Government Liability

Errant Golf Ball Strikes Baby in Stroller on Nearby City-Owned Walking Path

Published on: June 5, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion in a premises liability case that was brought by the mother of a child who was struck by an errant golf ball as she was wheeling her son in a stroller on a walking path owned and maintained by the city. The appellate court hearing the case determined that the city was not entitled to government trail immunity because the dangerous hazard that caused the injury was not a condition of the trail itself.

The Facts of the Case

The walking path where the injury occurred directly abuts a private golf course. A few years before the accident, the golf course installed a fence and strategically planted large trees to decrease the likelihood that golf balls would leave the course. However, there was no evidence that the city took any precaution regarding golf balls that were hit out of the boundaries of the golf course.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the city as well as the golf course. The plaintiff claimed that the city failed to take any action to remedy the known dangerous condition created by the potential of errant golf balls.

The Importance of Following All Procedural Requirements in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: May 17, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Last month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion highlighting the importance of complying with all of the procedural requirements in a South Florida personal injury lawsuit. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiff did effectuate proper service on the government defendant and rejected the defendant’s appeal. However, the case should serve as a warning to would-be plaintiffs that even a single misstep may result in the dismissal of an otherwise meritorious case.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in an accident with a school bus. Believing the accident to be the fault of the school bus driver, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver of the bus as well as the school district that employed the driver. The plaintiff claimed that the school bus driver was negligent in operating the bus and that the school district was negligent in hiring the driver.

As is required under state law, the plaintiff set out to serve the defendants. The plaintiff hired a process-server, who went to the school district’s main building and inquired where he could deliver the service documents. The front-desk attendant directed the process-server to the HR department. Once at the HR department, the process-server met with the receptionist to the Deputy Superintendent. The receptionist called her superior, who instructed her to accept the service and said that she would come by later to pick it up. The process-server left the documents with the receptionist.

Personal Injury Plaintiff’s Case Against Government Entity Dismissed for Failing to Comply with Procedural Requirements

Published on: May 8, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Last month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving a car accident between the plaintiff and an employee with the Department of Transportation. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiff’s complaint did not conform to the mandatory procedural requirements of a complaint filed against a government entity. As a result, the plaintiff’s case was dismissed by the court.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in an auto accident with an employee of the Georgia Department of Transportation. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries in the accident and filed a personal injury case against the Department under the theory of vicarious liability. Essentially, the doctrine of vicarious liability allows for a plaintiff to hold an employer responsible for the negligent acts of an employee.

Since the case named a government entity as a defendant, the plaintiff’s complaint needed to meet certain additional procedural requirements not present in cases against citizens or businesses. Generally, these additional requirements involve providing the government agency named as a defendant with appropriate notice of the lawsuit. This includes specifying the amount of damages the plaintiff is seeking.

Court Applies Government Immunity in Bicycle Accident, Dismissing Plaintiff’s Claim

Published on: April 20, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released a written opinion in a premises liability lawsuit against the federal government, alleging that the United States Forest Service, through its employees, was negligent in the maintenance of bike trails in a forest. The court ultimately determined that the alleged acts of negligence were covered under governmental immunity, and it rejected the plaintiff’s claims.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and a friend were mountain biking in the De Soto National Forest. The bikers began their trip at the Couch Loop Trail. While the trail was closed, the plaintiff did not stop at the trail-head bulletin board, where the notice of closure was posted.

The plaintiff and her friend rode the Couch Loop Trail until they decided to take an “alternate route” to the left. This alternate route led the bikers to an area with several obstacles that had been built by a local bike association. As the plaintiff attempted to negotiate one of the obstacles, she fell off her bike and was seriously injured. She then filed a premises liability lawsuit against the U.S. government, claiming that the Forest Service was negligent in its maintenance of the bike trails. The plaintiff also alleged that the Forest Service was negligent in failing to warn her about the potential dangerous conditions present on the trails.

Appellate Court Refuses To Consider Evidence Presented for the First Time on Appeal

Published on: March 27, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a Rhode Island appellate court issued a written opinion discussing principles that are important to understand for anyone considering filing a personal injury case in South Florida. The case arose out of a slip-and-fall accident that occurred in a public park. The issue for the court to decide was whether evidence of the city’s knowledge of the dangerous condition was admissible when it was presented to the court for the first time on appeal. The court held that the evidence, as well as any argument stemming from the evidence, was not admissible because it was not presented to the trial court.

A Boy Breaks His Leg While Playing Baseball

The plaintiffs’ son was playing baseball in a public park that was owned and operated by the defendant city. During the game, the plaintiffs’ son slid into home plate and got his lower leg stuck under the base. As he stood up, he broke his leg in two places. The plaintiffs filed a premises liability lawsuit, claiming that the city was negligent in failing to safely maintain the park, including the home plate where their son was injured.

The defendant city claimed that it was immune from liability under the recreational use statute, which protects landowners that allow others to use their land for recreational purposes and do not charge a fee for doing so. The plaintiffs made only a broad objection to the applicability of the recreational use statute, without explaining the basis for the objection. The court ultimately granted the city’s motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs appealed.

State Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Claim Against Teacher in Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Published on: February 2, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Georgia recently published an opinion affirming a Georgia court of appeals’ decision to affirm a trial court’s grant of judgment to a defendant teacher, whose alleged negligence in failing to supervise her class resulted in the death of the plaintiff’s son. The defendant had allegedly left the classroom, and the defendant’s son was killed as a result of “horseplay” that occurred in her absence. With the most recent decision of the Georgia Supreme Court, the plaintiff will not be able to collect damages from the teacher for the claim against her in her individual capacity.`

The Plaintiff’s Son Dies After Another Student Crushes Him During “Horseplay”

The plaintiff in the case is the mother of a boy who died as a result of injuries that he sustained as a student in the defendant’s American Literature class at the defendant high school. According to the appellate court’s discussion of the underlying facts of the case, the teacher left the classroom for 30 minutes or more during and after the period of time when the plaintiff’s son sustained the injuries that ultimately took his life.

When asked by school administrators about what happened after the student’s death, the defendant first lied, stating that she was in her classroom the whole time. After the death of her son, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death claim against several defendants, including the teacher both in her official capacity as a teacher and in her individual capacity.

Court Addresses Claim for Injuries Incurred in a High-Speed Police Chase

Published on: January 23, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Ohio recently published a decision affirming a circuit court’s ruling to dismiss the plaintiff’s case against municipal law enforcement officers after she was seriously injured when a fleeing suspect crashed into her vehicle head-on as the officers pursued him in a high-speed chase. The woman claimed that the officers’ conduct was reckless and wanton and that they should not be entitled to immunity from her claim because of the unacceptable nature of their actions. The final ruling, while affirming the rejection of the plaintiff’s claim, serves to reduce the immunity granted to police officers from that given to them by the circuit court and the Ohio Court of Appeals by rejecting any immunity for officer conduct that is deemed reckless.

Fleeing Suspect Slams Head-On into Plaintiff’s Vehicle

The plaintiff in this case is a woman who alleged that she was innocently driving her car, following all of the traffic laws, when a speeding car driving on the wrong side of the road crashed into the front of her vehicle head-on. The speeding car was being driven by a man who was fleeing from the police, who had been pursuing him in a high-speed chase through the city on roads containing significant pedestrian traffic.

The plaintiff alleged that the act of pursuing the suspect through crowded city streets was done maliciously, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner, since it resulted in the suspect driving as fast as possible with disregard for civilian safety.

Appellate Court Reverses Lower Court’s Denial of Plaintiff’s Request to Extend Notice Deadline

Published on: January 19, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The New York Court of Appeals recently published an opinion that reversed a state lower court’s ruling on an issue arising within a case filed by a woman whose son was seriously injured when he was struck by a car while walking to school. The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant school district was initially dismissed because the plaintiff did not serve that defendant with a notice of claim within 90 days of the accident, as required by law. The plaintiff had reasons for missing the deadline and requested an extension, which was denied by the trial court. With the court’s finding earlier this year that the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing to extend the deadline, the plaintiff’s claim against the school district will return to the trial court and proceed toward a settlement or trial.

The Plaintiff’s Son Is Injured in a Devastating Accident

The plaintiff in the case of Newcomb v. Middle Country Central School District is a woman whose son was struck by a car as he walked to school one morning. The plaintiff pursued a negligence claim against the school and the city, as well as the state where the crash occurred. After the 90-day notice deadline had expired, the plaintiff discovered information that the school district had placed a sign near the scene of the accident that blocked visibility and may have been the cause of the accident, and the sign was removed shortly after the crash. Since the materials reasonably available to the plaintiff for the first 90 days following the accident did not include any reference to the sign, the plaintiff requested that she be allowed to add the school district to her complaint.

State Appellate Court Reverses Jury Verdict, Granting Immunity to City in Wrongful Death Case

Published on: January 12, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A panel of the California Court of Appeals recently published an opinion reversing a jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiffs after a trial was held over a fatal auto-pedestrian accident that occurred in 2010. The jury had decided that the city was 100% responsible for the death of the plaintiffs’ loved one, a pedestrian who was hit in an intersection by a driver making a left turn. The city’s claim to be protected from liability by “design immunity” was rejected by the trial court because the city approved changes to the intersection where the accident occurred in 2004 but never followed through with the construction, leaving a gap in their immunity. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the state court of appeals interpreted the law differently from the trial court, ultimately granting the city immunity from the plaintiff’s claim.The Jury Finds the City Liable After a 15-Day Trial

The plaintiffs in the case of Gonzalez v. City of Atwater are the surviving family members of a 72-year-old woman who was struck and killed in an intersection administered by the defendant while on foot in December 2010. The driver who hit the woman was making a left-hand turn into a shopping center and stated that she didn’t see the woman walking with the right of way across the crosswalk before she was hit. The plaintiffs sued both the driver and the city, alleging that the city had notice of the danger presented to pedestrians by that specific intersection and had approved modifications to the traffic lights to address the problem, but the changes were never put into effect.

Dismissal of Rollerblading Injury Case Affirmed by Appellate Court

Published on: December 1, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of North Dakota recently published an opinion affirming a trial court’s ruling dismissing a personal injury and premises liability claim filed by a plaintiff who was injured when she fell while rollerblading in a city park. The district court had ruled that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations for negligence lawsuits against government actors in North Dakota.Initially, the plaintiffs served the defendant with the lawsuit within the statute of limitations, but the service did not meet the procedural requirements set out by state law and was found to be invalid by the courts. The plaintiff’s other arguments on appeal were also rejected by the state supreme court, and they will be unable to recover compensation for the injuries suffered in the fall.

The Plaintiff Suffers a Fall While Rollerblading in the Park

The plaintiffs in the case of Frith v. City of Fargo were a husband and wife who were exercising in a park operated by the defendant on a day in the summer of 2012. The wife was rollerblading on a multi-use pathway when she tripped and lost control after running into a raised bit of soft patching material that had been used to fill a crack in the pathway. According to the facts in the appellate opinion, the woman claimed that she could not see the hazard, and no warning was posted. Nearly three years after the accident, the plaintiffs attempted to serve the defendant with a personal injury and premises liability lawsuit that alleged the defendant was in control of the park’s maintenance and allowed a dangerous hazard to be created on the pathway without cordoning off the area or otherwise giving an appropriate warning.