Personal Injury News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[03/12] Holschen v. Int'l. Union of Painters
In an action by a former union painter against the union alleging several violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), as well as a state law claim for intentional interference with a valid business expectancy, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) this was not a situation where the circumstances themselves presented a significant danger of bias such that plaintiff was excused from presenting at least some evidence of actual bias involving one or more trial board members in order to survive summary judgment; 2) evidence of ad hoc retaliation by an individual union member did not state a cause of action for a free speech violation under the LMRDA; and 3) there was no evidence the union itself formally disciplined plaintiff in retaliation for his exercise of free speech rights.

[03/12] Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of America v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., Inc.
In plaintiff-insurers' action seeking reimbursement for their settlement contribution against its insured arising from an underlying lawsuit for antitrust violation and tortious interference with contract and with other business relations, district court's judgment is affirmed in its entirety where: 1) Kentucky will allow reimbursement for an insurer after a unilateral reservation of rights by the insurer over the objection of the insured in at least the narrow circumstances posed in this case and in cases such as Blue Ridge; 2) the district court did not err in finding that disparagement was not part of the underlying litigation at the time of the settlement, and thus, plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of the settlement funds paid on behalf of the defendant; 3) the district court was correct in determining that plaintiff's duty to defend was triggered on November 8, 1999, the date the First Amended Complaint was docketed; and 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the damages and pre-judgment interest awarded.

[03/12] Alexander v. Cahill
In a First Amendment challenge to attorney advertising rules issued by the New York Appellate Division barring, inter alia, testimonials from clients relating to pending matters, portrayals of judges or fictitious law firms, attention-getting techniques unrelated to attorney competence, and trade names or nicknames that imply an ability to get results, and establishing a thirty-day moratorium for targeted solicitation following a specific incident, including targeted ads on television or in other media, summary judgment order invalidating most of the content-based restrictions and upholding the thirty-day moratorium is affirmed in part where the content-based restrictions in the disputed provisions regulated commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the prohibition on advertising mentioning fictitious firms was valid because it targeted potentially misleading advertising; and 2) as to the moratorium, there was a substantial state interest in protecting the privacy and tranquility of personal injury victims and their loved ones against intrusive, unsolicited contact by lawyers.

[03/11] Freedman v. Brutzkus
In plaintiff's action for fraud against defendants, trial court's dismissal of the action following the sustaining of defendants' demurrer is affirmed as a signature of an attorney under the legend "approved as to form and content" on a contract does not amount to an actionable representation to an opposing party's attorney that can provide a basis for tort liability.

[03/11] Granfield v. CSX Transp., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against his employer in violations of the Federal Employer's Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Ac, claiming that he developed "tennis elbow" as a result of having to manipulate defective controls in the cabin of his locomotive, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a reasonable jury could have concluded that plaintiff's claim was not time barred, had defendant chosen to contest this showing by asking the jury instruction and arguing the matter to the jury; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a doctor as an expert on the issue of causation; 3) brief statements by a witness as to the contents of a letter was harmless error; and 4) plaintiff's counsel's statements in closing arguments were adequately dealt with by the district judge's instructions and no plain error occurred.

More...