Case Summaries
Injury & Tort Law
Injury & Tort Law
[03/17]
Willbros RPI, Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co.
In an action against an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment that defendant was required to provide defense and indemnity, partial summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) conduct that clearly fell outside of the professional services exclusion provides an independent "but for" cause of the injury; and 2) indemnity issues must await resolution of the underlying suit. However, the order is reversed in part where defendant-insurers' "Other Insurance" provisions conflicted and liability for defense of the underlying suit should thus be apportioned on a pro rata basis.
[03/17]
Holmes v. Kimco Realty Corp.
In plaintiff's negligence suit against a retailer for injuries he sustained when he fell on ice/snow in the parking lot, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as the state of New Jersey would not impose a duty on an individual tenant for snow removal from the common areas of a multi-tenant parking lot when the landlord has retained and exercised that responsibility.
[03/17]
T.E. v. Grindle
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against an elementary principal and the school district's band teacher arising from molestation of several young girls by the band teacher, district court's denial of the principal's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is affirmed as the plaintiffs have put forth evidence which, if credited by the jury, is sufficient to create liability under the clearly established law.
[03/17]
In re Ephedra Prods. Litig.
In a personal injury action alleging injuries resulting from the ingestion of the drug ephedra, the Second Circuit certified the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: 1) Are the provisions of N.Y. C.P.L.R. section 214-c(4) providing for an extension of the statute of limitations in certain circumstances limited to actions for injuries caused by the latent effects of exposure to a substance? 2) Can an injury that occurs within 24 to 48 hours of exposure to a substance be considered "latent" for these purposes? 3) What standards should be applied to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists for resolution by a trier of fact as to whether "technical, scientific or medical knowledge and information sufficient to ascertain the cause of [the plaintiff's] injury" was "discovered, identified or determined" for N.Y. C.P.L.R. section 214-c(4) purposes?
[03/16]
McBride v. CSX Transp. Inc.
In plaintiff's action under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA) seeking compensation for injuries he sustained while performing switching operations for his employer, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) common law proximate causation is not required to establish liability under the FELA; and 2) district court did not commit instructional error refusing defendant's proffered instruction and giving the causation instruction to the jury instead as it correctly and completely informed the jury of the applicable law.
More...
|
