Archive for the ‘Negligent Hiring/Training/Supervision’ Category

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…)

Black and Blue Light Special – Sporting Goods Store Not Liable for Injury Caused by Bicycle Riding Patron (LA)

May 15, 2015

Orr v. Academy Louisiana Co, LLC (Louisiana)

Plaintiff and her daughter entered an Academy Sports and Outdoor Store in Alexandria, Louisiana to shop for shoes.  While plaintiff was attempting to help her child try on a pair of shoes, she was struck by an adult male who was riding a young girl’s bicycle.  The bicycle rider initially offered assistance to the injured plaintiff, but when she refused, he fled the scene.  After plaintiff reported the incident to the store, they located the bicycle, but could no the man involved.

Plaintiff sued the store and its insurance company, and her husband joined the litigation with a loss of consortium claim.  The defendants denied liability, asserted the fault the unknown bicycle rider, and argued comparative fault on the part of plaintiff.  After a trial on the merits, the trial court found that the store was one hundred percent at fault for the plaintiff’s accident, awarding plaintiff its jurisdictional limit of $50,000 in damages.  Defendant appealed, alleging the trial court erred: (1) in finding that plaintiff had met her burden of proof; (2) in finding that the store was negligent when the incident could not have been reasonably anticipated; and (3) in failing to assign fault on the unknown customer/tortfeasor.

(more…)

Untrained Warrior – High Schooler Injured in Self-Defense Course Gets Her Day in Court (NY)

April 19, 2015

Pierre v. Ramapo Central School District (New York)

A minor high school student was injured while competing as a participant in her school’s self-defense tournament, a voluntary competition open to female students who were enrolled in an elective self-defense class taught by a physical education teacher.  The student filed an action against the school district claiming that the class was actually a mixed martial arts class and alleging that the district was negligent in allowing the class to be instructed by (and the tournament to be refereed by) a person with little martial arts training.

The defendant school district filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk barred the action and that any negligent supervision on its behalf was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.  The Supreme Court initially denied the motion, and the defendant appealed.

(more…)

Go Team!

November 15, 2012

Kristina D. v. Nesaquake Middle School (New York)
(A cheerleader was injured when she fell from a shoulder stand during practice; she sued the district, coach and others for her personal injuries; the trial court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on assumption of the risk, but the decision was reversed on appeal.)

The minor plaintiff was an experienced middle school cheerleader who was injured performing a “shoulder stand” during practice, a stunt she had performed many times in the past.  She filed a claim alleging that the school district and the coach acted negligently by, among other things, “failing to supervise the cheerleaders properly in performing the stunt.”  The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the claims were barred by assumption of the risk.  The motion was denied, and the defendants appealed.

(more…)

Sea Sick

September 18, 2012

Wajnstat v. Oceania Cruises, Inc. (11th Circuit – Florida)
(A passenger on a cruise ship in the Black Sea became ill and sought medical attention from the ship’s doctor; he was evacuated from the ship and received numerous surgeries; he thereafter sued the cruise line alleging negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the ship’s doctor; the court held granted the passenger’s motion for partial summary judgment at to the cruise line’s limitation-of-liability defense.)

A cruise ship passenger sued a cruise line for negligence in connection with the ship’s doctor.  The cruise line answered the complaint and raised the affirmative defense that its liability was limited by the Athens Convention (a multilateral treaty dealing with carriage of passengers and their luggage) as incorporated by reference into the limitation-of-liability provision in the passenger’s ticket contract.  The case ended up in federal court as a result of a forum-selection clause in the ticket contract.

The cruise line filed for partial summary judgment based on the limitation-of-liability affirmative defense.  The cruise line’s motion was denied, and the passenger’s cross motion fo partial summary judgment was granted.  The cruise line then filed an interlocutory appeal.

At issue at the trial court level was whether the “non-negotiated limitation-of-liability provision was enforceable.”  Applying the “reasonable communicativeness” test, the District Court held that “the provision was not reasonably communicative because it was confusing and because it required the passengers to parse through treaties and the statutes to determine the limit’s of [defendant’s] liability.”

On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the pretrial order determining applicability of the limitation-of-liability provision was not immediately appealable.

NOTE: Although this case may be specific to its facts, one lesson to be learned is the impact of detailed and convoluted limitation-of-liability language in commercial transactions.  It is particularly difficult to enforce language that requires a special understanding or the incorporation of outside documentation and information.