Posted on by Stephen Tuck

The challenges of maturity

When a worker is of mature years, a damages claim for work injuries can present particular challenges

country west
Image from here

Ms Schofield was aged in her mid-fifties.  She suffered a right knee injury while employed by a butcher.  At the time of her accident she was receiving average weekly earnings of around $375.00.

She sought leave in the Melbourne County Court to sue for common law damages for economic loss and pain and suffering on the basis that she had suffered a serious injury.  The Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic.) provides at §335(2)(d) that –

If—
(a) the assessment under Division 4 of Part 5 or under section 104B of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 of the degree of impairment of the worker as a result of the injury is less than 30 per cent; or
(b) the worker makes an application under section 328(2)(b) —
the worker may not bring proceedings for the recovery of damages in respect of the injury unless— …
(d) a court, other than the Magistrates’ Court, gives leave to bring the proceedings …

It was common ground that if the plaintiff retained any work capacity she would not meet the definition of “serious injury”, at least in respect of economic loss.  The medical evidence broadly showed that if she retained any work capacity it was for sedentary or clerical duties.

Judge Dyer noted that

Ms Schofield is relatively advanced in age and has not worked since sustaining her injury in 2014. She has very limited education and my own assessment of her, particularly during cross-examination before me, was that she would have very limited skills to offer other than in a very simple customer service role. Plainly her knee injury renders her unsuitable for that type of employment.

She has effectively no experience in office work, and I accept her evidence, supplemented to some extent by the report of Mr McGuire from Converge International, that she did require further computer skills in order to have any real prospect of employability in an office environment. Indeed, the plaintiff’s own evidence of effectively repeating [a] short computer course without any real benefit confirms my view that she is a woman who would have no real aptitude for any office work position in the open labour market.

His Honour concluded that the plaintiff had no current work capacity for suitable employment and that this was likely to continue indefinitely.  She was granted leave to sue for damages.

Schofield v Country West Gourmet Meat & Chicken Pty Ltd [2018] VCC 614

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Who let the dogs out?

I have a pet theory that the period from 28 February 1991 to 10 September 2001 was “history’s long weekend”.  But despite the general laid-back feel of the era, some serious questions needed answering.  The Baha Men, for instance, asked –

Who let the dogs out?
Woof, woof, woof, woof, woof
Who let the dogs out?
Woof, woof, woof, woof, woof
Who let the dogs out?
Woof, woof, woof, woof, woof
Who let the dogs out?

We now know the answer.  And thanks to the Supreme Court of Vermont, we also know where the fault lay.

who-let-the-dogs-out-back-in-the-90s
Image from here

On 15 January 2016 the Flores family went to the home of the Pearo family. The Pearos has invited the Flores to let themselves in and left the door unlocked. As the Flores’ son opened the door, the Pearos’ three dogs (later claimed to be pit bulls) bolted from the house. The dogs ran up to passerby Eric Gross. They attacked his dog and grabbed the man’s arm, dislocating his shoulder.

Gross commenced proceedings in the Vermont Superior Court, alleging that the Pearos’ landlord and the Flores’ had negligently failed to control or restrain the dogs. The defendants sought summary dismissal of the case which was granted. Gross appealed.

The key question on appeal was whether either defendant owed a duty of care to protect third parties off the premises from harm caused by the Pearos’ dogs.  The Supreme Court of Vermont said no. The landlord had a duty to

… take reasonable steps to protect persons outside the land from injuries caused by a tenant’s dog if the landlord knew or had reason to know at the time of entering the lease that the dog in question posed an unreasonable risk of harm to such persons. … By permitting a tenant to keep a dog that the landlord knows to be vicious, the landlord could be viewed as having created the risk that led to the third person’s injuries. … Requiring the landlord to exercise due care to protect the public in such a situation is consistent with the general duty of care owed to the public by a landowner who personally carries on unreasonably dangerous activities on his or her land.

The plaintiffs did not offer evidence that the landlord knew or should have known of a vicious tendency in the dogs.

The court accepted for the sake of argument that the Flores’ were the dogs’ keepers at the relevant time. Vermont law considered keepers to face the same standard of care as owners of dogs. That is, they are not liable for injuries to persons unless they have some reason to know the animal is a probable source of danger.  When an owner or keeper knows a dog is dangerous, they must “exercise reasonable control and restraint” of the
dog to avoid injury to others. The case against the Flores’ failed for the same reason as the case against the landlord: they did not know the dogs were a danger to anyone.

Interestingly, the court took time to consider pit bulls are an inherently dangerous breed, stating that

this Court has never held that a dog’s breed alone is sufficient to put its owners or others on notice that it poses an unreasonable risk of harm, or that pit bulls or other breeds are dangerous per se. In Vermont, liability in dog-bite cases has always depended on the propensities of the individual animal.

Gross v Turner and Flores, 2018 VT 80

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Evidence: it’s rather useful

I once saw an Articled Clerk appearing for a plaintiff in a mention before the Melbourne Magistrates Court.  The Magistrate asked her “what’s the estimated duration of the hearing?”

AC: “I don’t have instructions on that, Your Honour”

Court: “Well, how many witnesses do you intend to call?”

AC: “We don’t propose to call any, your honour” [presumably the actual strategy was to negotiate at the door of the court]

Court (looking curious): “ok … how do you propose to prove your case if the defendant exercises its right not to call any witnesses?

A recent appeal out of California suggests how such a scenario might play out.

evidence
Image from here

You don’t expect to come out of a yoga class injured. Relaxed maybe. Even chilled out. But not injured. It isn’t work out that way for Ms Webster. During a yoga class on 11 October 2014 her position was twice adjusted by the instructor. She alleged that these adjustments injured her neck. She sued the school operators alleging negligence.

The defendant sought summary dismissal of the claim which was granted: Webster v Claremont Yoga (L.A. Co. Sup. Ct, Nieto J, 3 October 2016, unreported).  The plaintiff appealed.

The Court of Appeal noted the need for expert evidence in cases of professional negligence, unless a matter lay within a jury’s common experience.   The only expert evidence available in this case was supplied by the defendant.  It said that he had observed the relevant standard of care.

Plaintiff argues that an expert’s testimony is not determinative, even when uncontradicted, because a jury may reject it. … But even if a jury rejected Simons’s opinion, plaintiff would still have the burden affirmatively to establish the applicable standard of care and a breach thereof, which she cannot do without an expert. In the absence of an expert, she could not show a triable issue of material fact, and defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

The court went on to consider the plaintiff’s doctor’s notes, which recorded complaints of  injury which she associated with yoga.  These were not considered sufficient to raise a causation issue for a jury to resolve.

Webster v Claremont Yoga (Calif. Ct of Apeal, 31 July 2018)

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Who owns the mosquitoes?

The Body Shop used to sell bags saying something like “if you think you’re too small to be noticed, go to bed when there’s a mosquito in the room”.  Apparently they were right.

William Nami was a railway worker whose job was to work in a team operating a ‘tamper’ (a machine for repairing railway lines). Sometimes he worked inside the machine’s poorly-sealed cabin, and sometimes outside. Unfortunately, the area in which he worked was mosquito-infested town of Sweeny in Brazoria County, Texas.  The railway’s right of way was narrow and weed-strewn and sometimes had pools of water.  In late September 2008 Nami was diagnosed with West Nile virus and suffered significant ill effects.  He sued his employer under §51 of the the Federal Employees Liability Act:

Every common carrier by railroad  … shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier … for such injury … resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier.

He alleged that the employer had failed to provide a safe workplace.  A jury at trial found tat the employer had been negligent and awarded damages: Nami v Union Pacific Railroad Co. (267th District Court, Koetter J, 2012, unreported).  The employer’s appeal to the Court of Appeals was rejected: Union Pacific Railroad Co v Nami 499 SW 3d 452 (Tex. Ct App., 2014).

Mosquito Day
Image from here

Union Pacific appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.  The Supreme Court noted that insects are considered to be wild animals (ferae naturae) and

… under the doctrine of ferae naturae, a property owner owes an invitee no duty of care to protect him from wild animals indigenous to the area unless he reduces the animals to his possession, attracts the animals to the property, or knows of an unreasonable risk and neither mitigates the risk nor warns the invitee. … The same rule applies to an employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace.

In this case the employer had done nothing to increase (and could have done nothing to decrease) the risk of mosquitoes to Mr Nami.  Accordingly negligence was not made out.

Union Pacific Railroad Co v Nami, 498 SW 3d 890 (Tex., 2016)

Postscript – The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear Nami’s appeal: Nami v Union Pacific Railroad Co., 137 S.Ct. 2118 (2017).

 

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Don’t wait!

Lorenza Kopacz was 80 years old when she came to the emergency room at Banner Health in Arizona. She complained of chest heaviness and shortness of breath. One of the facility’s doctors examined her and recommended cardiac catheterisation. The procedure was performed in 23 December 2013 by way of an incision in the right groin allowing access to the femoral artery.

Mrs Kopacz did not enjoy a good result. Severe pain, bleeding and swelling of the groin followed, spiralling into cardiogenic shock, atrial fibrillation, severe sepsis and hypotension. There was a succession of hospital care and rehabilitation. Her condition stabilised between March and July 2014.

banner_health
Image from here

On 21 January 2016 Mrs Kopacz issued proceedings in negligence against the hospital in Maricopa County Superior Court. the hospital sought dismissal of the claim on limitations grounds. The application was granted: Kopacz v Banner Health (Maricopa Co. Sup. Ct, Brnovich J, 2017, unreported). Kopacz appealed.

The appeal was dismissed. Arizona law provided that a medical negligence claim accrued when the plaintiff had reason to connect their injury with some causative factor in a way that would put a reasonable person on notice to investigate whether the injury may be someone’s fault. Once that intellectual threshold was crossed, the plaintiff had two years to commence a claim.  Mrs Kopacz knew or should have known of a possible claim by 27 December 2013. She responded that her medical condition prevented her understanding what had happened and its cause. While Arizona law allowed for a limitation period to be delayed while a claimant was “of unsound mind”, hard evidence of incapacity was required. The plaintiff’s self-report was insufficient, even when supported by an affidavit from a family member. Accordingly, Mrs Kopacz had issued out of time.

Kopacz v Banner Health (Arizona Court of Appeals, 5 July 2018)

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Waddya know, Wal-Mart?

You can find everything at Wal-Mart. Except maybe a sponge.

Leoncio Garcia went to a Wal-Mart store in Houston, Texas at 6:21am on 9 June 2015.  Twenty-five minutes earlier a floor-scrubbing machine operated by a Wal-Mart employee had passed over – and briefly paused at – a point where the floor surface changed from vinyl to tiles.  It was this point where Mr Garcia slipped and fell, suffering a knee injury.  An employee of the store then put a warning cone down on the floor because she saw a liquid at the sit of the fall.

walmart
Image from here

Mr Garcia sued Wal-Mart for his injuries.  Wal-Mart responded that there was no evidence that it knew of the hazard before the accident.  It applied for summary judgment which was granted: Garcia v Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC (US Dist. Ct SD Tex., Gilmore J, 9 June 2017, unreported).  The plaintiff appealed.

The appeal was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.  The Court noted that four things must be proved in an occupiers liability claim:

  1. That the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard.
  2. That the hazard presented an unreasonable risk of harm.
  3. That the owner failed to take reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk.
  4. That the risk was the proximate cause of the injury.

Knowledge could be established by (inter alia) showing that the owner had placed the substance on the floor.  Garcia’s case was that there was circumstantial evidence that the fluid came from the scrubber, thereby meeting the knowledge requirement.  Because this was more plausible than Wal-Mart’s alternative explanations, it was appropriate for the factual dispute to be returned to the trial court for decision.

Garcia v Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC (US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, 18 June 2018)

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Didn’t do nuthin’

No wrong without a remedy.  No remedy without a wrong.

In the early hours of 3 March 2013 Kaitlyn Johnson was a passenger in a pickup truck driven by her then husband.  At about 2:30am he fell asleep.  The vehicle left the road, travelled some distance in a roadside ditch and hit a concrete embankment that had been build by a farmer in 1972.  Johnson suffered serious injuries.

Johnson
Image from here

Johnson issued proceedings against Humboldt County in the Iowa District Court for that County.  She alleged that the county had negligently failed to cause the embankment to be removed.  The defendant raised a defence under the public-duty doctrine.  The trial court dismissed her claim: Johnson v Humboldt County (Iowa Dist. Ct, Stoebe J, 23 September 2016).  Johnson appealed.

The Iowa Supreme Court noted that under the public duty doctrine, when a duty is owed to the public generally, no duty exists to an individual member of that group.  A breach of such a duty is not actionable unless the plaintiff can show a special relationship between the relevant government agency the the plaintiff.  The court concluded that the public-duty doctrine controlled the case:

Any duty to remove obstructions from the right-of-way corridor adjacent to the highway would be a duty owed to all users of this public road. It would thus be a public duty.

Johnson raised a number of reasons why the public-duty doctrine should not apply.  One of the arguments was particularly interesting.  She argued that the public-duty doctrine could not be raised when a claim was brought under the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act §670.2. The section provides that “every municipality is subject to liability for its torts and those of its officers and employees, acting within the scope of their
employment or duties”.  The court rejected the argument:

Johnson erroneously equates immunity (as waived by the Iowa Municipal Claims Act) with the common law public-duty doctrine. … We have said, “Unlike immunity, which protects a municipality from liability for breach of an otherwise enforceable duty to the plaintiff, the public duty rule asks whether there was any enforceable duty to the plaintiff in the first place.”

The District Court’s decision was affirmed.

Johnson v Humboldt County (Supreme Court of Iowa, 8 June 2018)

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Probably not Grandpa Simpson

He was probably an A-hole even before he got sick.

Kymberli Gardner worked at the Plaza Community Living Centre from 2012-2015.  From 2006-2014 a certain elderly man was a resident of the home.  His medical conditions included dementia, traumatic brain injury, Parkinson’s disease and personality disorder with aggressive behaviour. He had a history of showing violence (including sexual violence) to patients and staff.

Abe Simpson.jpg
Image from here

Gardner was repeatedly the subject of the man’s attentions. Her employer made only minimal and ineffective steps to manage him. She reached breaking point in a final incident of assault on her and two other nurses.  She refused to provide further care to him.  She sought medical care for her injuries and lodged a workers compensation claim. On returning to work her employment was terminated. As a result of a subsequent incident the patient was sent to an all-male unit elsewhere.

Gardner sued, alleging a hostile work environment and retaliation. The US District Court for Southern Mississippi dismissed her claim: Gardner v CLC of Pascagoula LLC (US Dist. Ct, S.D. Miss., Guirola CDJ, 6 February 2017, unreported).  She appealed.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals accepted that Gardner’s experience could constitute severe and pervasive harassment. The employer was not permitted to wash its hands of the resident’s conduct, notwithstanding that he was medically unable to act appropriately.

Inappropriate comments and incidental contact are sufficiently common behaviors among patients with reduced cognitive ability that it is not objectively reasonable for a caregiver to expect they will never happen. In contrast, the facility must take steps to try to protect an employee once there is physical contact that progresses from ooccasional inappropriate touching or minor slapping to persistent sexual harassment or violence with the risk of significant physical harm.

Liability based on the behaviour of someone not a supervisor depended on whether the employer knew or should have known of the hostile environment and took reasonable measures to try to abate it.  The court noted that other care homes had avoided liability by actions like –

  • providing a security escort
  • reassigning the employee
  • offering to remove the patient from the home.

The District Court judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Gardner v CLC of Pascagoula LLC (US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 29 June 2018)

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

The War got in the way

One of the beauties of law reports is that every so often you stumble across a long-forgotten case that you would otherwise never consider. This happened to me recently, when I found a case where the war got in the way of a plaintiff.

The case might be one of the earliest motor-accident injury claims. In the early twentieth century a lady named Wilkie was sitting in a jinker (a type of horse drawn buggy). The jinker was hit by a bus operated by the Melbourne Motor-Bus Co Ltd. She brought proceedings in the County Court of Victoria for her injuries. The jury rejected the claim and found for the defendant.

jinker
Horse and jinker (Image from here)

The plaintiff applied for a new trial. Before her application could be heard, she learned that some of her witnesses – soldiers in the Australian Army – were to leave the state on 4 April 1916 (one might infer that they were to leave for the War). On 3 April 1916 she applied to the Supreme Court of Victoria for an order for their oral examination. Section 4 of the then Evidence Act 1915 relevantly provided that

It shall be lawful for the Supreme Court … in any action or suit depending … in any county court … upon the application of any of the parties to such action or suit to order the examination on oath upon interrogatories or otherwise before some person to be named in such order of any witnesses within Victoria … ; and by the same or any subsequent order … to give all such directions touching the time place and manner of such examination … and all other matters and circumstances connected with such examinations as appear reasonable and just….

The modern analogue of this section is §4 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958.

1912_Daimler_CC_bus
Bus belonging to the defendant (Image from here)

A’Beckett J dismissed the application on the grounds that he had no jurisdiction. His concern seems to have been that because jury in the case at first instance had dismissed the claim, there was no pending case (presumably, at least, not until the plaintiff had successfully sought a new trial).

Wilkie v Melbourne Motor-Bus Co Ltd [1916] VLR 211

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

The Fourth is not with you

One of the more difficult parts of a personal injury lawyer’s job is explaining to the victim of tragedy that they don’t have a case.  The Fifth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals has to do the same thing.

On 21 January 2015 John Gorman was undertaking firearms training connected with his work for the Mississippi Gaming Commission.  Fellow instructor Robert Sharp forgot to replace his own real firearm with a dummy firearm.  In the course of training he shot Gorman in the chest causing fatal injuries.

loaded
Image from here

Gorman’s widow sought compensation from Sharp on the grounds that he had violated the American Constitution’s Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated….

Sharp’s application to dismiss the proceedings was denied by the US District Court: Gorman v State of Mississippi, 258 F.Supp.3d 761 (2017).  He appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeal was upheld.  Existing case law had consistently said that there is no liability under the Fourth Amendment absent deliberate and intentional conduct.  In this case it was undisputed that Sharp genuinely believed he was using a dummy firearm and had not shot Gorman wilfully.  The court observed sadly that –

The circumstances that led to this lawsuit are unquestionably tragic — an accidental fatal shooting during an officer training session. But the Constitution does not afford a cure for every tragedy.

The District Court’s decision was reversed.  It was noted that the plaintiff was also pursuing a claim in State law.

Gorman v Sharp (2018), US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 6 June 2018.