226 results for 'cat:"Premises Liability"'.
J. Clement upholds the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the city in this personal injury case brought by a resident alleging he was injured after slipping and falling off the city-owned pool’s diving board. The city claimed immunity from liability under the Tennessee Recreational Use Statute as an affirmative defense. The resident and his wife did not imply any exceptions or limitations for their negligence claims under the statute. Swimming and diving are a recreational activity, and the city pool is considered “land” or “premises” under the statute. Therefore, the city is entitled to immunity as a matter of law. Affirmed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals, Judge: Clement, Filed On: May 14, 2024, Case #: M2023-00654-COA-R3-CV, Categories: Evidence, Immunity, premises Liability
J. Lindsay finds jurisdictional deficiencies in Walmart’s removal to federal court in a personal injury claim brought by a customer. The customer’s recovery of damages is listed as $250,000 or less, which includes the possibility of damages below the federal jurisdictional limit of $75,000. In consideration of the evidence that the customer presents she is unlikely to recover damages in excess of the federal jurisdictional limit. The case is remanded to the state court.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Lindsay, Filed On: May 13, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv2736, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Damages, premises Liability
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Buller finds that Alcoa was improperly granted summary judgment in premises liability claims in which an independent contractor died of mesothelioma after working at Alcoa facilities for 20 years because the standard of the unmodified duty of care owed by land possessors should have been used to weigh the claims. Reversed.
Court: Iowa Court Of Appeals, Judge: Buller, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 23-0458, Categories: premises Liability, Asbestos
J. Goodwin grants the customer's motions for leave to file an amended complaint and for remand of her premises liability suit against the pharmacy retailer for injuries she sustained after tripping over a pallet in one of the isles at the pharmacy's Dunbar location. Since the store manager has been identified, neither he nor the pharmacy's employees are shielded from liability since the manager had possession and control of the store while he was on-duty. Since the customer can state a claim against the manager who is a West Virginia resident, the court no longer retains jurisdiction over the action.
Court: USDC Southern District of West Virginia, Judge: Goodwin, Filed On: April 29, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv705, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Jurisdiction, premises Liability
J. Bennett finds the lower court properly found in favor of a store in this matter of alleged premises liability, tort and workers' compensation. A sales representative was injured when a barn door track fell out of a display and struck him on the head. He filed for and received workers’ compensation from his employer, but seeks relief from the store on grounds that it was negligent in maintaining the display and created the hazardous condition that caused his injury. The lower court found the store to be a principal contractor and immune from tort liability, it also found it to be a statutory employer. As a statutory employer, it is responsible for workers’ compensation only if the primary employer cannot. Because the primary employer provided workers’ compensation to the sales representative, the store is not responsible. The lower court also found and the sales representative’s negligence claim lacked merit. The instant court finds no issue with the lower court’s findings. Affirmed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals, Judge: Bennett, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: M2023-00249-COA-R3-CV, Categories: Tort, premises Liability, Workers' Compensation
J. Chehardy finds that the trial court properly awarded $614,000 in damages for an accident where a patron fell off of a store's toilet and injured her back. In this case, there was evidence to support the jury's determination that the accident at the store resulted in the patron's two fusion surgeries. Further, the jury’s award for special damages directly reflects the totality of medical expenses that the patron incurred. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Chehardy, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 23-CA-487, Categories: Damages, premises Liability
J. Land finds that the trial court improperly ruled in favor of the store in a negligence action brought by the customer arising from injuries he suffered in a slip-and-fall incident. The trial court failed to allow oral argument on the store's motion for summary judgment despite the timely request by the customer. Vacated.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Land, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: A24A0547, Categories: Civil Procedure, premises Liability
J. Crothers finds that the district court properly entered judgment in favor of two companies and dismissed an individual's negligence and premises liability claims. However, the lower court improperly entered judgment in favor of one company concluding genuine issues of material fact exist on the question of whether it owed the individual a duty of care. The matter stems from a workplace injury. Affirmed in part.
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court, Judge: Crothers, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: 2024ND72, Categories: Employment, premises Liability
J. Lee finds the district court improperly determined the manager of the LLC was the alter ego of the company, holding him personally liable for slip and fall injuries sustained on company property. The alter ego analysis requires the court make specific findings as to influence and governance, unity of interest and ownership between the alleged alter ego and the company, and whether adherence to the idea of separate entities would sanction fraud or promote injustice. The court's findings as to these factors are not supported by substantial evidence. Reversed.
Court: Nevada Supreme Court, Judge: Lee , Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 84800, Categories: Business Expectancy, premises Liability
J. Boasberg denies the apartment manager's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the driver's suit alleging that its privately hired "special police officers" improperly assaulted him and pepper sprayed him while he was handcuffed, threatening to take his children away before determining that they did not have authority to make traffic stops or probable cause to arrest him. The driver's first amended complaint does not "necessarily rely" on the existence of a contract between it and its security contractor, and therefore the contract was not incorporated by reference into the complaint and need not be considered at this time. He has adequately argued vicarious liability for the purposes of this motion, though he may not for a summary judgment motion. A motion to amend is granted as to certain clarifying amendments, but the driver is not granted leave to add new entities as defendants. He may add certain additional claims against the security contractor.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Boasberg, Filed On: April 17, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv3098, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Tort, premises Liability
J. Moorer grants, in part, Walmart’s motion for summary judgment in a customer’s slip-and-fall lawsuit. She argues that Walmart’s employees should have discovered the produce bag she slipped on, as it was a hazard on the premises. She gives up her wantonness and negligent hiring claims, so Walmart wins summary judgement on them. Only her negligence remains, as well as her husband’s loss of consortium claim.
Court: USDC Southern District of Alabama, Judge: Moorer, Filed On: April 17, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv391, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Civil Procedure, Negligence, premises Liability
Per curiam, the circuit finds the district court properly found for a casino owner on a casino patron allegations that while she was playing a slot machine, she was hit by a casino-owned motorized scooter operated by another patron who had rented it. Resolution of the claimant's issues, including whether the owner rented the scooter or owed a duty of care, would not affect the outcome. No evidence of any factual dispute has been offered. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: 23-60499, Categories: Negligence, premises Liability
J. Eisnaugle finds the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Walmart in a lawsuit it faces from a consumer who was injured when shoplifters struck him with their car while fleeing store employees who were trying to take pictures of their license plate. The employees' actions after the shoplifters fled, including chasing after them and calling for police, did not negligently escalate the situation and create a "zone of risk," and Walmart's internal policies and procedures are not important to the legal analysis at play. Walmart had no legal duty to protect the consumer from fleeing shoplifters. Affirmed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Eisnaugle, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 23-0201, Categories: Negligence, premises Liability
J. Langholz finds that the lower court properly dismissed premises liability claims brought against the host of a party where plaintiff had been stabbed because the host had no duty to prevent another guest from stabbing plaintiff during the social event. Affirmed.
Court: Iowa Court Of Appeals, Judge: Langholz, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 23-0596, Categories: premises Liability
J. Gordo finds the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the property owner and property manager in a premises liability lawsuit from a non-resident citizen who was shot in a secluded area near the property's perimeter. In part because the shooting by an unknown assailant occurred on a public street that is not controlled by the owner or manager, the citizen cannot dispute the facts that he was shot outside their premises, where armed security were on patrol at the time, and that the manager and owner could not have foreseen the danger he faced. Affirmed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Gordo, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 23-0998, Categories: premises Liability
Per curiam, the Texas Supreme Court finds that the court of appeals improperly ruled against Randalls in a premises liability case filed by a shopper alleging that the store should be held liable for her fall next to a grocery cart she claims was leaking its contents. The jury found that the grocery store chain did not have any constructive knowledge of the cart. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the jury should have also answered the question regarding whether Randalls had actual knowledge of the court. However, "since there is no evidence of actual knowledge of the danger, no reasonable jury could have answered the actual-knowledge question" in the shopper's favor. Reversed.
Court: Texas Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: April 5, 2024, Case #: 23-0041, Categories: Evidence, Jury, premises Liability