Category Archives: Damages

Will Football Litigation Change How The Game Is Played?

06 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by in Brain Damage, Damages, Football Helmets, Litigation, NFL, Sports Law, Torts

≈ Comments Off on Will Football Litigation Change How The Game Is Played?

Tags

, , , , , ,

NFL Litigation May Forever Change Football, by Nick Farr, Abnormal Use Blog

http://abnormaluse.com/2013/08/nfl-litigation-may-ruin-football.html

If you are a football fan, you have probably heard about the concussion/brain injury litigation against the NFL. The litigation has been going on for quite some time and seems to be growing with every passing week. We here at Abnormal Use first wrote about it way, way back in 2011. Two years later, there appears to be no end in sight. While we have no idea when the litigation will end, we have a pretty good idea of how it might do so. More than likely, the numerous current and former player plaintiffs will find themselves the recipients of a hefty settlement. But the financial and legal ramifications of this suit should be the least of the NFL’s concern. We here at Abnormal Use fear that this litigation may put a nail in the coffin of football as we know it. . . .

Continue reading →

Texas Supreme Court Agrees That Compounding Pharmacy Is “Health Care Provider.”

16 Saturday May 2015

Posted by in Appellate Law, Damages, Health Law, Litigation, Negligence, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Texas Supreme Court Agrees That Compounding Pharmacy Is “Health Care Provider.”

Tags

, , , ,

 

Texas Supreme Court Holds That Compounding Pharmacies Are Health Care Providers Under Texas Medical Liability Act, by Elinor H. Murarova, Duane Morris Health Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/k75hx7m

On April 24, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court dismissed claims against a compounding pharmacy and its individual pharmacists which alleged negligence in compounding a lipoic acid medication, finding that the defendants were health care providers entitled to the protections in the Texas Medical Liability Act (‘TMLA’).

In the case Randol Mill Pharmacy et al. v. Miller et al., Case No. 13-1014 (Tex. Sup. Ct.), the plaintiff’s physician prescribed and administered weekly intravenous injections of 200 mg/ml lipoic acid, an antioxidant supplement. The plaintiff alleged that she underwent nine weeks of treatment without incident, but in the tenth treatment she suffered a severe adverse reaction and as a result was hospitalized for several weeks, received multiple blood transfusions, and went permanently blind in both eyes. Randol Mill Pharmacy compounded the lipoic acid that allegedly caused the adverse reaction.

In her complaint against the compounding pharmacy and its individual pharmacists, the plaintiff alleged that these defendants gave inadequate and inappropriate warnings and instructions for using the compounded lipoid acid; that the compounded lipoid acid was defective, ineffective and unreasonably dangerous; and that the compounding pharmacy and pharmacists generally breached implied warranties with respect to the design, manufacture, inspection, marketing, and/or distribution of the compounded lipoid acid. . . .

Continue reading →

Seat Belt Use Evidence Now Admissible In Texas.

19 Thursday Feb 2015

Posted by in Admissibility, Authentication, Damages, Discovery, Evidence, Motor Vehicle, Negligence, Personal Injury, Product Liability, Relevance, Torts, Wrongful Death

≈ Comments Off on Seat Belt Use Evidence Now Admissible In Texas.

Tags

, , , , , ,

TX: Evidence of Seat Belt Non-Use is Admissible to Apportion Responsibility, by Christopher J. Robinette, Torts Prof Blog (with hat tip to Jill Lens (Baylor)!)

http://tinyurl.com/kmbeph9

For years, evidence of seat belt use was prohibited at trial. The Texas Supreme Court changed that rule of law with this case. This ruling will have a major impact on this area of the law. -CCE

The Texas Supreme Court case, which was announced on Friday, is Nabors Wells Services, Ltd. v. Romero. The case (pdf) is here:  Download TX Sup Ct = Seat Belt Admiss  From the opinion:

We hold relevant evidence of use or nonuse of seat belts, and relevant evidence of a plaintiff’s pre-occurrence, injury-causing conduct generally, is admissible for the purpose of apportioning responsibility under our proportionate-responsibility statute, provided that the plaintiff’s conduct caused or was a cause of his damages.

Pennsylvania’s New Standards for Strict Liability Claims.

10 Tuesday Feb 2015

Posted by in Damages, Litigation, Negligence, Product Liability, Torts

≈ Comments Off on Pennsylvania’s New Standards for Strict Liability Claims.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Standards for Strict Liability Claims, by Duane Morris LLP & Affiliates®

http://tinyurl.com/q49j9jx

While the Tincher decision clarifies some issues regarding strict liability cases, there are many issues left to be determined by future case law.

On November 19, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. (No. 17 MAP 2013), in which it addresses the proper standard under Pennsylvania law for strict liability claims relating to allegedly defective products. Although the court declined to adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts, it overruled its prior holding in Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978), which created roadblocks to the introduction by defendants of the reasonableness of their actions in designing products.

Strict liability for defective products developed from the social policy determination that the cost of injuries resulting from defective products should be borne by the manufacturers of the products rather than by the injured persons.[1] For almost 50 years, strict liability under Pennsylvania law has been governed by Section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts, which provides that ‘one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability [for the harm caused] . . . .’

The term ‘unreasonably dangerous’ naturally involves a balancing between what is reasonable and what is not, which is similar to the fault-based notions encompassed by negligence claims. However, in Azzarello, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court drew a bright line between strict liability and negligence causes of action. . . .

Continue reading →

Why Is Workers’ Compensation An Exclusive Remedy In Employee’s Death Case?

25 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by in Damages, Employment Law, Litigation, Torts, Workers' Compensation

≈ Comments Off on Why Is Workers’ Compensation An Exclusive Remedy In Employee’s Death Case?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Workers’ Compensation Is Exclusive Remedy, by Barry Zalma, Zalma On Insurance Blog

http://zalma.com/blog/workers-compensation-is-exclusive-remedy/

Tort Judgment Against Employer Is Only Good for Wallpaper

The workers’ compensation system across the United States provides benefits to injured workers without regard to fault. When the injury is serious or results in death the workers’ compensation benefits do not feel sufficient to indemnify the injured worker or his or her estate for the loss incurred. As a result, the injured worker or his estate will attempt a tort action and then try to collect that judgment by means of a suit against the employer’s insurer.

Employers and employees make a bargain: the employer will not require proof of negligence if the employee is injured and the employee agrees that he or his estate will accept the statutory benefits provided by state law and give up the right to sue the employer for tort damages.

In Morales v. Zenith Ins. Co., — F.3d —-, 2015 WL 265445 (C.A.11 (Fla.) 1/22/15) the estate of an injured worker successfully sued an employer and sought to recover by means of a breach of contract claim filed by plaintiff-appellant Leticia Morales, on behalf of herself, the Estate of Santana Morales, Jr., and two minor children against Zenith Insurance Company (‘Zenith’).

FACTS
Santana Morales, Jr. was crushed to death by a palm tree while working as a landscaper for Lawns Nursery and Irrigation Designs, Inc. (‘Lawns’). At the time of Morales’s death, his employer Lawns maintained a ‘Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance Policy’ with Zenith. The policy contained two types of coverage: (1) workers’ compensation insurance under Part I and (2) employer liability insurance under Part II. After Morales’s death, Zenith began paying workers’ compensation benefits to the Estate in accordance with its obligation under Part I of the policy.

Under Part II, Zenith was obligated: (1) to ‘pay all sums [Lawns] legally must pay as damages because of bodily injury to [its] employees, provided the bodily injury is covered by this Employers Liability Insurance’; and (2) to defend lawsuits for such damages. In relevant part, Part II contained an exclusion barring employer liability insurance coverage for ‘any obligation imposed by a workers compensation … law’ (the ‘workers’ compensation exclusion’).

On December 3, 1999, the Estate filed a wrongful death action against Lawns in Florida circuit court and obtained a default jury award to the Estate of $9.525 million in damages against Lawns. . . .

Continue reading →

Are Cars Safer Now? Unfortunately, Not So Much.

31 Friday Oct 2014

Posted by in Class Actions, Damages, Litigation, Motor Vehicle, Personal Injury, Product Liability, Torts

≈ Comments Off on Are Cars Safer Now? Unfortunately, Not So Much.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The Latest Innovations in Auto Safety: Shrapnel and Harpoons, The Pop Tort.com

http://tinyurl.com/qglxdom

Since when did cars become war zones?

Of course they used to be. Back in the 1950s and 1960s when, during car crashes, ‘Drivers were impaled on rigid steering wheel columns.… Unpadded dashboards and the sharp edges and ashtrays gouged out eyes’ and cars ‘crumpled like a Japanese lantern’ in rollover accidents.  But all that changed when eventually, the auto industry decided that safety ‘sold’ and cars became safer.

But if we’ve learned one thing over the last few years, it’s that with every new safety innovation comes a new opportunity to cut corners.

First to today’s lead story in the New York Times, a tabloid-sounding article called ‘It Looked Like a Stabbing, but Takata Air Bag Was the Killer.’

Hien Tran lay dying in intensive care this month after a car accident, as detectives searched for clues about the apparent stab wounds in her neck.…

When Ms. Tran crashed her car, the air bag, instead of protecting her, appeared to have exploded and sent shrapnel flying into her neck, the Orange County sheriff’s office said. On Monday, in an unusual warning, federal safety regulators urged the owners of more than five million vehicles to ‘act immediately’ to get the air bags fixed.…

But the urgent request was bound to create confusion among owners. Honda said it did not have enough parts to fix the cars immediately. Toyota said it would in some cases disable the air bags, leaving a note not to ride in the front passenger seat.

They’re kidding, right? . . .

Federal Judge Decides BP Blew It.

06 Saturday Sep 2014

Posted by in Damages, Environment Law, Litigation, Negligence, Punitive Damages

≈ Comments Off on Federal Judge Decides BP Blew It.

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Ruling On The 2010 Gulf of Mexico Oil Well Blowout, by Sabrina I. Pacifici, BeSpacific Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kh76r3q

BP has already said that it will immediately appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Among the errors BP asserts by Judge Barbier, it disagrees with the number of billions of gallons of oil that gushed into the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon rig. BP is trying to stop the bleeding. Every gallon of oil that spewed into the Gulf has a price tag for damages.

BP maintains a website with its version of the facts and its commitment to safety. Its argument was not sufficient to sway Judge Barbier.  Halliburton and Transocean were not hit as hard as some would have liked, but they were found to bear some of the responsibility for the disaster as well.

It will be interesting to see whether this ruling affects environmental cases, off-shore drilling, and oil and gas ventures in general in the future. -CCE

 New York Times: ‘A federal judge ruled on Thursday that BP was grossly negligent in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil well blowout that killed 11 workers, spilled millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and soiled hundreds of miles of beaches. ‘BP’s conduct was reckless,’ United States District Court Judge Carl J. Barbier wrote in his sternly worded decision. Judge Barbier also ruled that Transocean, the owner of the rig, and Halliburton, the service company that cemented the well, were negligent in the accident. But the judge put most of the blame on BP, opening the way to fines of up to $18 billion under the Clean Water Act. In a 153-page, densely technical decision, Judge Barbier described how BP repeatedly ignored mounting warning signs that the well was unstable, making decisions that he says were ‘primarily driven by a desire to save time and money, rather than ensuring that the well was secure.’

Bifurcation Explained By An Eleventh Circuit Court Judge.

14 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by in 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Damages, Litigation

≈ Comments Off on Bifurcation Explained By An Eleventh Circuit Court Judge.

Tags

, , , ,

To B…or Not to B…: B…Means Bifurcation, by Judge David L. Tobin, The Florida Bar Journal, 2000 Volume LXXIV, No. 10.

http://tinyurl.com/p5vkklg

An excellent analysis and explanation. -CCE

From 1997 through May 2000, as judge in the 11th Circuit Court, I have bifurcated hundreds of cases in which the issues of liability and damages were involved. The most surprising statistic is that during this three and one-half years I have tried only one case in which the issue was damages! Do I have your attention?

Sometime in 1997, I was discussing calendar control and judicial efficiency with one of my colleagues, Judge Amy Donner, who said that she was bifurcating most of her cases. After our conversation, I examined the trials in my division for the year 1995 and found that of the 40 jury trials, eight of them were slip-and-fall cases. Of these eight, seven resulted in a verdict for the defendant. It occurred to me that if we tried only liability, between seven and 14 days of jury time would have been saved, enabling us to try several more cases. Accordingly, I then decided to screen our cases and began bifurcating slip-and-fall cases only. I hope that this article will assist judges and attorneys in selecting those cases in which bifurcation would benefit litigants and attorneys, as well as the court. . . .

Casino Valet Service Not Liable For Returning Car To Intoxicated Driver.

08 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Damages, Litigation, Pennsylvania Superior Court, Summary judgment

≈ Comments Off on Casino Valet Service Not Liable For Returning Car To Intoxicated Driver.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

No Liability for Valet Service for Returning Car to Visibly Intoxicated Patron, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK

http://www.torttalk.com/2014/07/no-liability-for-valet-service-for.html

In its recent decision in the case of Moranko v. Downs Racing LP, 2014 Pa.Super. 128 (Pa. Super. June 24, 2014 Panella, J., Mundy, J., and Platt, J.)(Op. by Panella, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that Pennsylvania law does not impose a duty upon a casino’s valet service to withhold the keys from a motorist if that person appears to be visibly intoxicated. . . .

Trailer Park Duck Is Repeat Offender With Dangerous Propensities.

02 Friday May 2014

Posted by in Animal Law, Damages, Litigation, Personal Injury, Punitive Damages, Torts

≈ Comments Off on Trailer Park Duck Is Repeat Offender With Dangerous Propensities.

Tags

, , , ,

Lawsuit Alleges Duck Attack, by Kevin Underhill, Lowering The Bar Blog

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2014/04/duck-attack.html

KATU in Portland reports that a woman who says she was attacked by a duck at a trailer park has sued the duck’s owner.

Plaintiff alleges in part that said duck was a repeat offender.

According to the complaint (which KATU was kind enough to post), Cynthia Ruddell alleges that she was just stepping out of her motor home ‘on or about May 7, 2012,’ when she was suddenly attacked by a local duck. . . .

Apologizing Even When It’s Not Your Client’s Fault.

30 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Damages, Defense Counsel, Direct Examination, Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Litigation, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Settlement, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Apologizing Even When It’s Not Your Client’s Fault.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Show You’re Sorry, Even When You’re Not at Fault, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog

http://tinyurl.com/ntvjm5r

[A]s we’ve noted before, letting jurors, judges, and opposing parties hear an apology can be effective when you are responsible, or are likely to be found responsible, for at least part of the damage at issue in the case. But what about when you’re not? Does that second kind of “sorry,” meaning “I recognize your loss, but without accepting responsibility for it” create a persuasive advantage as well?

According to some new research, yes, it does. . . .

How To – Investigating Traffic Accidents.

22 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by in Damages, Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Litigation, Motor Vehicle, Personal Injury, Product Liability, Uninsured Motorist

≈ Comments Off on How To – Investigating Traffic Accidents.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Evidence Collection in a Traffic Investigation, by Dick Warrington, Forensic Magazine

http://tinyurl.com/nko5m2s

This post is an excerpt from Mr. Warrington’s post, Investigating the Fender Bender (http://tinyurl.com/o979zk5). I recommend it, and the links to more information on this subject that you will find at the end of the post. -CCE

Most of the time traffic accidents are fairly standard—the typical fender bender where one person runs into another. The officer on duty responds, assesses the situation, and completes the proper paperwork. But sometimes officers deal with much more serious, complex situations. Dealing with a hundred car pile-up, for example, is quite challenging, since it’s like carrying out multiple investigations simultaneously. When responding to multiple car accidents, hit and runs, fatalities, and high speed chases, officers can benefit by calling in Crime Scene Officers to assist with the investigation.

Because this type of case usually involves extensive damage to property, serious injuries, and/or fatalities, lawsuits will likely result. Questions of liability, product failure, etc. will also come up. Given these facts, it’s important to work together to conduct a thorough investigation. Since the CSO’s responsibilities include documentation, evidence identification, and evidence collection, we’ll look at each of those areas. . . .

More On Why Lawsuits Are So Expensive.

22 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by in Cross-Examination, Damages, Exhibits, Experts, Litigation, Motor Vehicle, Personal Injury, Plaintiff's Counsel, Product Liability, Trial Tips and Techniques, Video Deposition, Witnesses

≈ Comments Off on More On Why Lawsuits Are So Expensive.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Why Lawsuits Are So Expensive, Pt. II, by Gregory H. Haubrich, Foshee & Yafee, Butter’s Blog

http://greghaubrich.com/2014/02/13/why-lawsuits-are-so-expensive-pt-ii/

In my previous edition of Butter’s Blog, Part I explored why lawsuits are so expensive. In Part II, we are going to break down the costs of getting your case to trial. To get a rough estimate of what your law firm may spend handling the case,  we must first look at what kind of case it is.

$17 Million – Likely Largest Ever Wrongful Workplace Death Settlement.

13 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by in Damages, Employment Law, Evidence, Government, Litigation, Negligence, OSHA, Settlement, Wrongful Death

≈ Comments Off on $17 Million – Likely Largest Ever Wrongful Workplace Death Settlement.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Philadelphia Electrician’s Widow to Receive Record $17 Million in Wrongful-Death Settlement, by Josh Cable, EHS Today

http://tinyurl.com/mx9kqq5

The widow of an electrician who died in a crane accident at Veolia Energy’s Schuylkill steam plant in Grays Ferry, Pa., will receive $17 million, in what is believed to be the largest wrongful-workplace-death settlement in Philadelphia County history. . . .

Indiana Takes On Liquidated Damages in Contract Law.

11 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, Contract Law, Damages, Indiana Court of Appeals, Litigation, State Appellate Courts

≈ Comments Off on Indiana Takes On Liquidated Damages in Contract Law.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Indiana Court of Appeals on Liquidated Damages, by Jeremy Telman, ContractsProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/lqqbvpw

As you can see from the quote below, this is the fifth in this series. I encourage you to read the entire series to get the full big picture. -CCE

This is the fifth in a series of posts that draw on Michael Dorelli and Kimberly Cohen’s recent article in the Indiana Law Review on developments in contracts law in Indiana.

Oh Happy Day for Pennsylvania Personal Injury Plaintiffs.

10 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, Case of First Impression, Damages, Evidence, Jury Persuasion, Litigation, Pennsylvania Superior Court, Personal Injury, State Appellate Courts, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Oh Happy Day for Pennsylvania Personal Injury Plaintiffs.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Appellate Case of First Impression – Future Medical Expenses Are To Be Included in Delay Damages Calculation, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK

http://www.torttalk.com/2014/02/appellate-case-of-first-impression.html

In a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently ruled in Roth v. Ross and Erie Insurance Group, 977 MDA 2013, 2014 Pa. Super. 20 (Pa. Super. Feb. 7, 2014 Donohue, Ott, J.J., Platt, S.J.)(Opinion by Donohue, J.), that an award of future medical expenses in a personal injury case should be included in the calculation of delay damages due to the Plaintiff on a verdict. . . .

Court Splits on Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

27 Monday Jan 2014

Posted by in Damages, Health Law, Litigation, Massachusetts Supreme Court, Medical Malpractice, Torts, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Court Splits on Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Splits On Extension of Tort of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mr4matq

The recent December 22, 2011 split decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the long-anticipated Opinion in the case of Toney v. Chester County Hospital, 2011 WL 6413948 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2011)(Baer, Todd, and McCaffery, JJ. join in support of affirmance)(Castille, Saylor, Eakin, JJ. join in support of reversal)(Orie Melvin, J. not participating) serves to fuel an argument in favor of the extension of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).