Constitutional Problems With the Kentucky Proposal (Supported by Mitch McConnell) to Change the Way U.S. Senate Vacancies Are Filled

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

In this second of a series of columns, Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on the Kentucky proposal to change the way U.S. Senate vacancies are filled. Dean Amar argues that the Seventeenth Amendment precludes such a proposal, which would allow the state legislature to substantively constrain the governor’s choices in making a temporary appointment.

Read More

Kirk v. Clark Equipment Co.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 20-2983

Opinion Date: March 25, 2021

Judge: Joel Martin Flaum

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Personal Injury, Products Liability

Sterling purchased the Loader new in 2008 from a dealership; it was equipped with a 62-inch bucket and components that increased the Loader’s rated operating capacity (ROC—maximum load) to 1,420 lbs. Kirk regularly used the Loader to scoop up material and move it up a concrete ramp with an approximate 30-degree incline. Kirk claims that on May 12, 2015, while going up the ramp, the Loader began to wobble and tip forward as he raised its lift arms. In an effort to stabilize himself, Kirk braced his foot on the console. His foot slipped out of the cab and he brought the lift-arm down on it. Kirk suffered a permanent leg disability, loss of his job, and medical expenses totaling $433,000. In a strict liability claim against the Loader’s manufacturer, Clark, Kirk’s only expert witness, Pacheco, opined that the Loader was “unreasonably dangerous for its intended and foreseeable use” and that its “design providing for the use of the [62-inch] bucket … made it highly likely" that the bucket would be loaded in excess of"the ROC. The district court granted Clark summary judgment, concluding that Pacheco’s opinions did not meet the Rule 702 and “Daubert” standards. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. A court’s determination that an expert possesses the requisite qualifications does not, alone, provide a sufficient basis for admissibility. The court acted within its discretion in finding Pacheco's evidence in support of his opinion unreliable. Pacheco's causation opinion rested on speculation that the weight of the load exceeded the ROC but Pacheco did not know the weight of the load at the time of the accident.

Lafferty v. Jones

Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Docket: SC20327

Opinion Date: March 23, 2021

Judge: Richard A. Robinson

Areas of Law: Personal Injury

In this public interest appeal the Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court sanctioning Defendants after finding that Defendants had violated numerous discovery orders and engaged in harassing and intimidating behavior directed at Plaintiffs' counsel, holding that the trial court did not err. Plaintiffs, a first responder and family members of those killed in the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, brought these actions against Alex Jones and his affiliate corporate entities claiming that statements made on Jones' radio show were tortious. At issue were orders of the trial court sanctioning Defendants by revoking their opportunity to pursue the special motions to dismiss provided by the anti-SLAPP statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-196a. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Defendants for discovery violations and for Jones' conduct; and (2) Defendants were afforded adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond before the trial court imposed sanctions.

Gomersall v. St. Luke's Regional Medical Center

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Civil

Docket: 47664

Opinion Date: March 19, 2021

Judge: Brody

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Personal Injury

Greg and Cyndi Gomersall filed suit on behalf of their minor child, W.G.G., claiming he received negligent medical treatment at St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center (SLRMC) in Boise when he was injured in December 2010. W.G.G. was 6 years old at the time of the incident. The Gomersalls filed suit against SLRMC on January 25, 2019, more than eight years after W.G.G. was alleged to have been injured. SLRMC moved for summary judgment on the basis that the Gomersalls’ medical malpractice action was time-barred under Idaho Code sections 5-219(4) and 5-230. The district court granted SLRMC’s motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Gomersalls contended on appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court that the district court erred because Idaho Code section 5-230 was unconstitutional. Specifically, they argued that section 5-230 violated W.G.G.’s due process and equal protection rights by failing to toll the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims until the age of majority. They also contended the district court erred when it held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not preclude SLRMC’s statute of limitations defense. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of SLRMC.

Carter v. Carter

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Docket: 18-0296

Opinion Date: March 19, 2021

Judge: Christensen

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court determining that Jason Carter was civilly liable for the death of his mother, Shirley Carter, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Jason was civilly accused by his father and brother of intentionally shooting his mother. After a jury determined that Jason was civilly liable the State charged Jason with first degree murder. As a result of discovery from that criminal proceeding, Jason was acquitted murder. Jason later filed a second petition to vacate the judgment based on newly discovered evidence. The district court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Jason’s motion for continuance, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, first petition to vacate the judgment, and motion for recusal; (2) properly denied Jason's motion to quash a subpoena to the Iowa Department of Criminal Investigations; and (3) lacked jurisdiction to hear this second petition to vacate the judgment because it was untimely.

Fulps v. City of Urbandale

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Docket: 19-0221

Opinion Date: March 19, 2021

Judge: Edward M. Mansfield

Areas of Law: Personal Injury

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court dismissing this lawsuit brought by an injured pedestrian against a city over a defective city sidewalk, holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the case for failure to state a claim based on the public duty doctrine. Plaintiffs sued the City of Urbandale claiming that the City had failed properly to maintain, repair, and warn about a dangerous and uneven sidewalk, causing her injuries. The district court granted the City's motion to dismiss, concluding that the public-duty doctrine barred Plaintiffs' claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the pleading was sufficient to avoid application of the public-duty doctrine for motion-to-dismiss purposes.

Lewis v. Howard L. Allen Investments, Inc.

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Docket: 19-1640

Opinion Date: March 19, 2021

Judge: McDermott

Areas of Law: Landlord - Tenant, Personal Injury, Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court granting summary judgment dismissing Kristina Lewis's negligence claims against Howard L. Allen Investments, Inc. (Allen Investments), holding that Allen Investments did not owe a duty to protect Lewis from the harm she suffered. Allen Investments sold a house under a contract of sale that required the buyers to make monthly payments for ten years. Five years into the payment period the buyers leased the house to Lewis and her fiancé. The house subsequently caught fire, causing Lewis to suffer serious injuries. Lewis brought this negligence action against the buyers and Allen Investments. The district court granted summary judgment for Allen Investments, concluding that the company, as a contract seller, owed no duty to Lewis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Allen Investments was not the landlord of the property under Iowa's Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, Iowa Code chapter 562A; and (2) Allen Investments owed no duty of care to Lewis to maintain the property.

Anderson v. Mountain Comprehensive Health Corp.

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2020-SC-0133-WC

Opinion Date: March 25, 2021

Judge: Michelle M. Keller

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

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board affirming the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissing Appellant's workers' compensation claim upon finding that Appellant failed to provide reasonable notice of her injury to her employer, holding that the ALJ applied the incorrect provision of Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.185(1). Appellant filed a workers' compensation claim alleging that she sustained cumulative trauma injuries to her neck, back, and hands while working as a nurse. Applying the notice provisions of section 342.185(1), the ALJ found that Appellant's delay of almost two years from the original manifestation date was untimely. The Board and court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the ALJ erred in applying section 342.185(1) to Plaintiff's claim because, as of July 14, 2018, the notice provisions of section 342.185(1) do not apply to cumulative trauma injuries; and (2) under section 341.285(3), which specifically addresses a claimant's notice requirements for cumulative trauma injuries, Appellant's claim was timely.

Barnes v. Honorable Julie Goodman

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2020-SC-0088-MR

Opinion Date: March 25, 2021

Judge: Nickell

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's request for a writ of prohibition and/or mandamus directing the circuit court to vacate the denial of her motion to stay discovery in a wrongful death/negligence action, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that denial of the stay would cause her great and irreparable harm, and therefore, a writ was unavailable to her. The wrongful death/negligence action named as defendants Petitioner, her former employer and others. Petitioner sought to stay discovery in the action until a parallel criminal case against her alone was completed. In this action seeking writ relief Petitioner sought to stay all civil discovery until her indictment was resolved so that she could freely exercise her constitutional right to remain silent. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to the requested writ.

Maysey v. Express Services, Inc.

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2020-SC-0132-WC

Opinion Date: March 25, 2021

Judge: Hughes

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board upholding the order of the administrative law judge (ALJ) denying Plaintiff a thirty percent enhancement of benefits from his employer, Defendant, as a result of workplace safety violations, holding that the safety-violation benefit enhancement did not apply. Plaintiff sustained a serious work-related injury while employed by Defendant, a temporary staffing company. At issue before the ALJ was whether Plaintiff was entitled to the thirty percent enhancement under Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.165(1) for Defendant's alleged workplace violations. The ALJ denied enhanced benefits. The Board and court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was not liable for section 342.165's enhancement of benefits because extending liability for the safety violations at the facility where Defendant sustained his injuries to Defendant pursuant to the "intentional failure" standard in section 342.165(1) was contrary to the current statute and caselaw.

Viwin Tech Windows & Doors, Inc. v. Ivey

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2019-SC-0370-WC

Opinion Date: March 25, 2021

Judge: Vanmeter

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

The Supreme Court remanded this case to the Workers' Compensation Board, holding that Mark Ivey's pre-employment lower back disc herniation and two surgeries required an impairment rating to be carved out of his permanent partial disability rating for which his employer, ViWin Tech, would be responsible. An ALJ assigned a whole-person impairment of twenty-eight percent and rejected a carve-out for a pre-existing injury. The Board and court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based on a plain reading of the relevant statutes and the AMA Guides, the ALJ erred in concluding that a carve-out was unwarranted.

Brown v. Chesson

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Docket: 2020-CC-00730

Opinion Date: March 24, 2021

Judge: Griffin

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury

In October 2012, plaintiff Donna Brown filed a complaint with the Louisiana Division of Administration against Dr. Ralph Chesson. Subsequently, she was notified of Dr. Chesson’s status as a qualified state health care provider and a medical review panel was convened. After the medical review panel rendered its opinion in favor of Dr. Chesson, Brown filed a petition for damages solely against Dr. Chesson in 2015. In the petition she alleged medical malpractice during a 2011 surgical procedure and requested service on Dr. Chesson at his office. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review in this case to determine whether it was sufficient to request service solely on a qualified state health care provider when that individual was the only named defendant in a medical malpractice suit. Specifically, whether plaintiff’s request for service and citation within ninety days from the commencement of this suit on only the defendant physician satisfied the statutory requirements for service on a state employee. The Supreme Court found that the service was sufficient and the court of appeal erred in sustaining the exceptions of insufficiency of citation and service of process.

Hartman v. St. Bernard Parish Fire Dept.

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Docket: 2020-C-00693

Opinion Date: March 24, 2021

Judge: John L. Weimer

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

The issue presented for the Louisiana Supreme Court's review centered on whether an employee who suffers from noise-induced hearing loss was entitled to indemnity benefits pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1221(4)(p), which conferred such benefits to employees who sustained “a permanent hearing loss solely due to a single traumatic accident.” James Hartman, Jr. was employed by the St. Bernard Parish Fire Department. During the course of his employment, Hartman was exposed to injurious levels of noise, which resulted in permanent hearing loss. Testing from 2006 to 2017 showed a gradual increase in hearing loss. The Fire Department opposed Hartman's claim for compensation, asserting, among other things, that his claim for work-related hearing loss was not covered by La. R.S. 23:1221(4)(p), which applied only where the permanent hearing loss was “solely due to a single traumatic accident.” Finding that cumulative hearing loss incurred as a result of repeated exposure to high noise levels on the job did not constitute “a permanent hearing loss solely due to a single traumatic accident” as required for the award of permanent partial disability benefits pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1221(4)(p), the Supreme Court affirmed the judgments below.

Higgins v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co.

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Docket: 2020-CC-01094

Opinion Date: March 24, 2021

Judge: Genovese

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari review in this case to determine whether the court of appeal properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”), where Farm Bureau argued that the “regular use” exclusion in its automobile insurance policy issued to plaintiff precluded uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage, because plaintiff was operating a vehicle owned by his employer at the time of the accident. The plaintiff in this matter, Charles Higgins, was injured in an automobile accident while operating a truck owned by his employer, AT&T. The other driver in the accident was underinsured, and AT&T did not carry UM coverage on the truck. Higgins subsequently filed the instant suit against his personal UM insurer, Farm Bureau. Because the Supreme Court found the policy’s “regular use” exclusion impermissibly derogated from the requirements of the Louisiana uninsured motorist statute (the “UM statute”), La. R.S. 22:1295, the Court found this exclusion inapplicable and reversed the decision of the court of appeal.

Reetz v. City of Saint Paul

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Docket: A19-1425

Opinion Date: March 17, 2021

Judge: McKeig

Areas of Law: Personal Injury

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that Officer Eric Reetz was not entitled to defense and indemnification from his employer, the City of Saint Paul, when Reetz was sued for allegedly failing to detect a knife at a homeless shelter while working off duty as a private security guard, holding that the court of appeals erred. The City concluded that it was not obligated to defend and indemnify Reetz under Minn. Stat. 466.07 under the circumstances of this case. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) as a matter of law, Reetz was not "acting in the performance of the duties of the position" of a police officer when he allegedly failed to detect a knife that was banned only by the shelter's policies; and (2) therefore, the City was not required to defend and indemnify Reetz.

Gonzalez v. Coastal Industrial Contractors, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi

Citation: 2019-CA-01435-SCT

Opinion Date: March 25, 2021

Judge: Josiah D. Coleman

Areas of Law: Personal Injury

Clayton Harmer, an employee of Coastal Industrial Contractors, failed to yield to a stop sign. The ensuing collision injured Leighann Gonzalez, who filed suit against Coastal Industrial Contractors and Harmer. Coastal admitted vicarious liability by stipulation and then moved to dismiss Harmer. The court dismissed Harmer pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 41. A bifurcated jury trial took place, and the jury awarded Gonzalez compensatory damages in the amount of $3.5 million. Before the punitive damages phase of the bifurcated trial, Gonzalez made an ore tenus motion for recusal and mistrial, which the judge denied. The court granted a directed verdict to Coastal on the issue of punitive damages. Gonzalez appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the trial court judgment.

Dannels v. BNSF

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Citation: 2021 MT 71

Opinion Date: March 23, 2021

Judge: Shea

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying BNSF Railway Company summary judgment and entering final judgment in favor of Robert Dannels, holding that the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) does not preempt an injured railroad employee's state law bad faith claims. Dannels was employed by BNSF when he suffered a disabling back and spine injury. Dannels sued BNSF under FELA to recover damages, and the jury returned a verdict in Dannels' favor. Dannels subsequently filed claims for bad faith and punitive damages against BNSF. The district court entered final judgment against BNSF. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly determined that the FELA does not preempt a railroad worker's right to seek redress for all bad faith conduct in the adjustment of a claim.

Wiggins v. Pianka

Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Docket: 19-268

Opinion Date: March 22, 2021

Judge: Prata

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court confirming an arbitration award in favor of Petitioner, holding that there was no error by the hearing justice in granting the motion to confirm and denying the motion to vacate the award. Respondent filed a negligence action against Petitioner after their automobiles collided. The parties submitted the matter to nonbinding arbitration, and the arbitrator concluded that Respondent failed to satisfy his burden of showing that Petitioner acted negligently. Respondent filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award, and Petitioner filed a separate petition to confirm the arbitration award. The hearing justice confirmed the award. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Respondent failed to overcome his burden of defeated the presumption of validity to which an arbitration award was entitled.

Shoemaker v. Funkhouser

Court: Supreme Court of Virginia

Docket: 191218

Opinion Date: March 25, 2021

Judge: McCullough

Areas of Law: Personal Injury

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court dismissing this wrongful death action, holding that the Recreational Land Use Act, Va. Code 29.1-509, did not provide Defendants with immunity under the circumstances of this case. Shawn Nicely was visiting his grandparents, Richard and Anna Funkhouser, when Gina Shoemaker was visiting her mother, Dorothy Nesselrodt, a neighbor of the Funkhousers. According to the complaint, the Funkhousers gave Nicely permission to shoot targets on their property in the direction of Nesselrodt's home. One of the bullets did penetrate the walls of Nesselrodt's house, striking and killing Shoemaker. The circuit court dismissed this case brought by the administrator and personal representative of Shoemaker, concluding that the Funkhousers did not owe Nesselrodt or her visitors a duty and that the immunity afforded to landowners under the Act foreclosed this suit. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) landowners have a limited duty in tort to prevent activity on their property that could harm other persons not on the property; and (2) the Act did not immunize the Funkhousers.

Wyoming State Hospital v. Romine

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Citation: 2021 WY 47

Opinion Date: March 25, 2021

Judge: Kautz

Areas of Law: Health Law, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed part the judgment of the district court denying summary judgment in favor of the Wyoming State Hospital on Plaintiffs' claims asserting various claims of negligence under the Wyoming governmental Claims Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-39-101 - 120, holding that section 1-30-110's waiver of governmental immunity is not limited to medical malpractice claims. In denying the Hospital's motion for summary judgment, the district court concluded (1) the Hospital had waived its immunity under section 1-39-110, and (2) genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) because it did not involve the purely legal issue of whether the Hospital was immune from suit under the Claims Act, the Hospital's appeal with respect to section 1-39-118 and proximate cause is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) the district court did not err in concluding that the Hospital had waived its immunity under section 1-39-110.