16 results for 'cat:"Negligence" AND cat:"Attorney Fees"'.
J. Martinez awards the shipyard $959,100 in attorney fees and costs after it was awarded $40,000 for its negligence counterclaim against the towing service. The parties' tow agreement clearly and separately provides that the prevailing party may obtain attorney fees. However, certain "write-off" fees are reduced from the shipyard's request for $1.4 million in fees, and a further 20% reduction is appropriate "due to the disproportionality between the fee request and damages awarded at trial."
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Martinez, Filed On: April 5, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv416, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: negligence, attorney Fees, Contract
J. Huber finds the district court improperly denied an award of attorney fees to the pontoon boat operator. The negligence suit was brought by a passenger who sustained injuries after falling from the boat. The passenger rejected two offers of judgment from the operator and the court entered a take-nothing judgment in favor of the operator, awarding him costs but not attorney fees. The court incorrectly determined the operator's offer of judgment made under a particular statute controlled and that he was not entitled to attorney fees from another offer made under a statute allowing for recovery of attorney fees. Vacated in part.
Court: Oklahoma Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Huber, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 120265, Categories: Settlements, negligence, attorney Fees
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court improperly denied the law firm's motion to dismiss the client's affirmative defenses, except for overbilling, and grants the client's cross-motion asserting that its guaranty only applies to fees and expenses incurred after the February 2017 engagement letter. The client's reading of the guaranty was reasonable given the text of the agreement as a whole. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: January 10, 2024, Case #: 00060, Categories: negligence, Legal Malpractice, attorney Fees
[Consolidated] J. Cadish finds the district court improperly dismissed these personal injury claims. The cab company offered the injured party the amount of $150,00, plus costs and fees, in order to obtain a stipulated dismissal. Though the company gave the injured party a check for the agreed-upon amount, it did not pay fees and costs. Reversed.
Court: Nevada Supreme Court, Judge: Cadish , Filed On: January 4, 2024, Case #: 84647, 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. Bright finds the trial court improperly found the jet ski owner had brought conversion and negligence claims against the repair shop in bad faith. The email purportedly from the owner of the shop to another individual gave at least some credence to the lawsuit; therefore, the repair shop was not entitled to attorney fees and the court's award will be vacated. Reversed.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bright, Filed On: October 27, 2023, Case #: AC45740, Categories: negligence, attorney Fees
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
J. Miller finds that the trial court properly denied the injured driver's motion for attorney fees and litigation expenses in a negligence action against the driver arising from a car collision. The injured driver served an offer of settlement in the first action which she voluntarily dismissed but did not serve an offer of settlement in the renewal action in which she prevailed. A valid offer of settlement must be served in a renewal action to authorize an award under the statute. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Miller, Filed On: October 12, 2023, Case #: A23A0687, Categories: negligence, attorney Fees
J. Erickson finds a lower court improperly ruled in favor of a female campus security officer who claimed deliberate indifference against a group of college board of trustees. The female campus security officer argued that the college board of trustees failed to timely investigate her allegations. However, the board of trustees presented sufficient evidence in court that it promptly initiated an investigation into the matter, which justifies an award of attorney's fees on its behalf. Reversed.
Court: 8th Circuit, Judge: Erickson, Filed On: August 15, 2023, Case #: 22-1814, Categories: Evidence, negligence, attorney Fees
[Consolidated.] J. Schutz finds the trial court erred in granting a utility immunity to a personal injury claim based on a provision of the tariff that lays out the prices, rules, regulations and policies the utility must follow. The tariff sounds in contract and cannot be used to let the utility avoid all common law liability. The High Voltage Safety Act's requirement that the utility be notified prior to work near high voltage lines applies to contractors, not their employees. So the Act does not bar the worker's claim but his employer's failure to provide notice to the utility triggered the Act's indemnification provision. The trial court can use its discretion regarding costs once all claims are resolved. Reversed in part.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Schutz, Filed On: July 13, 2023, Case #: 22CA0301, Categories: negligence, attorney Fees
J. Lum finds that the trial court properly dismissed a personal injury complaint as untimely since law does not extend the three-year statute of limitations to the next day the court is open if the limitations period expires on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday. But it was error to award defendant attorney fees since the trial court construed his motion to dismiss under the incorrect rule of civil procedure. Vacated in part.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Lum, Filed On: July 13, 2023, Case #: 22CA0463, Categories: Civil Procedure, negligence, attorney Fees
J. Doyle finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the injured driver in a negligence action against the driver arising from a car collision. Any error the trial court made in refusing to allow the driver to introduce evidence of a police report concerning a collision the injured driver experienced two years before the instant collision was harmless in light of other evidence in the case. However, the trial court incorrectly entered an attorney fee award under the statute because the injured driver served the offer to settle the case via e-mail rather than by certified mail or overnight delivery. Reversed in part.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Doyle, Filed On: June 29, 2023, Case #: A23A0331, Categories: negligence, attorney Fees
J. King grants the customer's motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of $12,100 for the warehouse's failure to comply with discovery regarding the customer's lawsuit alleging that the warehouse's employee accidentally “pin[ned] him against a wall” with a pallet jack and “crush[ed]...his lower extremities.” The customer requested specific information as to the manufacturer and model of the pallet jack involved in the accident, but the warehouse did not supply the information until 17 months later. The delay cost the customer significant time and money that he would not have otherwise incurred.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: King, Filed On: June 5, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv1536, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Sanctions, negligence, attorney Fees