Case Summaries
Injury & Tort Law
[09/03] Campbell v. Davol, Inc.
In plaintiff's product liability suit against defendants claiming that a hernia patch that was surgically placed in her abdomen following breast reconstructive surgery was defective, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to the issue of successor liability; 2) district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the post-sale failure to warn claim as there was no contractual relationship to provide services to customers who purchased the hernia patch from the manufacturer; and 3) there is no err in finding plaintiff's claims against defendant were barred by Texas law.
[09/03] Brooks v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
In plaintiff's suit against Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA), to recover damages for back injuries that he allegedly suffered while working as a machinist at defendant's locomotive repair shop, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has failed to establish causation, negligence or foreseeability; and 2) the district court properly excluded plaintiff's medical expert's causation opinion for failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2).
[09/03] Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.
In property owners' class action suit against the facility operators of a former nuclear weapons plant under the Price-Anderson Act (PAA), alleging trespass claims arising from the release of plutonium particles onto their properties, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in awarding over $926 million is reversed and remanded where: 1) district court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331; 2) because the jury was not properly instructed on an essential element of plaintiffs' PAA claims, the verdict must be set aside and the case remanded; 3) the issue of whether federal nuclear safety standards preempt state tort standards of care under the PAA is remanded; 4) the Colorado Supreme Court would not permit recovery premised on a finding that an interference, in the form of anxiety or fear of health risks, is "substantial" and "unreasonable" unless that anxiety is supported by some scientific evidence, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise; 5) defendants failed to establish that any of the state of federal standards referenced in their proposed jury instructions overcome the general rule that the jury must determine whether a given interference is "unreasonable" by weighing the harm against the utility of the interference; 6) on remand, plaintiffs are required to prove the plutonium contamination caused "physical damage to the property" in order to prevail on their trespass claims; and 7) district court did not err in instructing the jury that it could award punitive damages in the case.
[09/02] Lu v. Powell
In an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the U.S. and various officials, claiming that an asylum officer demanded sexual favors in return for assisting with plaintiffs' asylum applications, dismissal of the action is affirmed in part where plaintiffs failed to point to any specific duty under the Fifth Amendment or any specific policy to support a claim of unconstitutional policymaking. However, the dismissal is reversed in part where the emotional distress suffered as a result of the demand for sexual favors was an injury distinct from the battery and could be proved by the plaintiffs.
[09/01] Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In an action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and two Missouri police officers following an incident involving counterfeit money orders at a Raymore Wal-Mart store, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) given these undisputed facts, probable cause supported plaintiff's warrantless arrest; 2) attorney's fees were proper because plaintiff's continued prosecution of her false arrest claim against the officers in the face of the evidence upon discovery was unquestionably groundless and unreasonable; and 3) the record reflected no evidence of racial animus or hostility toward plaintiff.
[09/01] Sprinkles v. Associated Indem. Corp.
In plaintiffs' bad faith action against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, arising from an underlying suit against defendant and his employer for causing the death of plaintiffs' father in an automobile accident, trial court's judgment sustaining the insurer's demurrer is affirmed as, under the complaint and matters judicially noticed, the defendant-employee was an insured, rendering the automobile exclusion in the GCL policy applicable, and Fireman's Fund had no duty to defend the employer.
More...
Elder Law
[08/30] HCM Healthcare, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n
In a residential nursing facility's suit against California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) for breach of contract and for violating the Insurance Code for refusing to provide plaintiffs with defense counsel and indemnification for underlying lawsuits for elder abuse, judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) as a creature of statute, and not of contract, in some instances CIGA may not be responsible for an insured loss to the same extent as the insolvent insurer might be under the terms of its insurance contract; and 2) Pennsylvania's liquidation order imposed a June 30, 2005 deadline for filing against an insurer and because plaintiff did not meet the deadline, CIGA may not honor their claims.
[08/09] Clark v. Superior Court
In senior citizens' suit against an insurance company, claiming deceptive business practices relating to the purchase and sale of annuity contracts, and claiming that statutory law entitled them to a trebling of the award, court of appeal's grant of plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to enter a new order denying defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is reversed as, because Civil Code section 3345 authorizes the trebling of a remedy only when it is in the nature of a penalty, and because restitution under the unfair competition law is not a penalty, an award of restitution under the unfair competition law is not subject to section 2234's trebling provision.
[07/12] Das v. Bank of Am. N.A.
In a daughter's suit for elder abuse against Bank of America, claiming that the bank failed to report financial abuse involving her father and engaged in other misconduct, including predatory lending, trial court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) as section 15610.30(b)'s 2008 amendments to the statutory scheme were substantive, rather than procedural, and the Legislature did not state that the amendments were retroactive in effect, they are inapplicable to plaintiff's claims; 2) plaintiff's allegations regarding defendant's failure to comply with the statutory reporting duty state no claim against defendant; 3) the demurrers to plaintiff's remaining claims were properly sustained; and 4) there is no basis for finding the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
[05/06] FAL-Meridian, Inc. v. US Dep't of Health & Human Serv.
A nursing home's petition to set aside a final decision by the Department of Health and Human Services, that imposed a civil penalty of $7,100 for having violated a regulation under the Medicare and Medicaid provisions of the Social Security Act, is denied as the nursing home failed to tender evidence that would show that it had done everything possible to minimize the risk of an accident to the deceased resident.
[02/05] Villano v. Waterman Convalescent Hosp., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against a convalescent hospital claiming she was admitted without her consent, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where, although a stipulated judgment is appealable, plaintiff cannot show that allegedly erroneous rulings were prejudicial.
[12/22] Massey v. Mercy Med. Center Redding
In plaintiff's negligence action against a nurse and the hospital that employed the nurse alleging that he sustained injury after falling from a walker because the nurse placed the plaintiff on the walker and left him unattended, judgment of the trial court is reversed in part where: 1) the question of nurse's alleged negligence for the fall poses a question of common knowledge, and therefore does not require expert opinion testimony; and 2) trial court's judgment that denied plaintiff's attempt to amend his complaint to add causes of action for battery, fraud and elder abuse is affirmed.
More...
|
