Articles Posted in Personal Injury

by

pallet workshopA U.S. Magistrate Judge recently ruled in favor of a plaintiff seeking discovery to aid his prosecution of a personal injury case.  The plaintiff had sought to obtain certain information from the defendant Home Depot, including a response to an interrogatory posed to the defendant concerning prior customer claims for injuries that the stores allegedly caused by or involving pallets.  The Court held a telephonic hearing on April 18, 2018 that ran over an hour after reviewing submissions by the plaintiff and the defendant.  Over the course of the hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel agreed to narrow the scope of the interrogatory that was a focus of the hearing, and the Court ordered the defendant to respond to the interrogatory as modified.

The plaintiff, via his counsel, filed a Motion to Compel on May 31, 2018, bringing to the Court’s attention that the defendant had not supplemented its discovery responses to include information concerning previous nationwide claims and lawsuits regarding injuries sustained by the defendant’s customers pertaining to slips, trips and falls involving pallets.  The plaintiff was frustrated because a few weeks earlier during the April 18 hearing the request had been modified to facilitate compliance with it.  The defendant had been allowed to respond with information stored in the defendant’s searchable database and, with respect to claims that had ripened into litigation, the defendant could respond by providing only names of the parties to the filed cases, the case numbers, and the districts in which the cases proceeded.

Continue reading

by

driving-300x225Proposed federal legislation could prevent states including New Mexico from regulating the safety of autonomous vehicles.  These vehicles are sometimes referred to as “driverless.”  If the proposed federal laws are enacted, they could limit the role of states to registration and licensing of driverless vehicles and oversight over safety inspections, traffic laws and crash investigations.

The proposed legislation is controversial for several reasons.  On the one hand, building driverless vehicles in the United States could be good for domestic auto manufacturing.  The technology could potentially also reduce collisions caused by errors of tired, distracted or drunk drivers.  Some argue that a patchwork of state regulations could cause delays and complications.  On the other hand, public safety and consumer protection are issues because there is potential for accidents.  To address these important issues, the federal government would need to set enforceable standards and rules for these innovative forms of transportation, including for example, rules with respect to manufacturing.  How long it would take to develop an effective federal regulatory system for driverless vehicles and how a system would work remains to be determined.

Continue reading

by

Large Vehicle
Claims are subject to dismissal through summary judgment when a party can establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to the claims, and the claims cannot succeed as a matter of law.  A summary judgment motion can seek the dismissal of a complaint in its entirety or be a partial summary judgment motion directed at some of the claims asserted in a complaint.  In a recent case, plaintiffs filed suit against the driver of a tractor trailer and the freight line that owned the vehicle he was driving at the time of the collision with the plaintiffs’ vehicle.

The plaintiffs asserted claims of negligence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment and sought an award of punitive damages.  The defendants removed the case from the New Mexico state court in which the plaintiffs had filed their complaint to a New Mexico federal district court, and they filed a motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.  The defendants asserted that the record supported the dismissal of the negligent entrustment and punitive damages claims as a matter of law.  The plaintiffs did not file a response in opposition.  Still, the Court had to assess whether the defendants had met their initial responsibility of demonstrating a basis for partial summary judgment.

The Court studied the evidence that the defendants had submitted and their arguments.  With respect to the negligent entrustment claim, the defendants had argued that the record did not support liability because the undisputed facts showed that the driver did not have a record of citations for traffic violations and had passed a drug test on the day of the accident.  The record before the Court also showed that the driver had only been in one accident previously, in which a vehicle had backed into the truck he was driving, had conducted a pre-trip inspection of the tractor trailer, was not using his cell phone at the time of the accident, was driving with low beams, was not exceeding the speed limit, and had tried to avoid the plaintiffs’ vehicle before the collision occurred that had given rise to their alleged damages.  With this record before it, the Court accepted the defendants’ contention that there was no evidence presented that the owner of the truck knew or should have known that the driver would operate it in a manner that would create an unreasonable risk of harm to others.  As a result, and without evidence to counter by the plaintiffs, the Court was amenable to granting the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the negligent entrustment claim.

Continue reading

by

SpeedNew Mexico’s Department of Transportation recently held a summit on autonomous vehicles.  The theme was that New Mexico needs to be ready. Semi-autonomous vehicles are operated with a driver behind the wheel.   Some semi-autonomous vehicles are already on the roads.  Fully autonomous vehicles are anticipated to hit roads in the coming years – cars and trucks that are fully automated and driverless. This raises concerns about what happens after a New Mexico car accident involving an autonomous vehicle.

The summit on autonomous vehicles followed a fatal car accident in Tempe, Arizona.  Tragically, a woman was struck and killed in Tempe while she was crossing the street.  She was hit by another woman who was behind the wheel of a self-driving Uber.  Tempe police had stated that the car did not slow down before striking the pedestrian, which has since been confirmed by review of video footage of the accident.  The Uber accident in Tempe is alarming because either the pedestrian who was struck was not recognized by the car’s autonomous system as a pedestrian, or, if she was, something went wrong applying the brakes.  The National Transportation Safety Board and the National Highway Safety Administration investigated the accident to try to figure out what happened.

Among the technological innovations discussed at the summit on autonomous vehicles organized by the Department of Transportation were the five levels of automation.  Level 1 vehicles have automatic braking and cruise control.  Level 2 vehicles assist with steering and acceleration.  At Level 3, conditional automation, a driver is still needed and is expected to jump in and take over under certain circumstances.  At Level 4, a vehicle can drive itself under some conditions, without input from a driver.  At Level 5, a vehicle can drive itself under all conditions and may not include the option to let a driver take over.

Continue reading

by

RappellingThe United States District Court for the District of New Mexico has handed down a ruling denying a motion to dismiss a New Mexico personal injury complaint alleging claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act.  The court rejected the defendant’s contention that a waiver signed by the plaintiff should result in the dismissal of her claims.

The plaintiff in this case was a civilian who was injured at a U.S. Air Force Base.  According to the court’s ruling, she had gone there with a group of her coworkers to participate in team building exercises.  One of these exercises involved rappelling down a tower. The plaintiff and her coworkers were each handed a waiver of liability form, with the Sergeant handing them out explaining that the waivers were documents “relieving the Air Force from responsibility for injuries and that the participants had to understand they were taking a risk by rappelling.”

The plaintiff did not recall a discussion of specific risks, including, for example, falling or the safety line not working.  She signed the waiver, took some training after explaining she had no experience, and ascended to the top of the rappelling tower.  She fell and was thereafter moved and assessed.  One of her coworkers then took her to the hospital in an ambulance.

Continue reading

by

xrayA state court in Albuquerque has ruled that the New Mexico legislature exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting the New Mexico Medical Malpractice Act to the extent that the Act restricts the right of plaintiffs to receive an unaltered jury verdict.

The New Mexico Medical Malpractice Act does not limit recoveries for punitive damages, medical care, and related benefits, but it does provide a limit of $600,000 for recoveries arising from an injury or death to a patient occurring as a result of medical malpractice.  The Act has other restrictions applicable in trials of medical malpractice cases in New Mexico, including providing that in jury cases, jurors are not to be given any instruction concerning the Act’s cap on recoverable damages.  The Act’s stated purpose is to make professional liability insurance available to health care providers in New Mexico.

The court’s ruling with respect to the constitutionality of the Act’s imposition of a cap on damages arose in the context of a personal injury case brought in state court after a woman from Placitas had been hospitalized for several months as a result of injuries that she suffered during a gynecological procedure.  Absent the imposition of a cap on the amount she is able to recover through the litigation by the New Mexico Medical Malpractice Act, the plaintiff could be awarded $2.6 million in damages.

Continue reading

by

Rainy HighwayCourts can rule for or against parties as a matter of law by granting motions for summary judgment.  If a motion for summary judgment is granted, absent a reversal on appeal, the issues it decides will not be presented to the trier of fact, which in New Mexico personal injury cases is often a jury.

In a recent ruling, the United States District Court denied for the most part a motion for summary judgment brought by a driver of a semi-tractor trailer and his employer, the defendants in a personal injury lawsuit.  The court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion with respect to the plaintiff’s punitive damages claim, and it denied summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff’s New Mexico state law claims, including negligence, negligence per se, and negligent training and supervision.

The underlying accident occurred on Interstate I-40 at around 3:00 in the morning, after the individual defendant had taken over driving responsibilities from his brother.

Continue reading

by

InjuredProsecuting a case pro se, in other words on one’s own behalf, can be difficult for a litigant.  A pro se plaintiff suing Hershey for an injury he alleged occurred when he bit into a chocolate product that contained a metal item recently sought a stay for a second time.  A successful motion to stay would have resulted in the suspension of his lawsuit, without prejudice to his rights.  The first time the plaintiff had sought to stay the case, Hershey did not oppose, and the judge issued a stay of proceedings until January 16, 2018, based on the plaintiff’s representation he needed a stay to aid his ailing father.  On January 16, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second stay motion, seeking a stay until July 2019.  The motion was based on medical, financial, and juridical reasons, and the defendant opposed.  After considering the situation, the court denied the second stay motion.

The plaintiff had sued the defendant in state court in Santa Fe County, alleging liability on tort theories including personal injury, product liability, and defective products.  The defendant responded to the lawsuit, which was filed on November 3, 2016, by removing it to federal court via a motion filed on September 27, 2017.  A few weeks later, the plaintiff sought and achieved a stay.  His subsequent stay motion was denied for several reasons.

First, the court articulated the standard it was using, explaining that the party seeking a stay must justify the request by clear and convincing evidence that outweighed the potential harm to the party against which the stay was to be operative.  The court concluded that the plaintiff could not show, under this standard, that staying the case until July 2019 outweighed the potential harm to the defendant.

Continue reading

by

GavelThe United States District Court for the District of New Mexico recently denied a motion to remand to state court a New Mexico premises liability case based on damages from a slip and fall.  An injured child, who was seven years old at the time of the accident giving rise to the lawsuit, was alleged to have slipped and fallen in a puddle in a store owned by the defendant.  She was alleged to have suffered a broken elbow, a head injury, and back and neck pain, for which she received medical treatment over the course of 16 months.  A lawsuit was filed on behalf of the child and her mother in state court, seeking an award of compensatory damages for pain and suffering during the 16-month period, as well as punitive damages.  The plaintiff mother also sought an award of damages for lost income.

In a demand letter made in December 2016 before the filing of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs requested $99,000 and advised the defendant that if the case proceeded to trial, the jury would be asked to return a verdict in an amount in excess of the $99,000 offer made to try to settle the case.  In October 2017, the plaintiffs filed a state court complaint, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.  The amount of damages sought to be recovered was not specified.  Later, in October 2017, the defendant removed the case to federal court.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court.  The plaintiffs then offered to settle for $70,000, and they stipulated that their damages were under $75,000.  No settlement was reached.

State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over certain cases, meaning that some cases can be filed and prosecuted in either forum.  Federal courts are perceived by some attorneys who predominantly handle defense work for corporate defendants to offer a forum that is more friendly to defendants.  The slip and fall case initially brought in New Mexico state court was susceptible to removal to federal court if the defendant could show that the plaintiffs and the defendant were residents in different states, and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Continue reading

by

Car AccidentThe United States District Court for the District of New Mexico recently denied a motion to dismiss brought on behalf of an insurance company that sought the dismissal of a class action complaint.  The class action complaint sought recovery of damages against an insurance company based on several theories of liability, including the sale of allegedly illusory underinsured motorist coverage, breach of contract, and assorted violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act.

The lead plaintiff, who had been denied coverage by her insurer following a car accident caused by an underinsured driver, filed suit in state court in Bernalillo County.  Her insurer removed the complaint to federal district court and unsuccessfully moved the federal district judge to dismiss the class action lawsuit.

The lead plaintiff alleged that she was driving eastbound on I-40 in Albuquerque when another driver failed to stop for traffic in front of that driver’s vehicle and struck the lead plaintiff’s vehicle, causing serious bodily injuries and other damages.  The lead plaintiff further alleged that the driver whose vehicle struck hers was an underinsured motorist at the time of the accident and that the underinsured driver’s insurance company paid the lead plaintiff $25,000 following the accident.

Continue reading