Latest 10 Cases This Week: Boudreau v. Shaw's Supermarkets Inc. (1st Cir.), Luwisch v. American Marine Corp. (5th Cir.), Carroll v. Carnival Corp. ...

Bringing Home the Supply Chain

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, JONATHAN F. HARRIS

NYU law professors Samuel Estreicher and Jonathan F. Harris describe how the COVID-19 pandemic is forcing the United States to confront the problem of unchecked globalization. Estreicher and Harris argue that once the pandemic subsides, U.S. policymakers should, as a matter of national security, mandate that a minimum percentage of essential supplies be manufactured domestically.

Read More

Unconstitutional Chaos: Abortion in the Time of COVID-19

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN, MARY ZIEGLER

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler discuss the abortion bans implemented in several states in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Grossman and Ziegler explain why the bans are constitutional and comment on the connection between the legal challenges to those bans and the broader fight over abortion rights.

Read More

Boudreau v. Shaw's Supermarkets Inc.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Docket: 19-1754

Opinion Date: April 10, 2020

Judge: Sandra Lea Lynch

Areas of Law: Personal Injury

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Saco, Maine Shaw's Supermarket on Plaintiff's claim that Shaw's owed a duty to protect its patrons from foreseeable harm and that an attack on his wife in the store was foreseeable, holding that, under Maine law of premises liability, the harm must have been foreseeable, and the attack in this case was not foreseeable. Connor MacCalister attacked and killed Wendy Boudreau with a knife in the Saco Shaw's Supermarket. Jeffrey Boudreau, Wendy's husband and the executor of her estate, brought this action against Shaw's asserting wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering under Maine law. The district court entered summary judgment for Shaw's, concluding that Shaw's did not owe a duty under Maine wrongful death law to protect Wendy from the attack because it was not foreseeable. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Shaw's did not owe a duty to protect Wendy from MacCalister; (2) the district court did not err in how it viewed the facts; and (3) there was no error in the district court's evidentiary rulings challenged on appeal.

Luwisch v. American Marine Corp.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 19-30499

Opinion Date: April 15, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Admiralty & Maritime Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that American Marine was liable for most of plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff was working as a seaman for American Marine when he was injured on board a vessel owned by the employer. The court held that American Marine has failed to demonstrate that the district court’s finding of unseaworthiness was clear error; American Marine failed to establish that plaintiff's accident was mostly his own fault where the district court clearly evaluated the evidence and made no inconsistent findings about causation, finding plaintiff 20 percent at fault; American Marine failed to carry its burden of demonstrating clear error in the district court's choice between competing experts; the district court's finding of diminished earning capacity was not clearly erroneous; in regard to the district court's award of past medical expenses because of American Marine's negligence, plaintiff's failure to prove that he was obliged to reimburse his attorneys for his medical expenses is irrelevant; and the district court did not clearly err in crediting plaintiff's testimony about his current condition.

Carroll v. Carnival Corp.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Docket: 17-13602

Opinion Date: April 15, 2020

Judge: Jordan

Areas of Law: Personal Injury

After plaintiff tripped over the leg of a lounge chair while she was walking through a narrow pathway on a Carnival cruise ship, she filed suit alleging that Carnival negligently failed to maintain a safe walkway and failed to warn her of that dangerous condition. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Carnival, holding that the district court, in concluding that the condition was open and obvious and that Carnival lacked notice, failed to draw all factual inferences in favor of plaintiff. Furthermore, even if the allegedly dangerous condition were open and obvious, that would only defeat the failure to warn claim, and would not bar the claim for negligently failing to maintain a safe walkway. Therefore, the court held that plaintiff presented evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Carnival negligently maintained an unsafe walkway. In this case, a reasonable jury could find that at least some chairs were in the lay-flat position and out of order, and thus conclude that Carnival negligently maintained an unsafe walkway that fell below industry standards. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings.

Nettles v. Pettway d/b/a Pettway's Paint, Body & Wrecker Service

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

Docket: 1181015

Opinion Date: April 10, 2020

Judge: Sellers

Areas of Law: Personal Injury

Cedrick Nettles was struck by a wheel that detached from an automobile owned and operated by Antwon Aaron. Nettles sued Ryan Pettway, doing business as Pettway's Paint, Body and Wrecker Service ("Pettway"), alleging that Pettway had negligently and/or wantonly installed the wheel on the automobile and that Pettway's negligence and/or wantonness resulted in Nettles' injury. Aaron engaged Pettway to install "after market" wheel rims and tires on his automobile. The wheel rims and tires required the use of wheel adapters containing studs. Aaron purchased used adapters containing the studs from a discount tire store. He thereafter provided the wheel adapters, rims, and tires to Pettway for installation. Aaron explained that, approximately 10 to 12 hours after picking up the automobile from Pettway and driving it, the left rear tire of the automobile suddenly, unexpectedly, and without warning came off, injuring Nettles, who had been standing in a yard adjacent to the street on which Aaron was driving. The next day, Aaron returned the automobile to Pettway, who determined that three of the five studs on the left rear adapter were completely sheared off and that the other two were broken. The trial court entered summary judgment in Pettway's favor. The Alabama Supreme Court concluded Nettles failed to produce substantial evidence by inference or ordinary means to establish that Pettway negligently installed the wheel that caused Nettles's injuries. Accordingly, the summary judgment in favor of Pettway was affirmed.

White County Judge v. Menser

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 Ark. 140

Opinion Date: April 16, 2020

Judge: Kemp

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court reversed the vacated the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission affirming and adopting the findings of the administrative law judge (ALJ) awarding an additional-benefits claim to Bruce Menser, holding that Menser's additional-benefits claim was time barred by the statute of limitations. At the time Menser requested a hearing before the Commission, he was receiving workers' compensation benefits. The ALJ found that Menser sustained compensable brain and neuropathy injuries during the course and scope of his employment and that the statute of limitations did not bar Menser's claim for additional medical benefits because it had been tolled. The Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ's decision. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commission erred in determining that Menser's claim for additional medical benefits sufficiently tolled the statute of limitations, and to the extent that Arkansas case law does not comport with this holding, those cases are overruled.

Noel v. City of Rigby

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Civil

Docket: 45425

Opinion Date: April 16, 2020

Judge: Stegner

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury, Real Estate & Property Law

Nine-year-old girl Shaeley Noel was seriously injured while playing on playground equipment owned by the City of Rigby (City) and located in the City’s South Park. Shaeley and her parents (collectively the Noels) filed suit in district court alleging willful and wanton conduct by the City in the construction and/or maintenance of its playground equipment. The City claimed the park was closed for winter at the time Shaeley was injured. A jury rendered a verdict in favor of the City when it found that the City did not owe a duty to Shaeley. The Noels filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court granted. The City appealed the district court’s decision to grant a new trial, as well as the district court’s decisions to deny the City’s motion for a directed verdict and the City’s motion to exclude the Noels’ expert witness. The Noels cross-appealed, arguing the trial court erred by: (1) rejecting of evidence of Shaeley’s unadjusted medical bills; (2) preventing the Noels’ expert witness from testifying regarding the City’s purported willful and wanton conduct; (3) allowing a jury instruction regarding comparative negligence; and (4) admitting of evidence regarding the seasonal closure of the park. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court decisions with regard to: (1) the City’s motion for a directed verdict; (2) the Noels’ motion for a new trial; (3) the Noels’ expert testifying; (4) the jury instruction; and (5) admission of evidence of the park closure. Additionally, the Court reversed the district court with respect to: (1) the Noels introducing Shaeley’s unadjusted medical bills; and (2) preclusion of the Noels’ expert from testifying that the City engaged in willful and wanton conduct. As a result, the matter was remanded for a new trial.

Mississippi Department of Transportation v. Musgrove

Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi

Citation: 2018-IA-01139-SCT

Opinion Date: April 16, 2020

Judge: James W. Kitchens

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury

Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant declared a state of emergency on January 27, 2014, in anticipation of an imminent winter storm. In response to the governor’s declaration, Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) placed limestone material on roadways as a remedial measure. Four days after the state of emergency was declared, Kenneth Musgrove lost control of his car and crashed on Highway 37, where MDOT had placed the limestone material, severely injuring his wife and himself. The Musgroves filed a complaint against MDOT for damages from the car accident. MDOT filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it was participating in emergency-management services under the Mississippi Emergency Management Law (MEML) and therefore was immune from liability. The trial court denied MDOT’s motion for summary judgment, finding that there was a “genuine issue of material fact as to whether MDOT exercised due care in maintaining the road by placing gravel on the road and failing to warn drivers” of the gravel. MDOT timely filed its petition for interlocutory appeal, arguing that the MEML explicitly grants state agencies complete immunity from liability and that the trial court had erred by applying the standards set forth in the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) instead of applying the willful-misconduct standard set forth in the MEML. After review, the Mississippi Supreme Court found MDOT indeed had immunity under the MEML, and that the trial court erred by applying the MTCA’s immunity standards instead of applying the MEML’s standard.

Peak v. Cohee

Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi

Citation: 2019-IA-00045-SCT

Opinion Date: April 16, 2020

Judge: Maxwell

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury, Real Estate & Property Law

An insurance adjuster was injured while performing the specific task he was hired to do: identify and distinguish preexisting roof damage from storm damage. While the adjuster recovered workers’ compensation benefits, he also filed suit against the homeowner for failing to make the premises safe and for not warning him about the roof’s condition. The homeowner filed two summary judgment motions, arguing the "intimately connected" doctrine barred the adjuster’s suit as a matter of law. After review, the Mississippi Supreme Court found the trial court erred by denying summary judgment. "The homeowner exercised no control over the adjuster. And absent some exercise of control over a contractor, Mississippi law does not impose liability on property owners for injuries suffered by independent contractors arising from or intimately connected to the work they were contracted to perform." The Court therefore reversed the trial court's denial fo summary judgment and rendered judgment I the homeowner's favor.

Schoen v. Mid-Missouri Mental Health Center

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri

Docket: SC98168

Opinion Date: April 14, 2020

Judge: George W. Draper, III

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying Employee's workers' compensation benefits on the grounds that she failed to prove her work injury was the prevailing or primary factor causing any permanent disability and denying Employee's claim against the Second Injury Fund as moot, holding that the Commission did not err. Employee was exposed to cypermethrin, an insecticide, while working for Employer. When Employee was at the doctor's office for testing, another patient's dog got loose and tripped Employee. Employee fell and allegedly sustained permanent injuries to her knees, lower back, hip and neck. Employee filed a claim for workers' compensation asserting that, in addition to cypermethrin exposure, she sustained injuries from being tripped while walking out of the doctor's office. An ALJ awarded Employee benefits. The Commission reversed, concluding that Employee failed to meet her burden of proving her exposure to cypermethrin was the prevailing or primary factor in causing any alleged injury from being tripped accidentally. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Employee was not entitled to workers' compensation for any injury sustained from her accidental tripping; and (2) because Employee's accidental tripping did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, the Fund was not implicated.

Nieves v. Office of the Public Defender

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Docket: a-69-18

Opinion Date: April 15, 2020

Judge: Jaynee LaVecchia

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Legal Ethics, Personal Injury, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

This case arose from the representation of plaintiff Antonio Nieves by a state public defender, Peter Adolf, Esq. After his conviction, Nieves was granted post-conviction relief based on the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. DNA evidence later confirmed that Nieves was not the perpetrator, and the underlying indictment against him was dismissed. Nieves subsequently recovered damages from the State for the time he spent wrongfully imprisoned. He then filed the present legal malpractice action seeking damages against the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) and Adolf. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA) barred the damages sought because Nieves failed to vault N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d)’s verbal threshold. The motion court concluded that the TCA and its verbal threshold were inapplicable. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that “public defenders are public employees that come within the TCA’s immunities and defenses” and that Nieves’s claim fell squarely within the TCA. The Appellate Division also held that plaintiff’s claim for loss of liberty damages fell within the TCA’s limitation on recovery for pain and suffering in N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d), which Nieves failed to satisfy. The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded the TCA applied to Nieves’s legal malpractice action, and his claim for loss of liberty damages failed to vault the verbal threshold for a pain and suffering damages claim under the strictures of N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d). Defendants were entitled to summary judgment.