Table of Contents

INJURY AND TORT LAW CASES

• Lombardi v. Whitman
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rosenthal
• Bouggess v. Mattingly
• Jaskolski v. Gonzales
• Ruminer v. Gen. Motors Corp.
• Sea Hawk Foods, Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
• Florence v. Crescent Res., LLC
• Nimbus Techs., Inc. v. SunnData Prods., Inc.
• Velazquez v. City of Hialeah
• Jackson v. Axelrad
• McKinnon v. Otis Elevator Co.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 19, 2007
Lombardi v. Whitman, No. 06-1077
In case involving plaintiffs who performed search, rescue, and clean-up work at the World Trade Center site after 9/11, with allegations that federal officials' knowingly false statements about the air quality safety violated plaintiffs' right to substantive due process, dismissal of complaint is affirmed as the allegations do not shock the conscience even if the defendants acted with deliberate indifference. When agency officials decide how to reconcile competing governmental obligations in the face of disaster, only an intent to cause harm arbitrarily can shock the conscience in a way that justifies constitutional liability. Read more...

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 20, 2007
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rosenthal, No. 06-2158
In an insurer's declaratory judgment action against an insured alleging that his underinsured motorist claim was time barred by Pennsylvania's four-year statute of limitations on contract claims, a ruling for the insured is affirmed on alternate grounds, based on a prediction that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would start running the statute of limitations on the date on which an insured settles with or obtains an award from the adverse driver for less than the value of his damages. Read more...

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 16, 2007
Bouggess v. Mattingly, No. 06-5619
In the context of civil rights actions, an officer who employs deadly force against a fleeing suspect without reason to believe that the suspect is armed or otherwise poses a serious risk of physical harm is not entitled to either qualified immunity or immunity under the law of Kentucky. Read more...

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 20, 2007
Jaskolski v. Gonzales, No. 06-3508
In a suit where defendants accused of false prosecution for insurance fraud sought classification as federal employees for purposes of federal jurisdiction, defendants' appeal of the district court's denial of federal employee status is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where a statute, as interpreted in Osborn v. Haley, 127 S. Ct. 881 (2007), that prohibits review of an order remanding a case back to the state court from which it was removed rendered the appeal unreviewable. Read more...

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 19, 2007
Ruminer v. Gen. Motors Corp., No. 06-2192
In a product liability suit alleging that injuries plaintiff sustained in an accident were a result of defects in the air bag and seat belt, summary judgment for General Motors is affirmed over claims that the district court erred by: 1) requiring plaintiff to offer evidence of a specific design or manufacturing defect; and 2) failing to recognize that the circumstances surrounding the accident permitted a conclusion that General Motors was responsible for the injuries at issue. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 16, 2007
Sea Hawk Foods, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., No. 05-35468
In an action brought against Exxon by the operator of a seafood processing business in Alaska for business losses resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, a district court's determination of the applicable prejudgment interest rates following settlement of the claims is reversed where the district court erred by not applying Alaska law to plaintiff's Alaska state law claim for prejudgment interest. Read more...

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 18, 2007
Florence v. Crescent Res., LLC, No. 06-13587, 06-13588, 06-13589, 06-14206
In case involving question of fraudulent joinder of a resident defendant in the context of removal jurisdiction, denial of plaintiffs' motions to remand, dismissal of non-diverse defendant, and judgment for defendant is vacated as the district court erred in holding that non-diverse defendant was fraudulently joined, and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction since complete diversity did not exist. Read more...

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 18, 2007
Nimbus Techs., Inc. v. SunnData Prods., Inc., No. 06-10657
In dispute involving an LED tooling purchase agreement, summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's claim for intentional interference with business relations, and holding that plaintiff may not hold one of defendants accountable for judgment against non-party creditor by piercing the corporate veil, are affirmed as: 1) under Alabama law, a plaintiff may not pierce the corporate veil against a creditor; and 2) plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of its intentional interference claim. Read more...

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 20, 2007
Velazquez v. City of Hialeah, No. 05-13157
On petitions for rehearing seeking clarification of reversal of summary judgment as to two of the defendants, district court's holding, that plaintiff could not prove a critical element of his case in terms of which officer actually inflicted excessive force upon him, is based upon an erroneous view of the law and is reversed. An officer who is present at a beating inflicted by another officer and fails to intervene may be held liable though he administered no blow. Read more...

Supreme Court of Texas, April 20, 2007
Jackson v. Axelrad, No. 04-0923
In a medical malpractice case in which both the physician and patient were doctors, a court of appeals ruling reversing a take-nothing judgment and remanding for new trial is reversed where, although laymen generally have no duty to volunteer information during medical treatment, plaintiff was not a layman and jurors judging his actions could consider his expertise, especially as he emphasized it throughout the trial. Consequently, as there was some evidence that plaintiff-psychiatrist failed to report a critical symptom when he should have, the jury's verdict for defendant is reinstated. Read more...

California Appellate Districts, April 18, 2007
McKinnon v. Otis Elevator Co., No. C051752
In the context of workers’ compensation and an employer’s subrogation action against an alleged third-party tortfeasor, when an employer fails to adequately notify its employee of its subrogation lawsuit and proposed settlement involving the alleged third-party tortfeasor and fails to obtain the employee’s consent to the settlement of that suit, and when the settling alleged third-party tortfeasor, prior to settlement, was or reasonably should have been aware of the possibility of the employee’s claim for damages against the tortfeasor, the alleged tortfeasor cannot use the mere settlement and dismissal of the employer’s subrogation action to bar the employee from maintaining their own action for damages against the alleged tortfeasor. Read more...