2,030 results for 'cat:"Negligence"'.
Per curiam, the circuit finds the district court properly denied the parents' motion to amend or correct the dismissal of their claims against a school district after their son, who suffers from cerebral palsy, was allegedly injured by a district employee who helped him use the bathroom on a school trip. The education and disability claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parents fail to show the court made a cognizable “mistake” of law under the cited rule of civil procedure. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: April 29, 2024, Case #: 23-40474, Categories: Civil Rights, Education, negligence
J. Reiss denies a third-party investment company’s motion to reconsider the court’s order denying its motion to stay discovery in this negligence and contract dispute between Vermont’s financial regulation agency and an accounting firm. The investment company’s former managing member’s motion for reconsideration is granted, however, in seeking stay, the investment company and managing member failed to submit a copy of the criminal indictment that contained false financial statements in an insurer’s liquidation. The managing member’s request for adverse inference immunity is denied as moot. The accounting firm requested a motion to compel, but only the investment company is compelled to comply with the discovery schedule. Its request for attorney fees and cost are denied at this stage but, the court warns the investment company that further non-compliance may result in sanctions.
Court: USDC Vermont, Judge: Reiss, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv273, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: negligence, Discovery, Contract
J. Brown finds that a school district, a principal and a teacher are not liable for the actions of an older student who touched younger female students inappropriately in the context of a student tutoring program. The district’s training of the teacher and principal is adequate and did not lead to the violations of the female students’ rights. The teacher and the principal are entitled to qualified immunity in that a reasonable person would not suspect that a mentoring program would lead to constitutional violations. Although the offending student violated the constitutional rights of the female students, he is not a state actor because mentorship is not considered a governmental function under Texas law, and the plaintiffs have not provided an authority that would support such a conclusion. The motions of the district, principal and teacher to dismiss are granted.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Brown, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv1243, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Civil Rights, Immunity, negligence
J. Reiss denies, in part, a police officer’s motion for summary judgment in this case where he was accused of excessive force and failure to intervene when a physical altercation between a resident and a sergeant happened while the resident was detained inside the police department. She filed claims of assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence and violations of her Fourth and 14th Amendment rights. There is a dispute of facts as to the officer’s failure to intervene involvement in the sergeant’s takedown, a reasonable jury could find that the alleged use of force was extreme, outrageous and intolerable. The claims regarding the officer’s failure to intervene as to the sergeant shoving and punching the woman are granted.
Court: USDC Vermont, Judge: Reiss, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv291, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: negligence, Police Misconduct
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. Douglas finds the district court properly ruled in favor of the pecan farm in this negligence suit. The suit arose from water damage caused by a "120-year flood" exacerbated by the strip miner's groundwater pit's breach, which released a deluge onto the farm's property. Based on evidence presented, including that showing prior breaches, the jury could reasonably conclude it was foreseeable that water would gather in the pit in such large quantities that when it overflows it could flood surrounding land. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Douglas , Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 23-50330, Categories: Agriculture, Water, negligence
J. Bulla finds the district court improperly dismissed the professional negligence action. The spinal surgery patient experienced pain, numbness and paralysis in his left leg after surgery, filing suit more than two years after an MRI showed the presence of a hematoma. Irrefutable evidence does not support the patient was placed on inquiry notice at this time. The patient's degree of diligence was diminished while under the surgeon's care, being continually reassured his condition would improve. Reversed.
Court: Nevada Court of Appeals, Judge: Bulla , Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 86005-COA, Categories: negligence, Medical Malpractice
J. Goodman finds the lower court properly denied an anesthesiologist's motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the expert report requirements of the Texas Medical Liability Act. A mother sued the anesthesiologist, alleging negligence after administering an epidural during the birth of her son, resulting in a permanent brain injury to the child. But the mother failed to serve an amended expert report by the 30-day deadline, so the anesthesiologist entered a motion to dismiss. The lower court denied the motion, and the anesthesiologist argues it should have been granted because the lower court errantly granted the mother an extension, implying a deficiency in the expert report. The instant court agrees the extension was erroneously granted, but alone does not indicate an issue with the report, and on review finds the causation opinion in the original report to be adequate, and the expert qualified. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Goodman, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 01-23-00817-CV, Categories: negligence, Experts, Medical Malpractice
J. Ervin-Knott finds that the trial court should not have found for a hotel on a guest's negligence action after he was injured in a robbery in the hotel parking area. Although the hotel presented evidence to show that there was no prior criminal activity in the parking area, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the foreseeability of criminal activity. In this case, the location, nature, and condition of the hotel were not taken into account. This court has repeatedly found that a lack of prior criminal acts at a certain place does not automatically render a crime unforeseeable. Further, the guest testified to New Orleans' high crime rate at the time of the incident, and the lack of a manager or hotel workers in the lobby at the time of the robbery. Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Ervin-Knott, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 2023-CA-0731, Categories: Evidence, negligence
J. Higginson finds the district court properly found the owner of the unpowered drillship to be liable for the ship's moorage breakaway during Hurrican Harvey. Maritime negligence law, rather than a "towage law," was appropriately applied in the court's holding the force majeure contract defense was not available to the ship owner in relation to the tugboat owner hired to tend to the ship during the storm. The tugboat owner also had expressly refused to agree to the terms of the agreement for provision of services. Because the tugboat owner had supplied another vessel to monitor the ship after the breakaway, and that tug failed to stop the vessel’s allision with a University of Texas pier, the court correctly found both owners were equally liable for damages suffered by the school. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Higginson , Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 23-40209, Categories: Maritime, Damages, negligence
J. Molaison finds that the trial court properly found for a supply company on a worker's negligence claim that a shifting pipe fell on his foot during a
hydro pressure test at the pump station. The worker alleged that the supply company was responsible for ordering necessary “Star Pipe connections” but did not allege a product defect, only that the construction used incorrect parts. The supply company's undisputed role consisted of identifying parts for the project at issue from the project designer and did not supervise or install the pipe. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Molaison, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 23-CA-424, Categories: Construction, negligence, Contract
J. Coogler denies the defendant’s motion to dismiss in this lawsuit arising from a fatal shooting outside a club known as “The Strip” in downtown Tuscaloosa, Alabama; the suing estate alleges the defendant negligently and wantonly caused the decedent’s death by bringing the gun to an argument between the decedent and defendant’s friend, who shot the man dead. The defendant argues he cannot be held legally liable for causing a shooting committed by another person, but the court finds he did in fact have a duty of care, and the allegations leave enough room for reasonable difference of opinion for a jury to see the foreseeability of the injury.
Court: USDC Northern District of Alabama , Judge: Coogler, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 7:23cv1424, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: negligence, Wrongful Death, Firearms
J. Gonzalez adopts a magistrate judge’s findings and dismisses a field technician’s wrongful termination suit against Charter Communications, an Internet service provider. His retaliation and negligence claims are both time-barred, and he fails to provide any substantive evidence to rebut his employer’s defense that he was an at-will employee.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Gonzalez, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv7383, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Employment, negligence, Employment Retaliation
J. Robinson finds that the trial court should not have granted a partial finding for the plaintiff driver on the issue of causation of injury. The evidence presented did not show that the plaintiff driver was in good health prior to the accident and was insufficient to show that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the accident caused the injury. Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Robinson, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 55,211-CA, Categories: Evidence, negligence
J. Huffaker grants, in part, the medical device maker’s motion to dismiss a product liability suit filed by a patient who claims that her Smart Port, implanted for the purpose of infusion therapy was defective. She alleges claims under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine as well as claims for negligence, breach of warranty and wantonness concerning the device’s catheter, which fractured near her heart. The patient’s claims have an articulated reasonable set of facts that could make the medical device maker’s liable for failure to warn. Therefore, the AEMLD, negligence and wantonness claims may proceed, and the patient concedes her warranty claim.
Court: USDC Middle District of Alabama, Judge: Huffaker, Filed On: April 23, 2024, Case #: 2:24cv112, NOS: Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Tort, negligence, Product Liability
J. Rodriguez partially grants a subcontractor’s motion to dismiss after it was sued by a company that had contracted it for IT work, which said that the subcontractor did not have “the specialized knowledge to develop the IT system” as it claimed and had other irregularities in its work, including double billing and improper installation. While the hiring company can proceed with its lawsuit, it cannot bring claims under the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, as even under the suing company's version of events, the subcontractor “had at least some authorization to access the IT system at issue.”
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Rodriguez, Filed On: April 23, 2024, Case #: 5:23cv1038, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: negligence, Contract, Technology
J. Hendrickson finds the lower court properly granted the pesticide application company's motion for summary judgment on the vineyard's negligence claim. The weather conditions at the time of the pesticide application on a neighboring farm exceed the scope of a juror's knowledge and required expert testimony on the part of the vineyard. However, because the vineyard presented expert testimony that conflicted with the pesticide company's testimony about breaches of application labels, a genuine issue of fact prevented judgment on its negligence per se claim, which will be reinstated upon remand. Affirmed in part.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Hendrickson, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-15323, Categories: Property, negligence, Experts