Virginia Injury Lawyers Blog

June 22, 2016

State Court Reverses Verdict for Plaintiff Due to Incomplete Negligence Claim

A West Virginia court recently released an opinion in which it reversed a jury verdict that had awarded the plaintiff nearly $70,000 in medical expenses and lost wages for injuries he suffered because of the alleged negligence of the defendant. Since the high court reversed the lower court’s decision not to award a directed verdict to the defendant in the case, the plaintiff will ultimately not be compensated for the alleged negligence of the defendant.

The Plaintiff Is Injured Falling Down a Hill after Leaning on an Unsafe Fence Post

The plaintiff in Wheeling Park Commission v. Dattoli filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant for injuries sustained after he fell down a steep hill when he leaned on a broken fence at a park that was being operated by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had a duty to keep the fence in reasonable condition to prevent such accidents from occurring.

At trial, the plaintiff called the park operations director as a witness to testify that the fence failed as a result of the wood decaying, and the witness could not show any maintenance or repairs to the fence prior to the accident. After the trial, the jury awarded a verdict to the the plaintiff to compensate him for the medical expenses that he incurred treating his injuries, as well as for lost wages based on his recovery.

June 15, 2016

Court Rules that School Bus Passenger Is Covered by Insurance in Accident While Boarding the Bus

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware recently affirmed a lower court’s decision that allowed a school bus passenger to make a claim against the insurance covering the school bus after the plaintiff was hit by another vehicle while crossing the street to board the bus. The lower court ruling was opposed by the insurance company, which argued that the school bus was not directly involved in the accident, and the plaintiff’s injuries should not be covered.

Plaintiff Is Injured After Vehicle Fails to Stop for School Bus

The plaintiff in the case of Buckley v. State Farm was a girl who had intended to ride the bus to school when she was hit by another vehicle and injured. Before the crash, the school bus driver operated the equipment signaling other drivers to yield to crossing children and signaled the plaintiff to cross the street. As the plaintiff was crossing the street to board the bus, a driver failed to yield and struck the plaintiff, causing injuries. Although the school bus driver was not alleged to have been at fault for the accident, the plaintiff made a claim against the bus’ insurance coverage to compensate her for the injuries she sustained.

The Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Protection Claim Is Denied

The plaintiff made a claim against the defendant, who provided insurance coverage for the school bus under the Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage on the bus. Personal Injury Protection coverage is designed to cover any passengers of the insured vehicle, as well as any other person injured in an accident involving the covered vehicle, other than an occupant of another vehicle. State Farm denied the plaintiff’s initial claim, responding that her injuries were not caused by an accident involving the school bus for which they were providing insurance.

June 6, 2016

Bar Owner Held Not Liable for Parking Lot Accident After Kicking At-Fault Driver Out of Bar

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, the Nebraska Supreme Court issued a written opinion in a premises liability case that highlights the importance of one of the key elements in almost every personal injury case. In the case, Pittman v. Rivera, the plaintiff was injured when he was struck by a car driven by a man who was very recently kicked out of the defendant’s bar. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that it was not reasonably foreseeable that the at-fault driver would go on to cause an accident after being denied re-admittance to the establishment.

Pittman v. Rivera: The Facts

Rivera was kicked out of the defendant’s bar after he became aggressive with his girlfriend, an employee of the establishment. After Rivera was escorted out, a friend acted as a designated driver and took Rivera home. However, a few hours later, Rivera returned and tried to get back into the bar to speak with his girlfriend. The bar’s bouncer did not let Rivera in. Rivera then angrily got into his car, revved his engine loudly, and began driving around the bar’s parking lot in a reckless manner.

Pittman was also in the defendant’s bar that evening. At some point in the evening, Pittman stepped outside to speak with a few friends. As he stood in the bar’s parking lot, Rivera came whizzing around after making a series of U-turns and struck Pittman. As a result of the collision, Pittman suffered serious injuries and filed this lawsuit against the bar.

May 23, 2016

Product Liability Lawsuit Against Under-Ride Guard Manufacturer Results in Million-Dollar Verdict

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion affirming a product liability plaintiff’s jury verdict in the amount of $1,200,000. In the case, Quilez-Velar v. Ox Bodies, Inc., the court determined that the lower court properly admitted the plaintiff’s expert witness testimony and that the jury’s verdict should stand.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs in the case were the surviving family members of a woman who was killed when her car slid under a garbage truck that had not been properly fitted with a safe under-ride guard, which was supposed to prevent vehicles from sliding under the rear of the truck in the event of this type of accident. The evidence at trial showed that the truck was owned and operated by the local government, but the under-ride guard was manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the guard only and did not proceed against the government.

At trial, the plaintiffs had an accident reconstructionist testify that he knew of an alternate design that “would have been [a] safer design in the instant accident.” The defendant admitted that the expert was properly qualified as an accident reconstructionist, but it challenged the expert’s testimony, arguing that he did not conduct the necessary tests to be qualified as an expert on the subject. The trial court reviewed the expert’s report and determined that his “conclusions are well-explained, and its use of crash-test data appears appropriate.” The court also explained that the defendant did not adequately explain why the expert should have conducted additional tests. The judge admitted the expert’s testimony.

May 16, 2016

Slip-and-Fall Plaintiff’s Case Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Procedural Notice Requirement

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier last month, a Maine appellate court issued a written opinion affirming the dismissal of a plaintiff’s case after it was established that the plaintiff did not comply with the notice requirement contained in a relevant statute. In the case, Deschenes v. City of Sanford, the plaintiff provided oral but not written notice of his intent to file a lawsuit. The court determined that oral notice did not count as “substantial compliance” with the rule, and it affirmed the case’s dismissal.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was visiting city hall to obtain information on how he could get a copy of his daughter’s birth certificate. While he was there, he tripped on some raised tread on a step and then fell down the flight of stairs. When he reached the bottom, he slid into a glass door, exacerbating his injuries.

After the man’s fall, city employees on the scene provided him with some basic first-aid until emergency responders arrived. Afterwards, the man was taken to the hospital and treated for his injuries. Before he left, he told emergency responders that he had tripped on some raised tread on the stairs.

May 11, 2016

Workplace Accidents in Virginia

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

When an employee is injured while on the job, the most common remedy is workers’ compensation. In fact, in most cases of Virginia workplace injuries, workers’ compensation will be the sole means by which the injured employee can recover compensation. This can, and often does, act to limit a negligent employer’s liability in the case of the serious injury or death of one of its employees.

However, workers’ compensation may not be the only remedy that an accident victim can pursue. For example, if the employer has not properly set up and paid for workers’ compensation insurance, the company may not be covered under the program. Alternatively, if the negligent act resulting in the worker’s injuries was not the fault of the employer, the injured employee may be able to file a claim against the at-fault party, even if the injured party was at work at the time the injury occurred.

A Recent Example of a Nearly Non-Compliant Employer

In a recent case out of Utah brought by an employee against his employer, the lower court found that the employer was not covered by workers’ compensation. In the case, Nichols v. Jacobsen, the plaintiff was injured while disassembling some scaffolding at a work site. He filed a traditional negligence lawsuit against his employer. The employer asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, based on the fact that workers’ compensation was the employee’s sole remedy, and the employee had failed to pursue it.

May 3, 2016

Car Accident Victim’s Award Upheld after Government’s Appeal

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, the Nebraska Supreme Court issued an opinion in a personal injury case brought against a local government, alleging that the negligence of a government employee resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries. In the case, Moreno v. City of Gering, the government admitted that its employee was at fault in the accident, but it contested the amount of damages sought by the plaintiff. Thus, the case proceeded to trial on the damages issue only.

The Facts

The plaintiff was injured after she was ejected from a bus. Apparently, the woman was riding in a county bus when a volunteer fire-fighter negligently struck the bus. After a trial in front of a judge, the plaintiff was awarded about $575,000. Some of the damages award was designated to cover the cost of a surgery the plaintiff underwent after the accident.

Government Immunity Can Be Waived

Government immunity acts to protect state and local governments from liability in some situations. However, even if a government is entitled to immunity, that government will not necessarily assert its immunity to prevent the plaintiff’s recovery. In some cases, as was the case above, the government recognizes that an employee’s negligence resulted in harm to a member of the public, and the government wants to make things right.

April 26, 2016

State Supreme Court Finds Restrictions on Seat Belt Evidence Unconstitutional

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

The Arkansas Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that struck down a state statute restricting the admissibility of seat-belt non-use evidence in an auto accident lawsuit, finding the rule was unconstitutional under the Arkansas constitution. The Arkansas ruling is demonstrative of recent changes in several states, where courts are moving toward admitting such evidence in civil negligence lawsuits, although the laws continue to vary between states and based on the nature of the proposed evidence.

The plaintiff in the case of Mendoza vs. WIS International was a passenger in a vehicle that was being driven by the defendant when the defendant allegedly fell asleep at the wheel, causing an accident resulting in the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant and his employer, seeking damages for the injuries that were suffered in the crash. Once the case was filed, the defendant attempted to admit evidence that the plaintiff had not been wearing her seat belt when the crash occurred, thus contributing to the cause of her injuries and barring her recovery as a matter of law.

Comparative Negligence May Prevent a Plaintiff From Recovering Damages

Many jurisdictions, including Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, have laws that can prevent an accident victim from recovering damages against a negligent driver if the victim’s negligence contributed to the cause of their injuries. These “contributory negligence” statutes are used to prevent victims from recovering damages in situations in which both the victim and the defendant were negligent and contributed to the cause of the accident or the injuries to the plaintiff. In states that have modified comparative negligence statutes, a plaintiff may not be able to recover any damages if it is found that they are over 50% responsible for their injuries.

April 18, 2016

Court Allows Plaintiff to Rely Solely on Circumstantial Evidence in Lead-Based Paint Lawsuit

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, a Maryland Court of Appeals issued an opinion in a case brought by a woman who claimed that she was exposed to lead in dangerous amounts as a child when she lived in a property owned by the defendant. In the case, Rowhomes, Inc. v. Smith, the court ultimately determined that, although there was no physical or direct evidence that the defendant’s property contained lead, the evidence was sufficient to survive a summary judgment motion.

Summary Judgment Motions in Personal Injury Cases

Before a case is submitted to a jury, either party can ask the court to rule on the evidence presented, in hopes of obtaining a summary judgment. If a court determines that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, still requires a verdict in favor of the moving party, summary judgment is appropriate. If summary judgment is granted, the case is over, essentially before it even began. A summary judgment motion is a common way for a defendant to “test the waters” in personal injury cases, getting a feel for how the judge will view the evidence before proceeding to trial.

Rowhomes, Inc. v. Smith: The Facts of the Case

In Rowhomes, the issue for the court to decide was whether the plaintiff could survive a summary judgment motion without any direct evidence that the defendant’s property contained lead-based paint at the time when the plaintiff lived there. This was an issue because the home had been demolished since the plaintiff moved out, and it was never tested for lead-based paint prior to its demolition.

April 11, 2016

$4.5 Million Auto Accident Award Reversed Because Expert Witness Requirement Was Applied Incorrectly

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

The Nevada Supreme Court recently reversed a lower court’s ruling that awarded a personal injury plaintiff nearly $4.5 million for an auto accident claim. The initial ruling, which was entered by default against the defendant as a sanction for violating several pretrial orders against presenting a low-impact accident defense, will be set aside, and the plaintiff will be required to try the case again or agree to a settlement with the defendant.

The Plaintiff and Defendant Were Involved in an Accident that Appeared Relatively Minor

The case, Rish v. Simao, involved an auto accident that , according to the Nevada Supreme Court’s opinion, occurred in relatively slow-moving, stop-and-go traffic. Although the plaintiff in the case refused medical treatment at the scene of the crash and claimed that he was not injured at the time, serious injuries allegedly developed in the days or weeks following the accident. Some time after the crash occurred, the plaintiff retained counsel and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that the defendant’s negligence resulted in serious and ongoing injuries that required significant medical treatment.

The Plaintiff Files a Pretrial Motion to Exclude Specific Defense Testimony

Relying on an interpretation of a prior Nevada case, the plaintiff successfully argued before trial that the defendant should not be permitted to argue that the crash was a low-impact crash, which couldn’t have caused the alleged injuries, without retaining a biomechanical engineer as an expert witness first. Agreeing with the plaintiff and finding that the defendant had not retained such an expert, the judge granted the plaintiff’s motion. The judge also ruled that the defendant would not be permitted to discuss the nature of the accident or show pictures from the accident scene to the jury at trial. This ruling left little room for the defendant to give a defense at trial without such an expert, but the case moved on.