Archive for the ‘Federal Litigation’ Category

Blown Engine – Drag Racer Dies During a Track Rental Session; Racetrack Faced with Triable Issues, Possible Punitive Damages (NJ)

August 26, 2015

Cruz v. ATCO Raceway, Inc. (New Jersey)
(trial court disposition)

Jose Cruz was involved a fiery crash that occurred at the drag racing strip owned by the defendant.  The accident was caused by a “catastrophic engine failure,” and Jose was severely burned.  Although he managed to escape the car and walk away from the wreck, he ultimately died at the hospital.  A lawsuit was filed by Jose’s widow on her own behalf and on behalf of Jose’s estate, alleging negligence, negligence per se, wrongful death, and survivorship.  The lawsuit also sought punitive damages.  The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and the New Jersey District Court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. (more…)

A Racing Incident – Claims of Go Kart Driver Injured by Driver with Down Syndrome to be Decided by a Jury (NY)

August 20, 2015

Corneli v. Adventure Racing Co., LLC (New York)
(trial court disposition)

Plaintiff participated as driver in go kart activities at the defendant’s racing entertainment facility, and he was injured when his go kart was struck by the go kart operated by defendant C.S., a seventeen-year-old who suffered from Down’s Syndrome.  Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the facility, alleging that the facility was negligent in the ownership, operation, management, maintenance supervision, staff training and control of the go kart ride and in the supervision and control of C.S.  The lawsuit was also filed against C.S. for negligently operating and driving the go kart, and C.S.’s alleged mother and father for negligent entrustment and allowing C.S. to negligently operate the go kart in a dangerous manner.

The defendant go kart facility filed a motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of assumption of risk.  C.S.’s alleged mother and father filed cross-claims against the facility, and the mother and father filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that they were not responsible for C.S.’s conduct.  Plaintiff then filed his own motion for summary judgment.  The New York U.S. District Court addressed each motion in turn.
(more…)

Let It Snow – Triable Issue Existed as to Whether Nine Year Old That Collided with Snowmaking Machine Assumed the Risk (PA)

August 19, 2015

MD ex rel Mora-Dillon v. Ski Shawnee (Pennsylvania)
(trial court disposition)

Plaintiff was a nine year old girl that participated in a ski trip with her elementary school as a novice skier with no skiing experience other than three lessons.  As she was skiing down one of the slopes, she collided with a snowmaking machine, suffering several bone fractures and other injuries.  Plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the ski resort, contending that the resort failed to adequately place padding on the metal components of the snowmaking machine.  The ski resort filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it had no duty to protect plaintiff from the inherent risks associated with downhill skiing.  Defendant argued that even though plaintiff had no knowledge of the risk presented, the plaintiff implicitly assumed the risk of colliding with snowmaking equipment, negating any duty it had to plaintiff. (more…)

Off Target – Hunting Club Insurance Doesn’t Cover Member Involved in Accidental Shooting (VA)

August 6, 2015

Marks v. Scottsdale Co. (Virginia)

This case involves a creative attempt by a tortfeasor to find insurance coverage.  The plaintiff Ray Marks, Jr. (“Marks) was a nonmember the defendant hunting club.  He had been injured when he was accidentally shot by a hunting club member (plaintiff Timothy B. Johnson [“Johnson”]) as the Marks was driving by the club’s property.  Both Marks and Johnson sued the club’s general liability insurer after the insurer denied insurance coverage to Johnson for the incident.  The insurer filed a motion for summary judgment contending that the club’s policy did not cover club members for their personal recreational activities, and the trial court granted the motion.  Plaintiffs appealed. (more…)

On the Rocks – Woman Injury Jumping Off Rock in the Ocean; Liability is an Issue for the Jury (MA)

July 29, 2015

Cohen v. Elephant Rock Beach Club, Inc. (Massachusetts)
(trial court disposition)

he plaintiff was a guest at the defendant’s beach club.  During her stay, plaintiff saw guests swimming to and around, and jumping off of, a large rock that was 250 feet off the shore.  She decided that she wanted to go to the rock, and did so by walking from the beach to the water and swimming to the rock.  After watching adults and children take a running start and then jump off the highest part of the rock, plaintiff waited her turn and did the same thing.  After she jumped, her foot smashed into a portion of the rock below the surface of the water, resulting in a compound fracture of plaintiff’s leg.  Lifeguards from the defendant that were on duty noticed plaintiff after she hit the water and went to assist her.

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging negligence based on premises liability, and a duty to warn her of the dangerous condition of the rock.  The defendant club filed a motion for summary judgment.  In support of its motion, the defendant filed a late supplemental expert witness report, and the plaintiff filed a motion to strike the report.  As to the motion to strike, the U.S. District Court denied the motion, finding that the untimely disclosure of the supplemental report was harmless.

(more…)

Crying Foul – Federal Litigation in California Seeks to Change Baseball’s “Limited Duty Rule” (CA)

July 15, 2015

Crying Foul – Federal Litigation in California Seeks to Change Baseball’s “Limited Duty Rule” (ESPN.com Article)

The sport of baseball has long felt the benefit of the “limited duty rule.”  The rule protects baseball teams and stadium operators from liability to spectators for injuries caused by balls and bats that fly into the seats.  The rule generally requires the team or stadium operator to provide a sufficient number of protected seats for those spectators who want them, and to provide protection for all spectators located in the most dangerous parts of the stadium, notably the areas that pose the highest risk of injury from fouls balls, such as the seating directly behind home plate.

There have been numerous challenges to the rule over the years, and now we have a new one in California.  As described in the ESPN.com article here, an Oakland Athletics season-ticket holder has filed a federal court action seeking class-action status on behalf of all fans buying season tickets in unprotected areas of the ballpark.  The goal appears to be the installation of safety netting from foul pole to foul pole.

Yellow Flag – Amusement Park Go-Kart Operator Not Liable for Injury from On-Track Collision (TX)

June 3, 2015

Weaver v. Celebration Station Properties, Inc. (Texas)

Kerri Weaver (“Weaver”) and her three children visited the defendant’s amusement park in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  Weaver took one of her children on a go-kart ride at the facility and was involved in an on-track incident.  Another driver bumped Weaver’s go-kart, causing Weaver to suffer a heel fracture.  Weaver filed a state court action in Texas, alleging defendant’s “negligent failure to inspect the amusement area, adequately warn customers not to bump into other go-karts, train and supervise its employees, and instruct and train go-kart drivers, caused her injury.”  Additionally, Weaver filed a claim on behalf of her minor child for “bystander suffering.”  The defendant timely removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and, after discovery, moved to summary judgment, “arguing that it owed Weaver no duty to warn her about the open and obvious risks inherent in go-kart racing and, in any event, did not breach that duty.”

In opposition to the motion, Weaver argued that defendant “owed her a duty as a business invitee and breached this duty when it failed to guard against other reckless drivers.”  In her opposition, Weaver referred to her own deposition testimony and the deposition testimony of the defendant’s corporate representative.  However, Weaver failed to attach the deposition testimony to her opposition.  Defendant replied, reiterating its previous arguments and citing Weaver’s failure to attach the evidence.  Weaver filed a surreply, attaching the documents she failed to submit earlier, and the defendant moved to strike the surreply.

(more…)

Tough Luck – Extreme Obstacle Course Registrants Forced Into Arbitration to Pursue Refunds; Class Action Barred (MA)

May 28, 2015

Pazol v. Tough Mudder Inc. (Massachusetts)

The plaintiffs registered and paid to participate in Tough Mudder’s Boston-area “Mudderella” obstacle course event, which was scheduled to take place in Haverhill, Massachusetts.  However, a few days before the event, Tough Mudder moved the location of the event to Westbrook, Maine.  Plaintiffs were unable to attend the event at the new location, and Tough Mudder refused to refund their registration fees.  Therefore, the plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against Tough Mudder.

(more…)

Deeply Depressed – Experienced Skier Claim Relating to “Depressions” in Snow Survives Court Motion (NY)

May 26, 2015

Paulus v. Holimont, Inc. (New York)

The sixty-right year old plaintiff was a self-described “accomplished” skier, who had been skiing since the age of 5.  Plaintiff had participated in various ski races throughout the years, and he had skied on different mountains throughout the world involving varying terrain, including ice and moguls.  Plaintiff drove from his home in Ohio to the defendant’s ski area in New York.  It was his second visit to the defendant’s resort.  On his first run of the day, plaintiff was coming down a trail at the facility called “Corkscrew” (a trail rated “more difficult” with a blue square), when he encountered difficult terrain and crashed, suffering injuries.  Plaintiff used racing skis and boots, and he admitted that he liked to ski fast.  He estimated that he was traveling twenty miles an hour at the time of the incident.  Plaintiff acknowledged that a “blaze orange caution sign was placed directly at the top of the portion of the Corkscrew trail where [he] was injured.”  However, the plaintiff testified that he did not believe he had observed the sign as he cut over to the Corkscrew trail from another trail (i.e., plaintiff believed he skied onto the Corkscrew trail below the caution sign).

Plaintiff (and his wife) sued the defendant for negligence, and the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff’s claim should be barred by primary assumption of risk.  The trial court acknowledged that in New York “[d]ownhill skier ‘assume the inherent risks of personal injury caused by, among other things, terrain, weather conditions, ice, trees and manmade objects that are incidental to the provision or maintenance of a ski facility.'”  The doctrine is recognized in New York’s Safety in Skiing Code.  Additionally, “variations in terrain, including moguls, are recognized risks that are inherent in the sport of downhill skiing.”

(more…)

Can’t Catch a “Brake” – Woman Injured on Foreign Bicycle Tour Forced to Litigate Away from Home (PA)

April 20, 2015

Steinfeld v. EMPG International (Pennsylvania)

The Pennsylvania plaintiffs were injured during a trip to Costa Rica.  Prior to leaving for Costa Rica, the plaintiffs visited the website of defendant EMPG International, LLC (a Colorado limited liability company) and consummated an online transaction to rent bicycles and sign up for a bicycle tour while in Costa Rica.  The bicycle equipment was allegedly not in the condition originally promised by the defendant, and one of the plaintiffs was injured during the tour due to faulty brakes on the bicycle.  The plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging negligence, negligent hiring and retention, vicarious liability, joint enterprise, agency, breach of contract, violation of the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and loss of consortium.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action based on a lack of personal jurisdiction and a failure to state a claim under which relief could be granted.  Following a pretrial conference, the Court entered an order permitting the parties to conduct discovery regarding jurisdiction, and the court required the parties to submit a joint stipulation of facts with respect to jurisdiction so that it could rule on the defendant’s motion to dismiss.  After reviewing the evidence and stipulated facts, the Court found that the “plaintiffs’ cause of action did not arise out of or relate to the company’s contacts with Pennsylvania.”  However, because the defendant was subject to general personal jurisdiction in Colorado, the Court transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

(more…)