Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog

Court Holds City Employee Not Entitled to Immunity as a “Land Owner”

April 1, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, one state’s highest court issued an opinion interpreting the state’s recreational use statute, determining that a city employee named in his individual capacity is not entitled to governmental immunity as a “land owner” for the land he was in charge of maintaining. In the case, Johnson v. Gibson, the court determined that the plaintiff’s lawsuit should be permitted to move forward against the allegedly negligent employee and his supervisor.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured while jogging in a city-owned park when she stepped in a small hole that had been dug to repair a sprinkler. The hole was dug by one of the defendants named in the lawsuit, who was a city employee in charge of park maintenance. The lawsuit also named the employee’s supervisor.

At trial, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the case against them, based on the fact that they were entitled to government immunity as city employees. Generally speaking, governments and private land owners alike are immune from personal injury lawsuits that occur on their land, as long as the land is open for use to the public without a fee. However, in this case the court determined that the city employee was not a “land owner” who had opened his land up for use by the public.

Product Liability Appeal against Food Manufacturer Dismissed for Failure to Preserve Alleged Error

March 23, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a personal injury plaintiff’s appeal was thrown out for failing to object to the error he alleged occurred at trial. The court in Stults v. International Flavors held that the plaintiff’s failure to object to the curative jury instruction given by the trial judge in response to objectionable testimony by an expert prevented him from raising that issue on appeal. This case illustrates the importance of retaining an attentive and knowledgeable team of attorneys.

The Facts of the Case

This case arose after the plaintiff developed a lung disease. He claimed that he developed the disease because he consumed microwavable popcorn manufactured by the defendant every day for 20 years. He also submitted evidence that showed the chemical used to give the popcorn its buttery flavor can cause the very lung disease he was diagnosed with when people are exposed in high doses.

At trial, both plaintiff and defendant had expert witnesses testify to the cause of plaintiff’s lung disease. At some point in the trial, a defense expert made an improper comment on the evidence and the plaintiff objected. The court sustained the plaintiff’s objection and the jury was told to disregard the defense expert’s testimony on that issue. After the trial, the jury determined that the plaintiff did not prove his case.

Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy Detected in College Athlete

March 16, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) has been making headlines for the past year or so, as it was detected that this tragic degenerative brain disease has been affecting professional athletes. CTE has recently begun to be studied in-depth by many doctors and scientific researchers throughout the country. CTE is a progressive degenerative disease that generally affects individuals who have incurred a significant amount of trauma to their head. Although CTE has just recently been garnering national recognition as a serious disease, it has actually been detected in professional boxers as early as the 1920s. However, recent studies focusing on the brains of deceased football players revealed that these players’ brain structures were severely damaged and included a build-up of abnormal proteins.

Unfortunately, individuals experiencing this trauma often suffer significant and life-changing experiences. Some common symptoms that people report are depression, anxiety, aggression, memory and cognition problems, lack of impulse control, and impaired judgment. There have been tragic instances where athletes have committed suicide and it was later discovered that they were suffering with CTE.

The New York Times recently published an article focusing on a college football player who was discovered to be suffering from CTE. The football player was an offensive lineman for the University of North Carolina and was by all accounts a well-adjusted individual. However, after sustaining repeated injuries he ended up homeless, addicted to drugs and alcohol. His family noted that he often complained that he felt that he was different and that “something was wrong with his brain.” The young college athlete ended up riding his bike straight into oncoming traffic and was killed after being hit by a car. His mother argued that she is sure that his actions qualify as suicide.

Jury’s Verdict for Plaintiff in the Amount of Zero Dollars Upheld on Appeal

March 9, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a Nebraska appellate court issued a written opinion regarding an appeal filed by a personal injury plaintiff who was awarded a zero-dollar award after a jury trial. In the case, Lowman v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company, the court determined that, while a zero-dollar award normally requires clarification from the jury, in this case it was clear what the jury intended, so no clarification was necessary.

The Facts of the Case

Lowman was a passenger in a car being driven by her husband when the car was struck by an uninsured driver. The Lowmans’ uninsured motorist carrier was State Farm, so they filed a claim with the company. State Farm admitted that the uninsured driver was liable but disputed the issues of causation and damages. The case proceeded to trial on these two issues.

During the pendency of the trial, the Lowmans withdrew their claim for lost wages and admitted that all medical bills had been paid. Thus, the only claim remaining was that for her pain and suffering. At trial, Lowman’s attorney told the jury “If you think [Lowman] is exaggerating, there should be no verdict. If you think she’s a liar, a cheat and a fraud, there should be no verdict.”

Plaintiff’s Product Liability Case Against Rifle Manufacturer Revived on Appeal

March 2, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower state court decision, allowing the plaintiff in a product liability lawsuit to proceed toward trial despite the defendant’s challenges to the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony. In the case, Seamon v. Remington Arms Company, the plaintiff was the wife of a man who had died while hunting alone with his Remington Model 700 bolt-action rifle.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff’s husband left to go hunting by himself back in November 2011. He had an elevated stand up in the trees from which he would hunt. However, after several hours of failing to return text messages from his family, they called police. Police found the man dead in the elevated tree stand, with his rifle 13 feet below. There was a rope attached to the rifle’s scope, the safety was off, and there was a spent shell in the chamber. There was no gunshot residue on the man, leading investigators to believe he was at least five to 10 feet away when the gun fired. No one witnessed the shooting.

The man’s wife filed a product liability case against the manufacturer of the rifle, claiming that her husband died as a result of a defect in the gun. The plaintiff had an expert testify that, in his experience, the trigger mechanism in the Model 700 rifle was subject to sporadic firing. He testified that in cases of sporadic firing, there are usually some deposits in the fire control housing of the gun. He further testified that upon examination, the gun the plaintiff’s husband was using had deposits in the fire control housing. This led the expert to believe that the gun may have accidentally fired without having the trigger pulled.

Court Finds Little League Not Liable for Dangerous Conditions on Field

February 23, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Rhode Island Supreme Court issued an opinion in a case, holding that a little league association was not liable for a parent’s injuries sustained when she fell and broke her leg in three places after stepping in a divot in the field. In the case, Carlson v. Towne of South Kingstown, the court reasoned that the little league association was not the owner of the land and did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care to inspect the field prior to its use.

The Facts of the Case

As noted above, the plaintiff was injured when she stepped in a divot in the grass, directly adjacent to a playing field where her son’s little league game was held. After her injuries, she filed a lawsuit against several parties, including the little league association.

The plaintiff presented a witness who was familiar with the field. The witness, another parent and a former assistant coach of the team, testified that divots were a routine problem on the field. He also explained that the divot was not actually on the field itself but was off to the side of right field, on the way to the dugout.

Lessor of Crane Involved in Serious Accident Found Not Liable for Plaintiff’s Injuries

February 16, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, one state’s supreme court heard a case brought by a man who was injured by a crane when an intermittent malfunction caused the crane to shift forward, crushing the man’s foot. In the case, Carson v. ALL Erection & Crane Rental Corporation, the court determined that, while the lessor did have a duty to inspect the equipment prior to leasing it to the plaintiff’s employer, that duty did not require an inspection so exhaustive as to discover the difficult-to-discover defect.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the “eyes and ears” for a fellow employee who was the designated crane operator. The plaintiff and the crane operator were instructed to move the crane a few miles from its current location. Along the way, the two encountered a section of road with overhead wires, and precautions were taken in crossing the road. However, as the crane was taken out of drive, it shifted forward, causing wood planks underneath where the plaintiff was standing to rise unexpectedly. The plaintiff slid down the wooden planks and under the crane, where his foot was crushed. It was later amputated.

After the accident, the crane was inspected by both ALL Erection, the defendant lessor, as well as the plaintiff’s employer. Ultimately, the crane was repaired. It was determined that the cause of the crane’s unexpected shift was “a failure of the solid‐state electrical circuitry.” However, it was not until a very thorough examination that the error was found.

Court Dismisses Premises Liability Claim Based on Validly Signed Waiver

February 9, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier last month, an appellate court in Delaware heard an appeal of a personal injury case filed by a man who was injured while working out at a Planet Fitness facility. In the case, Ketler v. PFPA, LLC, the court ultimately affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case, based on a valid waiver of liability form signed by the plaintiff prior to incurring his injuries.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs in the case, a man and his wife, became members of Planet Fitness back in 2010. As a precursor to their membership, the facility asked that the couple sign a membership agreement. Included in the membership agreement was a clause releasing Planet Fitness from liability for any injuries that may occur while using the company’s equipment. This included injuries that were caused by the company’s own negligence, as well as the negligence of its employees.

Fast forward to 2013, when a cable on the rowing machine that the husband was using snapped, causing him injuries as a result. Both the husband and the wife then filed a lawsuit against Planet Fitness, claiming that the husband’s injuries were due to the negligence of Planet Fitness, specifically for not properly maintaining the exercise equipment in a safe and responsible way.

Affected Families Push the Supreme Court to Reconsider “Feres” Doctrine

February 2, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Normally, when a patient is injured due to negligent medical care provided by a doctor, surgeon, or nurse, the injured patient is able to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit against the allegedly negligent medical professional, seeking damages for what they have been through. However, under an old legal doctrine called the “Feres” doctrine, military personnel can be denied the ability to recover damages based on injuries they sustained while on active duty.

The Feres Doctrine

The doctrine was first announced in the case of Feres v. United States, which was a United States Supreme Court case decided back in 1950. The case actually combined three individuals’ cases and decided them in one written opinion. The Court was able to do this because each case presented a similar legal issue: whether the United States government could be held liable for injuries suffered by active military personnel while they were on active duty.

The Court ultimately determined that the government should not be held liable for any injuries that were caused, even if the injuries were caused by a government official’s own negligence. The rationale behind the opinion is that the government should be more worried about big-picture concerns in times of war rather than worried about avoiding potential liability for the actions of its officials. While the basis for the decision arguably makes sense in some spur-of-the-moment battlefield decisions, it has recently been applied to situations that seemingly stray from the heart of the doctrine’s rationale.

Which Jurisdiction’s Law Applies in a Personal Injury Case?

January 26, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The United States has two separate sets of laws that govern the citizens of each state. There is federal law and state law. Each state has their own law, and as long as it does not conflict with the federal law in that same area, the state law will apply to many cases. This is especially true in personal injury cases, since most personal injury cases do not give rise to federal court “jurisdiction.”

The term “jurisdiction” essentially means the power to hear a case and impose judgment over the parties to the case. For example, a court in New Mexico will not likely have jurisdiction over a case arising between two Marylanders who get into an accident on a Maryland road. In that case, Maryland would likely be the most proper venue for the lawsuit.

As noted above, each state has the ability to create its own set of laws, and it stands to reason that the law in every state will be a little bit different. This can create major consequences for accident victims in certain cases because under one state’s law a victim’s case may be strong, but under another state’s law the case may be much weaker. This also can have implications regarding the applicable statute of limitations, or the time in which the accident victim has to file their lawsuit against the defendant.