Appeals court held that when the death of a fireman is attributed to defective equipment he was using that contributed to his death, the fireman’s rule that there is no liability for the party who created a dangerous situation that required a response by a fireman does not apply.
(Updated November 2009)

Federal judge granted a request by the City of New York that a permanent injunction be issued against out-of-state gun dealers who sold guns to people in the city who could not possess them legally. A special master would be appointed to help ensure compliance of the order by the dealers.
(Updated November 2009)

Kentucky court held that an airport corporation, because it was created by a county, had sovereign immunity like the county itself against a wrongful death suit brought by an airline for a crash that happened, according to the airline, due to negligent operation of the airport.
(Updated November 2009)

Appeals court held that the baseball rule would not protect a club against a suit involving a child hit by a batting practice ball that was hit into a picnic area in the outfield. The club could be found to have violated its duty of ordinary care to protect patrons against injury.
(Updated November 2009)

Appeals court held that the client of a lawyer, who lost a suit for defamation for false claims he made about a competitor, could not sue his attorney for malpractice since he knew that the claims he was making were false. Wrongdoers cannot seek compensation from others involved in wrongdoing.
(Updated November 2009)

Appeals court upheld dismissal of a suit brought by the mother of a student who died from a criminal assault when he was ejected from a beer party for high school students. While the assailant may be liable, the party organizers violated no duty of care to the student who crashed the party.
(Updated November 2009)

Tennessee high court held that the owner and insurer of a defective bus, which caught fire and was destroyed by the fire, could not sue the maker of the bus in tort for product liability for the loss suffered. Purely economic losses cannot be recovered in tort; the parties must look to contract law for possible remedies.
(Updated November 2009)

Appeals court held that parents given large sums of money by their daughter who engaged in fraud to obtain the money were liable to the financial institutions that were the rightful owners of the money.
(Updated November 2009)

Appeals court held that an employee who was fired for threatening to blow up the house of another employee had no grounds for suit against his employer or managers for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Suffering sleeplessness and weight gain do not rise to the level of actionable events.
(Updated September 2009)

Georgia high court held that the state, with a minority of other states, retains the acceptance doctrine. Under it, a contractor to the state cannot be held liable for negligence for work properly done on the state’s behalf.
(Updated August 2009)

Oklahoma high court held that under state law a firm can be liable for the tort of interference with a contract if it intentionally and improperly interferes with a valid contract between other parties. Punitive damages may be imposed if the action was intentional.
(Updated August 2009)

New Jersey high court held that when an organization allows self-service of alcohol, it has an obligation to stop visibly intoxicated guests from drinking, but does not have a duty to monitor the intake of every person.
(Updated August 2009)

Georgia high court held that the statute of limitations for filing a medical malpractice suit need not begin to run from the date of the first negligent act. If there were multiple negligent acts over time, the clock could begin to run from the occurrence of any act.
(Updated June 2009)

Appeals court held that a passenger who suffered injuries when she fell down the stairs while getting off of an airplane, could sue in tort claiming defective design. The common law suit was not preempted by federal regulation of the airlines, as that regulation did not cover this area of airline operations.
(Updated June 2009)

Appeals court held that a homebuyer who relied on a survey by a company regarding location of the home in a flood zone could sue the company for negligence when the homebuyer relied on the company’s survey report that the home was not in a flood zone, when in fact it was and the home was later flooded.
(Updated May 2009)

Alabama high court held that property owners who lived near a coal mine that engaged in blasting could recover for damage to their houses and reduction in property value, but they could not recover for mental distress as there was no threat of bodily harm.
(Updated May 2009)

Texas high court held that loose gravel on a highway, which was related to a fatal accident, did not make the state liable under the Tort Claims Act. For there to be liability, the state would have had to create a special defect on the road that would be unexpected by a driver.
(Updated May 2009)

Arizona appeals court held, in a case of first impression, that an architect could be sued in tort for negligence for failing to use due care in the design of a building that required renovation to correct errors that were revealed years after completion and when there was no possibility of a breach of contract action.
(Updated May 2009)

New York appeals court rejected a design defect claim against a tire maker in a case where the tire exploded when re-inflated and killed the worker. The truck tire had been improperly maintained, making it weak and likely to rupture. Tire maker is not responsible for such problems.
(Updated May 2009)

Oklahoma high court held that if a party to a contract recklessly or intentionally committed the tort of interference to the contract, thereby preventing the other party to the contract from fulfilling it, punitive damages could be imposed.
(Updated April 2009)

Utah high court held that a claim of negligence by a patient, who had prescriptions filled by a pharmacy after the FDA had ordered the drug off the market, could proceed. Pharmacies are not necessarily protected by the learned intermediary rule in that instance as they are expected to use reasonable care.
(Updated April 2009)

Appeals court held that an electric power company had violated no duty of care to two workers killed when a large tent they were installing struck a power line. The power company had no notice of the construction, and the power lines were in a reasonable location.
(Updated February 2009)

Oregon high court held that the publisher of Yellow Pages, who encouraged a doctor to list himself in an area of specialization in which he was not specialized, was liable for injury suffered by a patient who relied on the representation in the Yellow Pages.
(Updated February 2009)

Washington high court held that a city is legally a “water company” under state law when it provides water in its jurisdiction. While it is responsible for providing water, it is not liable for damages suffered when water pressure is inadequate to allow a fire hydrant to be useful in putting out a fire.
(Updated February 2009)

New Jersey high court held that one business could sue another for commercial defamation based on negative statements made to customers that were negligent. Plaintiff did not need to prove actual malice by the defendant to be able to prevail.
(Updated February 2009)

Florida high court held that the state does not recognize the tort of false light invasion of privacy. The tort of defamation provides sufficient protection.
(Updated February 2009)

West Virginia high court held that a patient, who had a piece of a surgical knife left in his hand during surgery, and suffered pain the next ten years until the piece was discovered, was barred from suit by the statute of limitations. The continuous medical treatment doctrine did not apply because the patient did not continue under the care of the surgeon who left the knife blade in his hand.
(Updated February 2009)

Texas high court held that both the importer and the retailer of a defective product, who settled a product liability suit based on a defect, had the right to recover from the manufacturer. While parties in the distribution chain may be found liable at trial, they have a statutory right to recover against the manufacturer responsible for the defect.
(Updated February 2009)

Florida high court held that a liability waiver signed by a parent so his child could ride an ATV in an ATV park was unenforceable. Since the child was killed when riding the ATV, and the liability release was ineffective, suit by the child’s estate may proceed against the park operator.
(Updated February 2009)

Washington high court held that the supplier of a machine to the Navy, which installed the machine with asbestos insulation, as the machine maker knew it would, had no duty to warn those who worked on the machine, and so contacted the asbestos, of the dangers of asbestos.
(Updated February 2009)

Appeals court held that the vibrations over a one year period caused by pile driving at a construction site did not impose strict liability on the builder nor did it cause a nuisance. The builder acted in a reasonable manner, so there was no tort.
(Updated December 2008)

Oregon high court held that a city could not be held liable for negligence when it mistakenly issued a permit to open a business that should not have been issued. There was no common law right of action against the city, as it was merely exercising its proper authority.
(Updated December 2008)

Utah high court held that when a competitor had pop-up ads come up when a person accessed the website of another competitor there was no unfair competition or the tort of interference with prospective advantage. The ads were legitimate and not deceptive in content.
(Updated October 2008)

Tennessee high court held that the parent and brother of a boy seriously injured could sue for emotional distress because of the condition of the boy when they arrived at the scene of an accident soon after it happened. Although they did not see the accident, the scene was not changed significantly from the moment it occurred, so the claim may proceed.
(Updated October 2008)

Wisconsin high court held that there could be no negligence action against parents who allowed high school students to have a party at their house were alcohol that was brought to the party by one of the students was consumed. Although a drunk student later caused an accident, negligence could not be imputed to the social hosts.
(Updated October 2008)

Texas high court held that federal certification of the design of a product was implied to prohibit claims under state law that conflicted with that standard for safety purposes. A consumer could still have a claim if it could be shown there was a defect in manufacturing.
(Updated October 2008)

North Carolina high court held that even if a drunk driver was responsible for injuries in a collision that killed him, since he was dead his estate could not be sued for punitive damages. Such damages are intended to punish a person for a wrongful act, which cannot apply to a dead defendant.
(Updated July 2008)

Georgia high court held that while intracorporate communication is generally not subject to claims of defamation by employees or former employees, if the plaintiff can show that defamatory information was spread to employees who had no need to know, there may be a valid claim.
(Updated July 2008)

Appeals court held that while a tort based on negligence occurred, and the jury had properly apportioned liability, there would be no imposition of joint liability on the tortfeasors, as that requires an intent by the parties to act in concert in the commission of an intentional tort, which did not occur here.
(Updated June 2008)

Appeals court reversed a jury verdict, holding that a health club had no obligation to render skilled medical aid, such as CPR or a defibrillator, to a patron who suffered a heart attack. The club properly attended to the patron while waiting for the ambulance.
(Updated June 2008)

Appeals court held that a person injured by an officer who was involved in a high-speed chase had no cause of action against the police as qualified immunity applies unless there was an intent to do harm.
(Updated June 2008)

South Carolina high court held that a patient who claimed to have been injured during surgery could not sue for medical battery because the state does not recognize that cause of action. A suit for malpractice requires expert testimony that shows the physician deviated from competent practice in a medical matter.
(Updated June 2008)

Nevada high court held that since a baseball stadium took precautions to protect seating in high-danger areas, and warned fans of the dangers of foul balls, it did not breach its duty of care to a spectator who was hit while in the concession area.
(Updated May 2008)

Court dismissed a suit for defamation and emotional distress brought on behalf of 400 persons who claimed to have suffered from a false statement. Such group claims cannot stand; only individuals can bring such actions.
(Updated April 2008)

Utah high court held that under the professional rescuer rule, an officer injured while providing assistance to a driver whose negligence caused an accident cannot sue the driver for injuries suffered.
(Updated March 2008)

Georgia high court held that property owners could proceed with a suit against a county building inspector who failed to inspect a new barn they had built that collapsed. The public duty doctrine shields police officers from suit, but may not shield other government workers.
(Updated March 2008)

Appeals court held that a powerlifter assumed the risk of injury and could not sue the lift meet organizers for not providing more training for spotters. Assumption of the risk bars negligence claims; only a claim of intentional or reckless behavior could proceed.
(Updated March 2008)

Alabama high court changed the two-year statute of limitations to begin to run at the time an injury attributed to exposure to toxic chemicals is diagnosed, rather than begin to run at the date of the last exposure to the substances.
(Updated February 2008)

Texas high court upheld a jury verdict of fraud under Virginia law for false estimates made by a company about the quantity of gas to be produced from a gas field in Oklahoma. Since there was a history of production from the field, the inflated claims about the amount of gas to be recovered were fraudulent.
(Updated February 2008)

New Mexico high court held that firefighters who witnessed twelve people burned to death by a natural gas pipeline explosion could sue the pipeline company for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to reckless failure to maintain the pipeline safely.
(Updated February 2008)

Appeals court held that consumers could not sue for damages for not being warned that if they were lactose intolerant drinking milk could produce temporary discomfort. Nor do milk producers have an obligation to warn of lactose intolerance, as it is a commonly known problem.
(Updated January 2008)

Appeals court held that the Postal Service, as part of the government, was due sovereign immunity, and could not be sued for negligent placement of mailboxes at an intersection that blocked the view of oncoming traffic and was related to an accident.
(Updated December 2007)

North Dakota high court held that a surgeon who was called in to assist with an emergency surgery that failed, and the patient died, was not immune from being sued for malpractice by the state’s Good Samaritan Act since he was an employee of the hospital who expected compensation for services.
(Updated November 2007)

The SW Legal Virginia high court refused to adopt the learned intermediary rule, holding that drug makers have a duty to directly warn consumers of the dangers involved in the use of prescription drugs.
(Updated October 2007)

Texas high court held that the fact that plaintiff was exposed to asbestos fibers was not sufficient to show causation with respect to his lung problems. More substantial evidence must be presented for liability to be imposed.
(Updated September 2007)

New Jersey high court held that the state legislature gave police and other emergency personnel the right to sue when they suffer injuries in the line of duty, when the injuries are due to the negligence or willful misconduct of another.
(Updated June 2007)

Missouri high court held that class certification of children constantly exposed to lead emissions from a smelter was justified. Further, members of the class have the right to have health monitoring paid by defendant operators of the smelter since lead is known to be toxic.
(Updated June 2007)

Mississippi high court held it would not recognize a requirement for an employer to pay for medical monitoring for employees who claim their health may deteriorate in the future due to exposure to a hazardous substance. Some states do recognize this right of action.
(Updated June 2007)

New York court dismissed a complaint for tort of interference with prospective advantage by a company that was told by another company that it could not do business with them as it may lose an account with another company if it did. Relations were broken to benefit the company that was negotiating, not the outside company.
(Updated June 2007)

Appeals court held that it was improper for a trial court to impose some liability on a lead driver hit from behind by a speeding motorcyclist. Unless it can be shown that there was a clear reason why the lead driver was at fault, the presumption is the rear driver is negligent for hitting a vehicle from behind.
(Updated May 2007)

South Carolina high court imposed a new common law duty on social hosts, holding them liable for injuries that result from consumption of alcoholic beverages provided by the host to persons between the ages of 18 and 20.
(Updated May 2007)

Appeals court affirmed that a coach of a youth football program could not sue for injuries he suffered when hit from behind by players from other teams playing a game immediately behind the field on which his team was playing. His contributory negligence outweighed any negligence by other parties.
(Updated May 2007)

Illinois high court held that in a strict liability claim for design defect, the consumer-expectation test would apply from the perspective of the purchaser, not a child who may happen to grab the product. The jury may also employ the risk-utility test.
(Updated May 2007)

Mississippi high court held that it was not negligence per se for a car rental company to rent a car to a person who appeared to have a valid license, but in fact had a suspended license, who then caused an accident.
(Updated May 2007)

Alaska high court held it to be fraudulent misrepresentation for a real estate agent to tell a client that a house was available when in fact there was an existing offer on it that had been accepted by the sellers. The new offer would only be a backup offer.
(Updated March 2007)

Massachusetts high court held that negligence is the standard in determining liability when a seller of alcoholic beverages sells to buyers under age 21. The dram shop law liability requires wanton, reckless behavior when selling to those over age 21.
(Updated February 2007)

Virginia high court held that a brutal assault on a disabled nursing home patient is governed by tort law, not by the state’s Medical Malpractice Act, as the provision of medical care had nothing to do with the incident in question.
(Updated January 2007)

Appeals court held that the owner of a gun was not negligent by leaving the weapon unattended, which allowed it to be used in a suicide. There was no indication that the person was suicidal, so there was no duty to secure the weapon more than usual.
(Updated December 2006)

Trial court dismissed a claim for mental distress for members of a family who lost two family members in a house hit by a plane in an accident. Since the survivors did not witness the crash or suffer direct physical injury themselves, there is no mental distress claim.
(Updated October 2006)

Appeals court held that for the probation department to fail to arrest a probationer in violation of his parole was not the proximate cause of a murder committed by the probationer while he was free. The state was not the proximate cause of the murder that was committed..
(Updated October 2006)

Appeals court held that an injured plaintiff had been awarded proper damages by a jury and that, under the collateral source rule, the damages would not be reduced because a second accident caused the plaintiff to receive compensation for some of the same injuries.
(Updated August 2006)

Arizona appeals court held unconstitutional a statute that held persons could not be liable if they injured a person who was committing a crime. The constitution requires that all issues of contributory negligence and assumption of risk go to a jury.
(Updated July 2006)

Georgia high court held that the settlement the state entered into with the cigarette makers to cover the cost of health services provided by the state to tobacco users included a prohibition on further claims for punitive damages.
(Updated May 2006)

Mississippi high court held that a person who claimed a prescription drug caused injury by causing him to become addicted to it could sue no one because of his wrongful conduct in obtaining the drug.
(Updated April 2006)

Michigan high court dismissed a suit brought by a skier who was injured when he ran into a snowboard rail. Under a state statute, skiers assume the risk of injury from the sport. That is true whether it be snowboarding or skiing equipment that is provided for use of sports participants.
(Updated April 2006)

New York high court held that the Metropolitan Opera was not negligent when a patron with health problems fell when going to his seat, causing injury to another patron. .
(Updated March 2006)

Indiana high court held that under state law, the estate of a person who committed a tort may not be sued for punitive damages. Punitive damages are to punish the wrongdoer; that cannot occur if the tortfeasor is dead.
(Updated March 2006)

Idaho high court held that a landfill operator could be liable based on negligence per se for failure to place a fence around a landfill where two children were killed. State law requires a fence to try to prevent such accidents, so negligence per se existed.
(Updated March 2006)

Court held that plaintiff had a possible claim for the tort of outrage for discrimination on the job and dismissal based on her joining the military. Such treatment would violate public policy, which gives strength to the claim.
(Updated February 2006)

Appeals court held that the heirs of a restaurant patron who died from eating raw oysters had no cause of action. The restaurant had provided adequate warning of the health problems most related to bacteria that occurs naturally in oysters.
(Updated November 2005)

Appeals court held that a suit for false arrest and invasion of privacy may proceed. A customer was arrested and ejected from a store when the manager wanted it cleared of customers other than the movie stars who were shopping in the store.
(Updated August 2005)

Mississippi high court held that a patient who contended that he had not received proper informed consent prior to surgery, and suffered complications, must provide expert testimony at trial to support the claim that the information provided by the surgeon was faulty for the case to proceed.
(Updated August 2005)

Appeals court held that the estate of a motorist, who was killed in an accident that was blamed on poor the placement of a stop sign, could proceed with a private cause of action for negligence against the county road supervisor who is charged by state law with such matters as proper sign placement. The supervisor is not protected by sovereign immunity as is his employer, the county.
(Updated September 1, 2001)

Ohio appeals court allowed a suit for intentional tort, by an employee injured on the job by another employee, to go forward against the employer. The employee pleaded sufficient allegations to indicate that the employer knew that the attack by the other employee was likely to occur but took no steps to prevent it from occurring.
(Updated September 1, 2001)

Appeals court ordered a new trial in a negligence case in which the jury improperly apportioned all fault to the owner of a vehicle and none to the driver of the vehicle that caused the accident, but held that the jury could award hedonic damages for the loss of enjoyment of life to a person injured in the accident. Such damages are distinct from damages for pain and suffering.
(Updated August 1, 2001)