23 results for 'cat:"Jury" AND cat:"Negligence"'.
J. Shorr finds the trial court properly determined there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the “less-satisfactory evidence” jury instruction. “Plaintiff’s contention that the less-satisfactory evidence instruction was not harmless is not sufficiently related to the evidence at issue or the trial court’s actual ruling."
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Shorr, Filed On: May 15, 2024, Case #: A179622, Categories: Evidence, jury, negligence
J. Bivins denies a trucking company and its truck driver’s motion for partial summary judgment in this personal injury lawsuit after the truck driver was using his cell phone and rear-ended a driver and his passenger on the interstate. The driver and passenger allege that the truck driver did admit to using the cell phone while speeding. A reasonable jury could decide the truck driver’s behavior was inherently reckless because he took his eyes off the interstate.
Court: USDC Southern District of Alabama, Judge: Bivins, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv125, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: jury, Vehicle, negligence
J. Guidry vacates the trial court's judgments in an auto accident case that stems from a driver hitting a deer on the interstate. The trial court improperly denied the motion for mistrial since nine of the twelve jurors were not in agreement regarding the allocation of fault to each party. Also, a directed verdict was erroneously granted on the affirmative defenses of force majeure and sudden emergency because there was conflicting testimony about the parties' actions after the deer entered the roadway. Vacated.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Guidry, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 2023CA0718, Categories: jury, negligence
J. Lagoa finds that the district court improperly refused to remove an impaneled juror in a negligence action brought against Royal Caribbean by the passenger after a trip-and-fall incident. The jury found Royal Caribbean negligent but assessed a comparative-negligence finding against the passenger that reduced her recovery by 90%. Although the juror had a niece who worked for Royal Caribbean, the district court did not question her about the niece or any potential for bias. The district court therefore failed to fulfill its investigative obligation. Reversed.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Lagoa, Filed On: February 1, 2024, Case #: 21-13612, Categories: jury, negligence
J. Africk denies a request by the owner of a dredging vessel to exclude the testimony of a marine safety expert for a catering employee who alleges the owner’s negligence resulted in his disabling fall when he attempted to disembark from the dredge. The vessel’s owner relies on a case in another section of the court that held the expert could not testify because “no expertise of any kind” was required to render his opinion or to help the jury in that case. In the current suit, however, the same expert’s specialized knowledge and experience of maritime safety standards will help shed light on the issue of safe means of access to and from vessels.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Africk, Filed On: January 19, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv1602, NOS: Marine - Contract, Categories: jury, Maritime, negligence
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
Per curiam, the Vermont Supreme Court finds that the trial court usurped the jury's role when it improperly granted the property owner judgment as a matter of law in a slip-and-fall action stemming from a tenant's fall on ice in the property owner's parking lot. The tenant established sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the property owner's negligent conduct caused her fall. Reversed.
Court: Vermont Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: December 21, 2023, Case #: 23-AP-177, Categories: jury, negligence, Premises Liability
J. Sasso finds that the court of appeal improperly upheld a verdict favoring a resort in premises liability claims because the error in denying the resort guest a jury challenge potentially contributed to the verdict. Reversed.
Court: Florida Supreme Court, Judge: Sasso, Filed On: December 21, 2023, Case #: SC2022-0984, Categories: jury, negligence
J. Brown finds that the trial court mishandled the jury instructions in a personal injury case brought by two firefighters who were injured on the job.
Defendant's counsel misled the jury about the level of inherent risk that firefighters assume and the trial court's curative advisory was insufficient, so a new trial is required. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Brown, Filed On: November 29, 2023, Case #: A164441, Categories: jury, negligence
J. Lampkin finds that the lower court properly found for the city in a trip and fall suit after the court refused the woman's ordinary negligence liability issue instruction. The evidence does not support a finding that the city conducted any activity on the premise that created the hole in the sidewalk, nor did the hole arise as part of the city's business. Therefore, the court correctly instructed the jury on premises liability rather than ordinary negligence. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Lampkin, Filed On: November 15, 2023, Case #: 221116, Categories: jury, negligence
J. Dillard finds no error in the jury's verdict in favor of the cyclist and motorist in the citizen's negligence lawsuit over a car accident she says they caused which led to her neck and back injuries. Although the trial court's jury instruction regarding the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard was "erroneous and misleading" as the citizen claims, the error does not warrant a new trial, in part because the driver herself admitted at trial that neither the motorist nor the cyclist "did anything wrong" to cause the accident, making it unlikely that the disputed instruction contributed to the jury's verdict. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Dillard, Filed On: October 3, 2023, Case #: A23A0986, Categories: jury, Vehicle, negligence
J. Lewis finds the trial court did not violate the injured driver's right to a fair and impartial jury when it allowed two individuals insured by the same company named as a defendant in the suit to remain on the jury. They not only agreed to remain unbiased, but there was no evidence they had any type of business relationship with the company or that their insurance premiums would increase as a result of a verdict either way. Meanwhile, the jury's award of economic damages to the injured driver must be reversed because no medical bills were submitted as evidence during trial, but were only mentioned by the driver's attorney during closing arguments. Therefore, the case must be remanded for a new trial on damages. Reversed in part.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Lewis, Filed On: September 29, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3507, Categories: jury, Damages, negligence
J. Veljacic finds that the lower court properly ordered a new trial in a sexual assault dispute brought by a former patient of a child treatment center who alleges she was abused by a counselor. The move for a new trial came after it was revealed that one of the jurors had not released important information regarding their legal history during voir dire. Because the information related directly to the case and child protective service issues, it was a lack of transparency that well supported a new trial. Affirmed.
Court: Washington Court Of Appeals, Judge: Veljacic, Filed On: September 19, 2023, Case #: 53826-1-II, Categories: Civil Rights, jury, negligence
J. Pellegrini finds that the lower court properly entered judgment in this personal injury action between two drivers arising from a motor vehicle collision. Evidence concerning one of the driver's alcohol consumption was relevant to the issue of causation in this case and was, therefore, properly admitted. Also, the lower court's jury instructions "fully and accurately stated the law," and the court did not abuse its discretion in its decision not to instruct the jury on nearly a dozen non-standard charges when this case included only a single claim for negligence. Affirmed.
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court, Judge: Pellegrini, Filed On: September 18, 2023, Case #: J-A19043-23, Categories: jury, Vehicle, negligence
Per curiam, the Vermont Supreme Court finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the company as to a homeowner's claim for monetary damages. The jury found that the homeowner failed to prove that she suffered any monetary damages proximately caused by the company's negligence. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury's reasonable conclusion that the homeowner had already been made whole by the company's remediation, which included months of clean-up work at its own expense and writing off the homeowner's existing account balance. Affirmed.
Court: Vermont Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: September 15, 2023, Case #: 23-AP-75, Categories: jury, Property, negligence
J. Orfinger finds that the trial court erred by not giving requested jury instructions in a personal injury action arising from a collision between a truck and a bicycle. The evidence supported giving the instructions regarding the accused truck driver's alleged violations of the traffic laws. The case is remanded for a new trial. Reversed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Orfinger, Filed On: August 4, 2023, Case #: 6D23-85, Categories: jury, Vehicle, negligence
J. Boyd finds the court of appeals properly ruled against the surviving family of a woman who was killed after being struck by a train. The family sued the railroad company, asserting that a raised hump on the tracks and a poorly maintained yield sign showed its negligence and liability. Because both theories were presented to the jury as one to question the negligence of the company, a harmful error was created. The jury was unable to distinguish which one they believe made the company liable. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Supreme Court, Judge: Boyd, Filed On: June 30, 2023, Case #: 21-0769, Categories: jury, negligence, Premises Liability
J. Delaney finds the trial court properly denied the parents' request for a jury instruction on the standard of care owed to a guest or invitee in a negligence action. The injuries sustained by the girl during a ziplining accident were the result of a recreation activity that required application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Delaney, Filed On: June 26, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-2132, Categories: jury, negligence
J. Young grants a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by a car dealership, finding a trial court’s order for a new trial an abuse of its discretion. After the trial court rendered its judgment in a negligence suit filed by the daughter of an employee of the dealership who was injured after another employee hit her with his car, the daughter asked for a new trial, asserting that instructions to the jury were violated, leading to a less favorable outcome for her. None of the reasons the daughter outlined in her motion for a new trial warranted the trial court’s decision to grant one.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Young, Filed On: June 16, 2023, Case #: 21-0135, Categories: jury, Tort, negligence
J. Miller finds that the trial court properly awarded the customer $474,000 in compensatory and punitive damages in a negligence action against the Hardee's restaurant owner arising after the customer suffered a severe allergic reaction from eating mushrooms. The trial court's jury charges covered the same legal principles underlying the charge requested by the owner. The trial court correctly denied the owner's motion for a directed verdict on punitive damages because there was evidence the customer told the restaurant staff about his allergy at least four times, that the owner did not train employees on allergen and cross-contamination procedures and that the staff reassured the customer that his food would not contain mushrooms. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Miller, Filed On: June 9, 2023, Case #: A23A0020, Categories: jury, Damages, negligence