35 results for 'cat:"Tort" AND cat:"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. 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
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. Hicks denies Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment in this personal injury suit. The laborer was placed on light duty after being injured, though he was asked at one point to remove a tire from a backhoe and take it for repairs. Though Union Pacific says it could not have foreseen that the laborer would execute the work without help, the laborer was never trained on backhoe tire removal. This creates the genuine issue of fact that Union Pacific could have reasonably foreseen a potential injury.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Hicks , Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 3:21cv57, NOS: Federal Employers’ Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: tort, premises Liability, Labor
J. Manglona dismisses a case and finds the U.S. is not liable, for an incident where a man tripped and was injured while in a national park, due to the discretionary function exception. The exception holds decisions about the maintenance and operation of the park are subject to discretionary decisions by the park’s supervisors, rather than the government.
Court: USDC Northern Mariana Islands, Judge: Manglona, Filed On: February 26, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv37, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: tort, Jurisdiction, premises Liability
J. Boyd finds that the court of appeals improperly ruled in favor of the heirs of a driver who was killed when he failed to yield to an oncoming Union Pacific train. A “prudent driver” would have followed posted traffic signs as well as yielded to an oncoming train. Reversed.
Court: Texas Supreme Court, Judge: Boyd, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 22-0431, Categories: Evidence, tort, premises Liability
J. Hodge finds the superior court erred in awarding summary judgment to the holding company in a lawsuit from a citizen who slipped and fell on the vehicle ramp at a property the holding company leased but had sub-leased to the owner of the construction company occupying the property when the citizen fell. The superior court incorrectly concluded the holding company had no legal duty to the citizen, as it is unclear in the record whether they legally "possessed" the property such that they could have entered it and performed maintenance, making it unclear whether they could be on the hook for premises liability. The superior court's order is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Reversed.
Court: Virgin Islands Supreme Court, Judge: Hodge, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: 2024 VI 8, Categories: tort, premises Liability
J. Lipman grants the parking lot owner's motion for summary judgment in this premises liability lawsuit stemming from an alleged trip and fall on an adjacent sidewalk. The record shows that the parking lot owner did not own the public sidewalk and did not make any repairs or modifications to the sidewalk. Under Tennessee law "municipalities are the proper defendants in factual scenarios" like the one alleged here. Also, a city sidewalk ordinance does not create a duty owed to the litigant.
Court: USDC Western District of Tennessee , Judge: Lipman, Filed On: January 11, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv2113, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: tort, premises Liability
J. Alley finds a lower court erred in not dismissing a case on grounds of governmental immunity after the city of Fredericksburg was sued by a pedestrian who was injured by a falling tree branch. The city would only be liable if it had “actual knowledge of the dangerous condition” of the tree, which it did not in this case because the tree appeared healthy, was regularly maintained and had not been subject of any complaints. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Alley, Filed On: January 9, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00236-CV, Categories: Government, tort, premises Liability
J. Soto dismisses, for lack of jurisdiction, an appeal in a premises liability suit. A woman obtained a no-answer default judgment against a bar after she injured herself there, and while the bar is now attempting to appeal, there is not a final appealable judgment and “no constitutional or statutory grant of jurisdiction permits us to review it.”
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: December 11, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00110-CV, Categories: tort, Damages, premises Liability
J. Whitney partially grants a farming corporation’s motion in limine, particularly as it relates to the corporation’s lack of an OSHA investigation into a former maintenance worker’s loss of a leg while cleaning the inside of a grain bin. Although the corporation failed to initiate an OSHA investigation after the injury, and also instructed the worker’s wife not to contact OSHA, these specific actions cannot be said to have explicitly caused or contributed to the injury since they happened afterward. Related testimony may, therefore, be excluded.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Whitney, Filed On: November 28, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv413, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: tort, premises Liability, Labor
J. Pellegrini finds that the lower court properly entered judgment against Domino’s after a jury found it vicariously liable for the negligence of a pizza delivery driver for one of its franchises, who collided with a motorcyclist while completing deliveries. The franchise agreement did not give Domino’s day-to-day control over the franchisee, so it is not liable under vicarious liability. Reversed.
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court, Judge: Pellegrini, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: J-A26040-22, Categories: tort, premises Liability, Contract
J. Walker finds that the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review properly denied a medical supplies deliverer’s application for workers’ compensation after he sprained his knee while descending a short set of stairs during a delivery. He was injured while working, but could not show that his work caused the injury, notably because he did not slip, trip or fall, and had not been carrying supplies when the injury happened; he had already dropped off the delivery. Affirmed.
Court: West Virginia Supreme Court Of Appeals, Judge: Walker, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: 21-754, Categories: tort, premises Liability, Workers' Compensation
J. Clark finds that the lower court properly dismissed claims brought after plaintiff stumbled on a hole in the parking lot of a state-owned interstate rest stop because plaintiff failed to demonstrate the state had notice of and failed to fix the condition. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Clark, Filed On: November 2, 2023, Case #: 535719, Categories: tort, premises Liability
J. Motoike grants the parking garage owner’s request for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its denial of the owner’s motion for summary judgment. The underlying negligence suit was brought by a woman who was severely injured by a fall of several stories after drunkenly losing her balance while sitting on the garage’s perimeter wall. She says that the owner assumed a duty to her by hiring a security company charged with stopping drunken horseplay, but the retention of security services did not increase any risk and the injured party did not rely on that undertaking to her detriment. The owner did not owe a duty to the injured party.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Motoike, Filed On: October 24, 2023, Case #: G061791, Categories: tort, premises Liability
J. Fischer finds the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to the property owners in this suit brought by parties injured in a dog attack occurring on their property. Though the property owners are not owners of the dog for purposes of certain state and federal laws, disputed issues of fact concerning whether the owners breached their duty preclude summary judgment as to common law theory of liability. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part and remanded.
Court: Oklahoma Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Fischer, Filed On: October 19, 2023, Case #: 117997, Categories: tort, Negligence, premises Liability
J. Fuller finds the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to the hospital in the victim's lawsuit seeking to hold the hospital liable for her rape by three men while she was on a ventilator in the hospital's intensive care unit. The district court incorrectly ruled the victim's rape was not reasonably foreseeable as a matter of law, as whether or not it was foreseeable needs to be handled by a fact-finder and a jury could conclude that five prior incidents of reported sexual misconduct against hospital patients, which the district court dismissed as "not substantially similar" to the victim's case, could create a reason for the hospital to anticipate such a rape could happen and thus make it liable. Reversed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Fuller, Filed On: October 2, 2023, Case #: A23A1051, Categories: tort, premises Liability
J. Kinkeade grants, in part, an individual's motion for sanctions related to the deletion of a security video in a retail store where she says she slipped and fell. She has presented sufficient evidence the store spoliated the video and the jury may consider whether it deleted the video in bad faith.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Kinkeade, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv3180, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Sanctions, tort, premises Liability
J. Dennis finds the district court improperly entered summary judgment in favor of Walmart in this slip-and-fall suit. Though the district court found that the customer did not show evidence that Walmart had constructive notice of the puddle she slipped in, she has presented evidence that an employee was actually notified of it by another customer. This creates a genuine issue of material fact. Reversed and remanded.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Dennis, Filed On: August 16, 2023, Case #: 22-30309, Categories: Evidence, tort, premises Liability
J. Navarro grants Lowes’ motion for summary judgment in this personal injury suit brought by the disabled veteran onto whom several wooden panels fell as he moved them to inspect their condition. An employee who left the veteran to inspect the panels himself told him that he would return after helping another customer. The veteran’s injuries were not caused by the action of any Lowe’s employee, and he fails to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Navarro, Filed On: August 15, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv773, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: tort, Negligence, premises Liability
Per curiam, the Fifth Circuit finds the district court improperly granted summary judgment to the grocery store in this premises liability suit. The court refused to let the injured party conduct discovery after the grocery store failed to retrieve or view video footage of the alleged slip-and-fall in a puddle of water near a freezer. The Fifth Circuit emphasizes that denying discovery is a pattern with this particular district court and vacates and remands the case.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: August 7, 2023, Case #: 22-20489, Categories: tort, Discovery, premises Liability
[Consolidated.] J. Clement finds the Court of Appeals improperly affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the oil company in this premises liability suit brought by the customer who slipped and injured herself on the gas station’s snow-covered parking lot. Though the station owed the injured party a duty of care, genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether they breached that duty and, if so, whether there was comparative fault such that the damages must be reduced. Existing case law cited by the oil company regarding comparative fault is overruled. A determination of comparative fault may require consideration of the open and obvious nature of the hazard and the party’s choice to confront it. Reversed and remanded.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court, Judge: Clement, Filed On: July 28, 2023, Case #: 162907, Categories: tort, premises Liability
Per curiam, the Fifth Circuit finds the district court properly granted summary judgment to Walmart in this premises liability suit brought by a shopper who was struck by a falling box of notebooks. The shopper did not notify store management after the incident, but later complained of neck pains and was encouraged by her husband to seek medical attention and file suit. The shopper did not provide sufficient evidence to establish premises liability. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: July 20, 2023, Case #: 22-60269, Categories: Evidence, tort, premises Liability