Personal Injury Case Law

Court Finds “Good Faith” of Trooper Resulted in Governmental Immunity

December 16, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Texas decided a case that involved a State Trooper who caused an accident while in pursuit of a fleeing offender. The court determined that since the Trooper was in the course of his duty, and likely acting in good faith at the time of the accident, official immunity attached, and the case filed by the injured accident victim was dismissed.

In the case, Texas Department of Public Safety v. Bonilla, the plaintiff was injured when a State Trooper ran a red light while he was pursuing a reckless driver. The Department filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit against it based on the Trooper’s official immunity, since he was acting within the scope of his employment, was responding to an emergency situation, and was acting in good faith when he caused the accident. The parties agreed that summary judgment is only appropriate if there are no issues of material fact when the evidence is viewed in favor of the non-moving party, and in this case the evidence was to be viewed in favor of the plaintiff.

The trial court hearing the case determined that the Trooper did not conclusively show that he was acting in good faith, since a reasonably prudent Trooper could have made a different decision regarding the chase of the offender. Since the Trooper’s actions were not the only course of action available, and there was no evidence suggesting he considered other means, the court determined that there was a triable issue, and summary judgment was not appropriate. The intermediate appellate court affirmed the decision.

Accident Victim’s Claim Against City that Concrete Barriers Were Improperly Installed Failed for Lack of Expert’s Testimony

December 9, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a Montana court dismissed a plaintiff’s claim based on the fact that the plaintiff failed to introduce evidence of the applicable standard of care to which the defendant’s conduct could be compared. In the case, Not Afraid v. Montana, the plaintiff was paralyzed after the vehicle he was riding in as a passenger collided with and then crashed through a concrete barrier, ultimately sliding down a steep hillside.

Several years after the accident, the man filed suit against the State, County, and City governments, alleging that negligence in the placement and maintenance of the concrete barriers contributed to his injuries. Most relevant was the plaintiff’s claim against the City, which was charged with maintaining that particular section of roadway.

The Plaintiff’s Case

The plaintiff claimed that the City was negligent in the placement, installation, and maintenance of the concrete barriers. To support his claim, the plaintiff submitted a four-page report prepared by an accident-reconstruction expert. That report concluded that the vehicle the plaintiff was traveling in was likely going about 45 miles per hour when it collided with the barrier, and “the barriers were relatively ineffective in containing higher speed vehicles traveling around the curve.”

Court Holds Accident Victim’s Potential Medicaid and Medicare Benefits Not Admissible at Trial

October 19, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Florida heard a case between the family of a developmentally disabled man and the family’s uninsured motorist insurance carrier, ruling that the insurance carrier was not permitted to bring up evidence of the man’s potential future benefits though Medicare or Medicaid. In the case, Joerg v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the court determined that it was not proper to allow the defendant to admit evidence of potential future benefits in hopes of decreasing the jury’s damages award amount.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the parents of a developmentally disabled man named Luke, who was injured when he was hit by a car while riding his bicycle. Because of his pre-existing disability, Luke was potentially eligible for reimbursement for his medical expenses through the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Initially, the case was filed against both the driver of the car and State Farm, which was the family’s uninsured motorist carrier. However, prior to trial, the family withdrew the case against the driver and proceeded only against State Farm.

State Supreme Court Reverses Plaintiff’s Award for Punitive Damages

October 7, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Kentucky handed down a decision that reversed the punitive damages awarded by a jury at trial. In the case, Nissan v. Maddox, the plaintiff was a woman who was injured in an accident while driving her Nissan Pathfinder along the highway. Evidently, a drunk driver struck her vehicle head on, severely injuring both the plaintiff and the other occupant in the vehicle. Mrs. Maddox specifically suffered a tear to her bowel and several broken bones.

Mrs. Maddox filed suit against the driver as well as against Nissan. Relevant to this case was her claim against Nissan, which was that the Pathfinder had a defectively designed restraint system and that the company failed to warn customers about this failure.

Mrs. Maddox, who was 240 pounds at the time of the accident, argued that the restraint system was designed for people of medium weight. She also alleged that the front seat was defectively designed, exacerbating her injuries.