News
Litigation
- [07/23] Lawsuit over rights to film 'Precious' settled
- [07/20] Calif. judge to review Toyota case discovery plan
- [07/19] RICO law made to combat Mafia used in BP lawsuits
- [07/16] Goldman paying $550M to settle civil fraud charges
- [07/13] 'Scuse me? Hendrix bandmate sues over '03 release
- [07/08] Appeals court rejects Pratt & Whitney jobs move
- [07/08] Appeals court to hear drilling moratorium case
- [06/30] AstraZeneca shares surge on court victory
- [06/29]
- [06/28]
- [06/28]
Medical Devices
Personal Injury
- [07/29] Bear attack in Montana leaves 1 dead, 2 injured
- [07/29] APNewsBreak: Pa. diocese sued in accuser's suicide
- [07/29] Victim settles with NYC utility in steampipe blast
- [07/29] Cargo plane crashes at Alaska base; 4 on board
- [07/29] Rescuer pulls mom, 2 kids from car in Minn. pond
- [07/29] US panel asked to consolidate oil spill lawsuits
- [07/29] Hands-only CPR, pushy dispatchers are lifesavers
- [07/28] DC pushes female condoms to fight HIV epidemic
- [07/28] Ohio woman dies after being hit by police cruiser
- [07/28] Calif. wildfires burn 30-plus homes, threaten 150
- [07/28] Wildfires burn dozens of homes, force evacuations
Product Liability
- [07/29] Govt to crash test 55 vehicles under new system
- [07/29] Toyota recalls 412,000 cars in US, mostly Avalons
- [07/26] Nap Nanny recliners recalled
- [07/26] Medical device problems hurt 70,000+ kids annually
- [07/22] 1.3 million Smith and Noble blinds recalled
- [07/20] Calif. judge to review Toyota case discovery plan
- [07/13] Vivus weight loss drug faces safety questions
- [07/09] FDA review spotlights heart risk of diabetes pill
- [07/09] Chrysler, Ford recalling SUVs, vans
- [07/09] European agency to review safety of GSK's Avandia
- [07/06] Toyota knew about Lexus problem 2 years ago
Case Summaries
Injury & Tort Law
[06/25]
Crescent Towing & Salvage Co. v. Chios Beauty MV
In an action for damages sustained when defendant's ship collided with plaintiffs' barges and tugboats during Hurricane Katrina, partial judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where the district court did not clearly err in its finding of a predicted "direct hit" on New Orleans by the hurricane, its factual findings based on this finding, and the ultimate finding of negligence to the extent that it relied upon this finding. However, the matter is remanded where the district court needed to enter an order setting the total amount of recovery plaintiffs could recover in rem.
[06/25]
Bagby Elevator Co. v. Schindler Elevator Corp.
In an action for tortious interference with contract, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) under the court's highly deferential standard of review, there was no reversible error in the district court's decision to use the pattern jury instruction; 2) there was sufficient evidence of both malice and gross negligence to support an award of exemplary damages; and 3) there was ample evidence of causation to support the verdict.
[06/25]
Lal v. State of Cal.
In an action against the California Highway Patrol and certain officers for the shooting death of plaintiff's husband, dismissal of the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute when her attorney failed to meet deadlines and attend hearings is reversed where an attorney's gross negligence constituted an extraordinary circumstance warranting relief from a judgment dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).
[06/24]
DDJ Mgmt., LLC v. Rhone Group L.L.C.
In an action claiming that defendants presented plaintiffs with corporate financial statements that were false and misleading, the appellate division's modification of the trial court's order dismissing plaintiffs' fraud claim is reversed where: 1) when a plaintiff has taken reasonable steps to protect itself against deception, it should not be denied recovery merely because hindsight suggested that it might have been possible to detect the fraud when it occurred; and 2) plaintiffs in this action for fraud have alleged facts from which a jury could find that they were justified in relying on the representations defendants made to them.
[06/24]
Yanez v. SOMA Envtl. Eng'g, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit for injuries she suffered in an automobile accident, trial court's grant of defendants' motion to reduce the award for medical expenses from $44,519.01 to $18,368.24 is reversed and remanded where: 1) trial court erred in reducing plaintiff's damages to the amount actually paid by her insurers as the amounts written off by plaintiff's health care providers constitute collateral benefits of her insurance; and 2) on remand, the trial court is to award plaintiff prejudgment interest under Civ. Code section 3291.
[06/18]
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Merrell
In plaintiffs' wrongful death and survival claims against Wal-Mart for the death of their son from smoke inhalation, claiming that a halogen lamp purchased from Wal-Mart caused the fire, the court of appeals' reversal of the trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs produced evidence on each challenged element of their cause of action is reversed as, plaintiff's expert's testimony was legally insufficient to support causation.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
