Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[05/16] Brittingham v. GMC
In a negligence and intentional misconduct case, summary judgment for defendants and denial of a motion to remand the case to state court is vacated and remanded where: 1) there was no federal preemption under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) did not impose a duty on defendant to conduct pre-employment examinations and disclose information; and 2) the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the action since the plaintiff's claims were rooted in state law independent of the CBA.

[05/14] Ericson v. Fed. Express Corp.
In a premises liability tort action arising from a third-party's assault and robbery incident in defendant's parking lot, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the third-party assault was not foreseeable under even the "regular reasonable forseeability" test; and 2) the negligent undertaking doctrine was inapplicable.

[05/14] Lockett v. Suardini
In a prisoner's action claiming a violation of his free speech rights when he was forcibly removed from a parole hearing after insulting the hearing officer, as well as cruel and unusual punishment based on guards' use of excessive force and nursing staff's refusal to treat his injuries, summary judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a prisoner is not engaged in protected conduct when he violates a legitimate prison regulation; 2) the prison guards used minimal force and plaintiff suffered minimal injuries when he was removed from the hearing room; and 3) plaintiff did not have an objectively serious medical need due to his minor injuries, and there was no deliberate indifference from the nursing staff since they checked up on the plaintiff twice after the incident.

[05/13] Price v. Connolly-Pac. Co.
In an action brought by a "commuter seaman" claiming entitlement to "maintenance and cure" from his employer under maritime laws after he allegedly contracted West Nile encephalitis while working on a ship, judgment for employer is affirmed over claims that: 1) under the Shipowner's Liability Convention of 1936, a seaman only needs to prove that an illness incurred, aggravated or manifested itself during the period of employment instead of while in the service of a vessel; and 2) even if a commuter seaman is not on call or engaged in an activity generally considered in the service of a vessel, maintenance and cure is required if an illness is contracted while the seaman is participating in an on-shore activity which benefits the employer.

More...