Legal News

Tort

[03/28] $2.4M Settlement in Fla. Boot Camp Death
[03/28] Iowa Diocese Settles Abuse Claims
[03/27] Fire Kills 2 Children in Va., Injures 11
[03/27] Toddler Wounded in LA Drive-By Shooting

Consumer Products

[03/14] FDA Warns of Sleeping Pill Side Effects
[03/13] Late Mortgage Payments Reach High
[03/07] Some Banks Cancel Complex Card Billing
[03/01] Crash Tests Expose Fender Bender Costs

Personal Injury

[03/28] $2.4M Settlement in Fla. Boot Camp Death
[03/28] Iowa Diocese Settles Abuse Claims
[03/27] Fire Kills 2 Children in Va., Injures 11
[03/27] Toddler Wounded in LA Drive-By Shooting

Product Liability

[03/27] NY Lab Doing Further Pet Food Testing
[03/27] Veterinary group says pet food deaths higher than reported
[03/27] Jurors side with Merck in Illinois Vioxx trial
[03/26] Attorneys offer closing arguments in Midwest's first Vioxx trial

Case Summaries Injury & Tort Law [03/27] Briggs v. Washington Metro Area Transit Auth. In a wrongful death and survival action arising from the murder of plaintiff's son by an unknown assailant near the top of the escalators at a Metro station, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed as plaintiff did not offer creditable evidence sufficient to establish a controlling standard of care. [03/26] Lindsey v. Caterpillar, Inc. In an action arising out of the rollover of a pipe layer manufactured by defendant-Caterpillar, which resulted in the death of plaintiff's husband, summary judgment for defendant on preemption grounds is reversed where: 1) OSHA's savings clause, 29 U.S.C. section 653(b)(4), operates to save state tort rules from preemption; and 2) plaintiff's claim for defective equipment brought under the New Jersey Products Liability Act fell within the scope of OSHA's savings clause. [03/26] Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apts. In a personal injury suit arising from the purportedly dangerous condition of an apartment complex staircase, denial of plaintiff's motion to set aside judgment is affirmed over claim that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion because plaintiff represented himself at trial, and his assumption that he could competently represent himself at trial constituted mistake or excusable neglect. [03/26] Marcey v. Romero In personal injury suit where plaintiff recovered judgment against defendant, grant of defendant's motion to tax expert witness fees is affirmed where plaintiff's settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, which included a condition that defendant pay plaintiff's experts to prepare for trial, was withdrawn by plaintiff before the expiration of the applicable period. Admiralty [03/22] US v. Bravo Convictions and sentences for conspiracy and drug offenses while on board a vessel are affirmed over defendants' arguments that: 1) the US did not have jurisdiction over the vessel; 2) the court improperly allowed evidence into the record; 3) there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions; 4) they were denied the opportunity to choose a defense strategy in advance and participate in a fair trial because the court did not rule on the applicability of a duress defense until after the close of all evidence; 5) the court miscalculated their sentences; and 6) the district court committed Booker error. [03/19] Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc. In a toxic tort suit under the Jones Act brought by a tankerman against defendants-employers, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding plaintiff's expert's testimony upon reasonably concluding that the analytical gap between the studies on which he relied and his conclusions was simply too great, and that his opinions were thus unreliable; and 2) a determination regarding discovery costs was not an abuse of discretion. [03/05] Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp. A district court has discretion to respond at once to a defendant's forum non conveniens plea, and need not take up first any other threshold objection. In particular, a court need not resolve whether it has authority to adjudicate the cause (subject-matter jurisdiction) or personal jurisdiction over the defendant if it determines that, in any event, a foreign tribunal is the more suitable arbiter of the merits of the case. [02/26] American Roll-On Roll-Off Carrier, LLC v. P&O Ports Baltimore, Inc.