8 results for 'cat:"Damages" AND cat:"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
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. Neyman affirms an award for damages of a woman who was bit by a dog, as well as the denial of her motion for partial summary judgment and denial of a directed verdict against the dog owner. The bitten woman filed the motion for partial summary judgment three years after the expiration of the tracking order deadline and she filed for the directed verdict before the dog owner had the opportunity to present her own case.
Court: Massachusetts Court Of Appeals, Judge: Neyman, Filed On: January 24, 2024, Case #: 22-P-954, Categories: damages, 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
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. Palafox finds a lower court ruled correctly in denying Whataburger’s efforts to dismiss, on Texas Citizens Protection Act grounds, a lawsuit brought by a customer who said was rear-ended in a Whataburger drive-thru, leading to a physical altercation. The customer said Whataburger had failed to handle the situation properly in a number of ways, including by allegedly failing to adequately train employees or maintain security. Whataburger argued it was immune in the suit under the Act, which protects the right of free association and speech in Texas, but the consumer asserts negligence and liability claims that are not covered under the TCPA. Affirmed.l
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Palafox, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00017-CV, Categories: damages, Negligence, premises Liability