiff alleges was the city's true plan were sufficiently in the public domain to ground an inference of fraud; 2) the public disclosure occurred in the manner specified in the statute; 3) plaintiff's suit is based upon those publicly disclosed allegations or transactions; 4) plaintiff does not qualify for the original source exception; and 5) district court did not err in precluding certain testimony during an evidentiary hearing.

Cell Therapeutics Inc. v. Lash Group Inc.

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Drugs & Biotech, Government Law, Injury And Tort Law) In an action for indemnification based on the settlement of an underlying suit against plaintiff for violations of the False Claims Act (FCA), judgment on the pleadings for defendant is reversed where: 1) the facts articulated in plaintiff's complaint were sufficient to state a claim for damages independent of the question of plaintiff's liability under the FCA; and 2) the district court erred in characterizing the settlement as effectively establishing FCA liability and thus barring the claims against defendant.

Nutragenetics, LLC v. Sup. Ct.

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Injury And Tort Law) In plaintiff's suit against the defendants alleging he was defrauded into investing in their company, defendants' petition for writ of mandate is denied as trial court properly found plaintiff's peremptory challenge to the judge to be timely where: 1) the second lawsuit involves a different defendant and different causes of action asserted against that defendant; and 2) the second lawsuit does not arise from conduct in, or involve enforcement or modification of an order in, the first lawsuit.

Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc.

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Evidence, Injury And Tort Law, Manufacturing, Military Law, Product Liability) In plaintiffs' products liability suit against defendants for injuries caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products aboard US Navy vessels, trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is reversed in where: 1) plaintiffs have not shown that defendant manufactured, supplied, or distributed the products which caused his exposure to asbestos; and 2) defendant is not liable in strict liability for failing to warn of the dangerous properties of those products or for a design defect in those products.