News

[03/09] SUV backs into Mich. school; 6 students injured
[03/09] Superintendent accidentally fires gun during class
[03/09] Park, slain trainer's family want video suppressed
[03/09] Hoped-for drop in childbirth deaths not happening
[03/09] Ohio State janitor's gunfire kills co-worker, self
[03/09] Pa. suit: Bank wrongly repossessed home, took bird
[03/08] UN says mother-child HIV can be eliminated by 2015
[03/08] Co. owner indicted in deadly NYC crane collapse
[03/08] Jet with 74 aboard makes emergency landing
[03/08] Woman believed oldest in America dies in NH at 114

More...

Articles

Toxic Torts

The area of toxic tort law has been developing in recent years. This area of law covers many types of injuries, such as injuries due to tobacco use, lead poisoning, polluted water, contaminated structures or building materials, radiation poisoning, pesticides, injury due to defective drugs or injuries from medical devices, to name a few. These injuries are caused by various sources, from defective medications to contamination or pollution. Although the circumstances surrounding each toxic tort case may be vastly different, the legal aspects of toxic tort claims are similar: The injury must have been caused by hazardous substance and the individual or individuals who were injured must have made contact with that substance.

More...

How do Insurers Determine What a Car is Worth?

Insurers keep proprietary databases on car prices, similar to the Blue Book or the National Auto Dealers Association (NADA) Official Used Car Guide. The insurer's valuation of your car is mostly based on its age. So, for example, your car might be totaled if it's thirteen years old and receives only minor damage, and it might not be if it's a brand new Porsche that has been in a devastating collision. If your automobile is “totaled,” that means that it would cost more to fix your car then the car is worth. Most auto insurance contracts contain a provision that states if your car is damaged in an accident, your insurer does not have to pay you more than your vehicle is worth. So if your car is “totaled out” by your insurance company, what you will receive is a check for the value of the car. Unfortunately, this is usually not enough to replace your car or to fix the damage to your car. Additionally, if you get back your car and use the money to fix it, insurers may refuse to provide more than basic liability coverage on your vehicle since it has been deemed a total loss.

More...

Case Summaries

[03/09] Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.

[03/09] Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming excessive force by defendants-officers, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to show as a matter of law that plaintiff's decedent did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; 2) the district court properly found that defendants failed to show as a matter of law that the emergency and exigency exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applied; 3) defendants failed to show that there were no questions of fact regarding whether a security guard had apparent authority to consent and implied consent; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the officers intentionally or recklessly provoked a confrontation.

[03/05] Bustos v. Martini Club Inc.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on a late-night confrontation with several off-duty police officers, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the election of remedies provisions in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 101.106 applied to state law intentional tort claims against a governmental unit and its employees; 2) plaintiff did not allege facts to suggest that the officers who assaulted him misused or abused their official power; and 3) bystander officers had no constitutional duty to prevent the alleged assault.

[03/05] Howard v. St. Germain
In an appeal from the district court's order assessing attorney's fees against defendants based on their improper removal of the case, the order is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in taxing costs and attorney's fees to defendants because an objectively reasonable basis for removal did not exist.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

[03/04] Aills v. Boemi
In plaintiff's medical malpractice suit against defendant plastic surgeon arising out of negligence in connection with an elective surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeal is quashed and remanded as the district court erred in reversing for a new trial on the basis of an improper argument by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument.

[03/04] Coito v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiff's wrongful death suit against the State of California and various other defendants for the drowning death of her 13-year old son, superior court's denial of plaintiff's motion to compel production of certain recorded witness statements is reversed and plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus granted where: 1) written and recorded witness statements, including not only those produced by the witness and turned over to counsel but also those taken by counsel, are not attorney work-product, and thus neither is a list of witnesses from whom statements have been obtained; and 2) the state failed to show that the recorded statements of the four juvenile witnesses were protected work product.

[03/04] Schreiber v. Moe
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against a police officer, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) no reasonable jury could find that defendant violated the Fourth Amendment either by entering plaintiff's home or by remaining inside as long as he did; 2) defendant violated plaintiff's right to be free from excessive force, as striking a neutralized suspect who is secured by handcuffs is objectively unreasonable; and 3) because plaintiff's right to be free from excessive force was clearly established, defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.

[03/03] Willis v. Bender
In an action for lack of informed consent and medical malpractice, judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where there was no evidence, specifically expert testimony, that another physician was negligent and therefore no basis to hold defendant liable for his negligence. However, the judgment is reversed in part where defendant's alleged misrepresentations to plaintiff in response to her direct questions allegedly induced her to consent to the surgery and its risks, and under those circumstances, if proved, her consent could hardly be considered "informed".

[03/03] Teachers' Ret. Sys. of La. v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP
In a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of AIG for breach of fiduciary duty against PricewaterhouseCoopers under New York law, the Delaware Supreme Court certifies the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: Would the doctrine of in pari delicto bar a derivative claim under New York law where a corporation sues its outside auditor for professional malpractice or negligence based on the auditor's failure to detect fraud committed by the corporation; and, the outside auditor did not knowingly participate in the corporation's fraud, but instead, failed to satisfy professional standards in its audits of the corporation's financial statements?

More...