111 results for 'cat:"Damages" AND cat:"Negligence"'.
J. McFadden finds that the trial court improperly awarded $130,000 in damages to the landowners in a negligence and trespass action against the county alleging that the county's streets and storm water system cause excessive amounts of storm water to collect and discharge through a pipe onto their property. The trial court incorrectly awarded the landowners attorney fees as well as damages for harm incurred after the landowners' presentation of their ante litem notice. The trial court also improperly found the county liable for damages under the landowners' theory of adverse possession because the landowners failed to show that the county obtained a prescriptive easement in the pipe. However, the trial court properly granted an injunction enjoining the county from maintaining a defective storm water drainage system that causes damage to the landowners' property. Reversed in part.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: McFadden, Filed On: October 23, 2023, Case #: A23A0774, Categories: damages, negligence, Attorney Fees
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. Land denies the companies' motions for judgment as a matter of law in a trespass and negligence action brought by the couple except with regard to the compensatory and punitive damages awards, which are remitted to various degrees. The couple alleged that the companies polluted their property and fishing lake while building a solar panel energy facility. The jury awarded the couple $10.5 million in compensatory damages and $125 million in punitive damages. The compensatory damages award to the couple's farm is remitted to $296,000 and the compensatory damages awards to the husband and wife are remitted to $487,000 each. The evidence at trial did not support the award to repair the couple's property. The award of damages for the couple's temporary loss of use of their property exceeds the fair market value of the property and is excessive. The punitive damages award against the energy company is remitted to $1.1 million and the punitive damages award against the construction companies is remitted to $1.5 million.
Court: USDC Middle District of Georgia, Judge: Land, Filed On: October 23, 2023, Case #: 4:21cv134, NOS: Torts to Land - Real Property, Categories: damages, negligence
J. Bryan affirms the trial court’s ruling that an insurance company has to provide coverage to a couple hit by an uninsured driver on wantonness and negligence claims for speeding through an intersection. The insurer waived its challenge to the subsequent-negligence jury instruction, and the evidence supports the claim of wantonness by the accused driver. Affirmed.
Court: Alabama Supreme Court, Judge: Bryan, Filed On: October 20, 2023, Case #: SC-2022-0901, Categories: Insurance, damages, negligence
[Consolidated.] J. Dillard finds that the trial court properly ruled partially in favor of the driver in a negligence action brought by the individual arising from a car collision. There is no evidence that the driver had a history of causing accidents while driving and using a phone, therefore there is no showing of a pattern of dangerous driving and the individual was not entitled to an award of punitive damages. The trial court correctly refused to find in favor of the driver on the issue of whether an award against the individual is permissible under the statute for bad faith. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Dillard, Filed On: October 19, 2023, Case #: A23A0730, Categories: damages, negligence
J. Hodges finds that the trial court properly entered a default judgment awarding the individuals damages in a negligence and emotional distress action arising after they were forced to hide in their vehicle during a hail of gunfire at an apartment complex owned by the company. The allegations in the individuals' complaint sufficiently showed that violent crimes had occurred on the property before and that the company should have foreseen that the incident at issue in the action could have occurred. The complaint also set forth sufficient allegations to support a claim for emotional distress damages under the pecuniary loss exception to the impact rule. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Hodges, Filed On: October 19, 2023, Case #: A23A1079, Categories: damages, negligence, Emotional Distress
J. Contreras finds that the lower court properly awarded damages for future physical impairment in this suit arising from a motor vehicle accident. The evidence sufficiently supports the award of $60,000. While some evidence might have been ambiguous, the jury could believe "the testimony of witnesses at trial and determine their credibility." Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Contreras, Filed On: October 19, 2023, Case #: 13-22-00534-CV, Categories: Tort, damages, negligence
J. Ditkoff reverses a judgment dismissing a bus driver’s complaint against his employer and a man who fell unconscious behind the wheel and rear-ended his bus. A medical expert testified that the man and his employer should have been aware of his excessive sleepiness and the danger it posed for him to operate a vehicle based on his untreated sleep apnea even if they weren’t aware of his sleep apnea because it is not an acute condition. While the man claimed he had no memory of lethargy leading up to the accident, he also claimed he had no memory at all of the weeks leading up to the accident, so it’s possible he had experienced excessive sleepiness while driving in that time.
Court: Massachusetts Court Of Appeals, Judge: Ditkoff, Filed On: October 18, 2023, Case #: 21-P-740, Categories: Vehicle, damages, negligence
J. Armstrong finds the lower court properly awarded a homeowner damages in this case concerning defective flooring. Though both parties agree repairs are in order, the builder disagrees with the estimated costs and associated award. The instant court finds that the lower court properly weighed expert testimony from both sides and determined the awarded amount. Affirmed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals, Judge: Armstrong, Filed On: October 16, 2023, Case #: M2022-01531-COA-R3-CV, Categories: Construction, damages, negligence
J. Rivas-Molloy finds the lower court improperly found in favor of a driver in this matter concerning negligence. A driver hit a cow that was roaming in the highway, and sued the owner of the land upon which the cow was kept. While the lower court found the property owner liable, the instant court finds evidence is insufficient to show that the property owner was responsible as the driver did not show that the property owner owned or controlled the cow, nor did it show that the property owner was responsible for maintaining the property. The driver is to take nothing on his claims against the property owner. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Rivas-Molloy, Filed On: October 10, 2023, Case #: 01-20-00610-CV, Categories: Evidence, damages, 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. Tunheim rules in favor of the mother and son in the amount of $107,000 in an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the government arising after they were injured in a collision with a postal service truck. The mother and son showed that the truck driver failed to exercise ordinary care and that his breach of the duty of care proximately caused the wreck. However, a third party driver is 65% at fault for the collision due to his failure to secure a ladder to a van. The postal truck driver is 35% at fault and the government is therefore only liable for 35% of the total damages award for the mother's and son's medical expenses, property damages and other damages.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tunheim, Filed On: September 26, 2023, Case #: 0:21cv1747, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: damages, negligence
J. Fallon denies summary judgment to a river transportation company on its argument that Hurricane Ida was an Act of God and, therefore, it should not be found liable for negligently monitoring and securing its fleet of barges because no amount of precaution would have prevented a series of damaging, storm-related “breakaways.” Deciding the Act of God defense’s applicability raises questions surrounding the conditions decision makers faced, which conditions were known by whom and when, whether decision makers acted reasonably given these circumstances, and more. In short, there are too many questions of material fact to warrant summary judgment.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Fallon, Filed On: September 20, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv504, NOS: Other Personal Property Damage - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Maritime, damages, negligence
J. Reidinger grants a petroleum carrier company's motion for partial summary judgment following allegations of gross negligence brought by a driver after the company's truck caused a crash. The driver, whose car was hit by another car that was in turn hit by the truck, sustained severe injuries and incurred $230,000 in medical costs. However, even though the truck driver was distracted by a cell phone call in a construction zone, he was not speeding and made his best efforts to stop as soon as possible. Therefore, the car driver cannot proceed on his claims.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Reidinger, Filed On: September 18, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv158, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Vehicle, damages, negligence
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
J. Males finds a lower court properly dismissed a maritime shipping company's motion to limit its liabilities concerning a crash that damaged a series of tank containers. The maritime shipping company argued that it is entitled to limit its liability for damages that occurred to the cargo ship's vessel following an explosion. However, the cargo ship operator presented sufficient evidence in court that the maritime shipping company is on the hook for damages to the vessel as well as the cargo, which was contaminated and destroyed during the incident. Affirmed.
Court: Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, Judge: Males, Filed On: September 1, 2023, Case #: CA-2022-2293, Categories: Maritime, damages, negligence
J. Spain finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the passport services business on the individual's claims over its alleged delay in processing documents relating to the requested renunciation of his Indian passport. The individual failed to show the business violated the terms of the contract or prove any "recoverable damages" on the negligence claims. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Spain, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: 14-22-00294-CV, Categories: damages, negligence, Contract
J. O'Hearn grants the emergency room operator's motion to dismiss claims against it and partially grants its motion to limit damages in a suit stemming from a patient's death in an encounter with police shortly after his discharge from involuntary commitment. The sole signatory of the patient's discharge summary was not employed directly by the emergency room operator, and nothing in the record indicates that other medical providers participated in the decision to release him. Damages are limited to the extent that the patient's decedents' claims fall within the scope of simple negligence, but not gross negligence.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: O'Hearn, Filed On: August 28, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv641, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: damages, negligence, Medical Malpractice
J. Rickman finds that the trial court improperly considered issues related to liability at a bench trial on damages after the homeowner's motion for default judgment was granted in a negligence and breach of contract action against the contractor. The trial court incorrectly considered the quality of the construction work before awarding the homeowner damages. Reversed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Rickman, Filed On: August 25, 2023, Case #: A23A0734, Categories: damages, negligence, Contract