Personal Injury Litigation

May 10, 2017

Slip-and-Fall Accident in Fast Food Restaurant Results in Premises Liability Lawsuit

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Last month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a premises liability case brought by a man who claimed he slipped and fell in a fast food restaurant. The case presented the court with the opportunity to discuss how lower courts should handle summary judgment motions filed by the defendant when conflicting facts exists. Since summary judgment is only appropriate when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, when a court is presented with conflicting or contradictory theories, summary judgment is not appropriate, and the case should be presented to a jury for resolution of the contested facts.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff slipped and fell as he was exiting the restroom in the defendant fast food restaurant. According to the plaintiff, he fell after he exited the restroom but before he could reach the back of the line. Evidently, as he planted his left foot to make a right turn, his foot slipped out from underneath him. He claimed an oily substance on the floor caused his fall.

The restaurant presented the court with video evidence of the line, as well as the cash-register area. The video showed a man, who appeared to be the plaintiff, slipping but not falling. The restaurant claimed that this showed that the plaintiff was lying about falling and asked the court to strike his testimony. In the alternative, the restaurant argued that the hazard allegedly causing the plaintiff’s fall was “open and obvious” because the lobby area in the video had recently been mopped, and an employee placed a “wet floor” sign near the area to warn customers.

April 17, 2017

Court Rejects Tenants’ Premises Liability Case Against Landlord, Based on Landlord’s Lack of Knowledge of Dangerous Condition

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a premises liability lawsuit brought by a number of people who were injured when the rear deck of a home owned by the defendant and rented to several of the plaintiffs disconnected from the home and fell to the ground. Ultimately, the court concluded that the landlord may not be held liable for the plaintiffs’ injuries because there was insufficient evidence showing that the landlord knew the deck may have been in need of repair. As a result of the court’s decision, the plaintiffs’ case was dismissed.

The Facts of the Case

The landlord rented a home to several of the plaintiffs. Back when the landlord purchased the home in 1988, he hired an independent contractor to rebuild the home’s rear deck. In 2010, the landlord leased the home to several of the plaintiffs. At around the time when the plaintiffs took possession, the landlord visited the home, repaired a few boards on the rear deck, and inspected the deck for any visible defects. The landlord did not notice anything in need of structural repair.

A year after the plaintiffs moved in, they were hosting a barbecue when the rear deck pulled away from the home. The portion of the deck nearest to the home fell to the ground, injuring several of the people on the deck. A personal injury lawsuit was filed against the landlord, claiming that he was negligent in maintaining the deck.

April 4, 2017

Court Allows Dog Bite Case to Proceed to Trial for Determination of Whether Defendants Knew the Dog Was Aggressive

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a dog bite case requiring the court to determine if the lower court was proper to dismiss the case based on a lack of evidence of the defendant’s knowledge that the dog that bit the plaintiff was dangerous. Ultimately, the court determined that the lower court should not have dismissed the case because there was sufficient evidence to show that the dog’s owners may have had knowledge of the dog’s aggressive and dangerous nature.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were neighbors with the defendants and would routinely visit over at each other’s homes. About a week prior to the incident giving rise to this case, the defendants’ son moved back into their home, and they allowed him to bring his dog, Rocks. During Rocks’ first week with the defendants, he snapped at one of the defendants once while she was feeding him. Rocks also snapped once at the plaintiff’s husband while he was over visiting the defendants.

A few days later, the plaintiff came to visit the defendants. She entered through the backyard gate and saw the defendants’ son had Rocks on a leash. The plaintiff approached Rocks and extended her arm gently, and Rocks lunged at her. Rocks latched onto the plaintiff’s arm. The plaintiff attempted to run away, but Rocks then latched onto her leg. Eventually, the plaintiff was able to get away, but she sustained serious injuries as a result of the attack.

March 23, 2017

Plaintiff’s Case Permitted to Proceed Past Summary Judgment Based on Conflicting Evidence Created by Her Own Testimony

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a car accident case that was brought by a woman who was not in either car at the time of the accident, but was struck by one of the cars involved in the accident while she was standing on the corner. The court had to decide if the plaintiff’s case should proceed to trial against both drivers, or only against the driver who ran the red light, causing the accident. In the end, the court held that because conflicting evidence existed about whether both drivers may be at fault, the case should proceed to trial against both defendants.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff worked as a crossing guard for a local school. It was the Friday of the first week of school, and she was scheduled to end her shift in a few minutes when she glanced up the street and noticed a car speeding towards her. She noticed the car was crossing into the lane of opposing traffic passing other vehicles. As the car approached the intersection where the plaintiff was standing, it ran a red stoplight.

At the time the first car ran the red light, a pick-up truck entered the intersection with a green light. There was conflicting testimony as to whether the intersection was clear at the time the pick-up truck entered the intersection. The plaintiff said that it was not clear; however, the driver of the pick-up and several eyewitnesses claimed that it was clear. Regardless, once the pick-up entered the intersection, it was struck by the car that had run the red stoplight. The force from the collision sent the pick-up truck right into the plaintiff, who was thrown against a wall nearby. The plaintiff suffered serious injuries, and filed a personal injury lawsuit against both drivers.

February 8, 2017

Federal Appellate Court Upholds $11 Million Jury Verdict in Favor of Product Liability Plaintiff

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a written opinion affirming an $11 million jury verdict in a product liability case brought by a man who was injured while using a ladder manufactured by the defendant. The defendant’s appeal involved evidentiary challenges to the plaintiff’s two expert witnesses as well as a challenge to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claim.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a homeowner who was using a ladder manufactured by the defendant to replace some rusted screws in the gutter above his garage. As the plaintiff was making the repairs, the ladder buckled under his weight, sending him to the ground. The plaintiff struck his head on the ground and suffered bleeding in the frontal lobe of his brain as a result. The bleeding caused the plaintiff to suffer from seizures, dementia, and quadriplegia.

The plaintiff filed a product liability lawsuit against the defendant manufacturer. At trial, the plaintiff presented two witnesses whose collective testimony established that the ladder was not fit to support a 200-pound user and that the plaintiff had been using the ladder in an appropriate manner at the time of the accident. The defendant objected to the admission of the experts’ testimony on several grounds, but the trial court allowed the experts’ testimony.

February 1, 2017

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Permits Premises Liability Plaintiff’s Claim for Punitive Damages

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard a case requiring the court to determine if a lower court properly denied the plaintiff the opportunity to submit her claim for punitive damages to the jury. Ultimately, the court determined that the lower court improperly ruled that the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages failed as a matter of law. As a result, the decision of whether the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages will be made by a jury, rather than a judge.

Courts Determine Many Threshold Issues Before Submitting a Case to a Jury

In any personal injury case, before the plaintiff’s claims are put in front of a jury, a judge makes several threshold determinations as to the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s case. If a judge determines that one or all of a plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law, those claims will be dismissed, and the plaintiff will not have the opportunity to present the legally insufficient claims to a jury.

A Judge Improperly Determined the Plaintiff Was Not Entitled to Punitive Damages

In the recent case mentioned above, a woman was seriously injured when she was exiting the shower at the defendant’s hotel. After the accident, a hotel employee came up to see what had occurred and explained to the woman that the shower door had come off its runners. This allowed the door to slam into the wall when the woman opened it, causing the door to shatter.

January 17, 2017

Appellate Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Argument that Jury Instruction Was Improper

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier last month, an appellate court in Alaska issued a written opinion in a personal injury case affirming a trial court’s decision to deny the plaintiff’s post-trial motion after a jury found in favor of the defendant. In the case, Long v. Arnold, the court held that the trial court’s jury instructions properly summed up the applicable law and that the lower court was correct to deny the plaintiff’s post-trial motion. The case illustrates how important it is for a personal injury attorney to diligently and aggressively argue that fair instructions be provided to the jury before it is sent back to deliberate.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in the case, Long, was driving her car on an Alaska road when the defendant pulled out in front of her, cutting her off. As a result of the defendant’s sudden decision to pull in front of her, Long steered her car off the side of the road and into some roadside bushes. Evidence presented at trial suggested Long was traveling at about 10 miles per hour at the time of the accident. Her car naturally came to a stop without hitting any stationary object.

Initially, Long did not believe that she had suffered any injury as a result of the accident. However, two days later while on a flight, she discovered that her back was bothering her. She then filed a personal injury claim against the driver of the vehicle who had cut her off.

January 10, 2017

Premises Liability Case Fails Due to Lack of Evidence Showing Defendant’s Knowledge of Dangerous Condition

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Last month, an appellate court in Michigan issued an opinion in a premises liability case, finding that the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment to the defendant, due to the plaintiff’s failure to present evidence of a required element of her claim. In the case, Lowrey v. LMPS & LMPJ, the court held that the burden is on the plaintiff to present evidence of each element of a claim,and the plaintiff’s failure to show that the defendant had knowledge of the dangerous condition that caused her fall required the dismissal of the case.

The Facts

Lowrey was visiting the defendant restaurant on a snowy evening. On her way out of the restaurant, Lowrey slipped and fell on the steps leading into the parking lot, breaking two bones in her leg. Lowrey testified that she had traveled up and down the steps several times that night safely, but when she fell at the end of the night, the steps were wet and slick. She also testified that several other people had fallen on the steps that night. Lowrey filed a premises liability case against the restaurant, claiming it should be held responsible for her injuries, due to the restaurant’s negligence in maintaining the steps.

The defendant asked the trial court to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the restaurant knew about the dangerous condition. The trial court agreed and granted the defendant’s motion. Lowrey appealed.

December 28, 2016

Court Dismisses Accident Victim’s Case against Third Party’s Insurance Company

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

In a recent case in front of the Supreme Court of Alabama, the court dismissed a plaintiff’s personal injury case that he had filed against the company he claimed was responsible for insuring him. In the case, Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange v. Grayson, the court determined that the jury verdict below in favor of the insurance company should stand. As a result of the most recent decision, the plaintiff’s case will not be permitted to proceed against the insurance company.

The Facts of the Case

Grayson was injured in a motorcycle accident that was caused by an uninsured motorist. Rather than sue the uninsured motorist, Grayson filed a claim with his own insurance company under the uninsured motorist provision. He obtained the policy limit of $50,000.

Grayson also filed a claim with his brother-in-law’s insurance company, Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange (PURE), seeking additional compensation above and beyond that which was paid by his own insurance policy. While Grayson acknowledged that he was not named on the PURE policy, he argued that he was residing with his sister and brother-in-law at the time of the accident, and therefore he should be covered under the policy.

December 1, 2016

Court Affirms Dismissal of Case Against Truck Driver Who Caused Chain-Reaction Accident

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Last month, a Mississippi court issued an opinion in a truck accident case brought by a man who was injured in a chain-reaction accident when he rear-ended another vehicle that was stopped in a traffic jam caused by the original accident. In the case, Ready v. RWI Transportation, the court held that the second accident was too far removed from the first to establish liability against the truck driver. The court based its opinion not on a causation analysis, as one might expect, but instead on the holding that the truck driver did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant truck driver caused an accident on a Mississippi highway when he changed lanes and collided with another vehicle. The accident significantly slowed passing traffic, causing a back-up leading up to the scene of the accident.

The plaintiff was driving on the highway toward the accident at approximately 65-70 miles per hour. As he approached the line of stopped vehicles, he was unable to stop and crashed into the rear of another vehicle. The plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of the crash and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the truck driver. He also named the truck driver’s employer under the theory of “negligent entrustment.”