Articles Posted in Government Liability

In a recent case, one court considered whether a city could be held liable after a child was hit by a stray golf ball while he was on city-owned property. The golf course was owned by the city and managed by a private company. Next to the golf course, there were recreational areas, including a pedestrian walkway. The young plaintiff was struck in the head by a golf ball as his mother was pushing him in a stroller on the walkway.

GolferThe boy and the mother filed a claim against the city, alleging that the city failed to protect against a dangerous condition on public property by having a golf course next to a public walking area. According to the complaint, the boy was brought to the hospital and diagnosed with a brain injury. He allegedly suffered from cognitive delays, eye injuries, urinary dysfunction, significant pain, and emotional distress. The plaintiffs alleged that the city failed to protect against the known risk of golf balls hitting people outside the golf course by failing to put up adequate fences or other barriers and failing to adequately warn people of the risk.

The city filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming it had immunity under the state’s laws. The trial court agreed and granted the city’s motion, finding it was entitled to immunity under a state statute. The law stated that a public entity is generally liable for an injury caused by a dangerous condition on its property; however, a public entity is not liable for an injury caused by the condition of a trail used for access to recreational areas that is not a public street or highway.

Continue reading

Earlier last month, one state’s supreme court issued a written opinion in a slip-and-fall case that required the court to determine whether the lower court properly applied the state’s recreational use statute. The case also presented the court with the opportunity to discuss one of the foundational rules of appellate procedure. Specifically, the court grounded its opinion in the rule stating that when a plaintiff’s evidence is presented for the first time on appeal, it cannot be considered because it was not presented at trial.

Home PlateThe Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the mother of a young boy who was injured while he was playing baseball in a park owned and operated by the defendant city. Evidently, the boy’s lower leg slid under home plate as he attempted to slide home. When he stood up after coming to a stop, he broke his leg in two places. The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the city, claiming that the bases were not properly maintained and were a danger to those using the baseball diamond.

In a pre-trial motion for summary judgment, the city argued that it was immune from liability under the recreational use statute. Specifically, the city claimed that it allowed all citizens to use the park for no cost, and under the statute, it could not be held liable. The plaintiff objected to the application of the statute but offered no basis for the objection. Ultimately, the trial court granted the city’s motion and dismissed the case, finding that the city was immune under the recreational use statute.

Continue reading

Late last year, an appellate court in New York issued a written opinion in a bicycle accident case, affirming a lower court’s decision not to apply governmental immunity. In the case, Turturro v. City of New York, the court determined that the alleged negligence was regarding a “proprietary function,” rather than a governmental one, and therefore government immunity was not appropriate.

City IntersectionThe Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, a 12-year-old boy, was riding his bike on a four-lane New York street at 6:30 in the evening when he was struck by a vehicle traveling at an estimated speed of 54 miles per hour. The speed limit was 30 miles per hour. The driver was cited for reckless driving in a criminal case, and he pleaded guilty.

The plaintiff then filed a civil lawsuit against the driver as well as the City of New York. Evidence was presented that several citizens and lawmakers had written to the Department of Transportation, asking the city to do something about the dangerous road. Specifically, citizens were concerned that drivers were speeding and drag-racing. The city presented evidence that in response to the letters, it had commissioned a study on motorists’ speed and notified the police of the findings. However, the plaintiff pointed out that no traffic-calming measures – such as road bumps, rumble strips, or raised crosswalks – were implemented. After a jury trial, a verdict was issued in favor of the plaintiff. Specifically, the jury determined that the driver was 50% at fault, the city 40% at fault, and the plaintiff 10% at fault.

Continue reading

Recently, the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota released an opinion in a personal injury case against a city in charge of the maintenance of a park where the plaintiff fell while rollerblading. The case stemmed from an incident in which a young woman was injured while rollerblading over a soft patch of material used to repair a crack on a park pathway.

Cracked PavementThe city moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that it was not properly served. In turn, the plaintiffs then properly served the defendants. However, proper service was made just after three years from the date of the accident. The park district moved for summary judgment, claiming that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred due to the three-year statute of limitations for claims against a political subdivision. The lower court dismissed the case and agreed that the case was barred by the statute of limitations.

The plaintiffs appealed and argued that the claim did not accrue until a later date, when they were informed by an attorney that there was a reasonable negligence claim against the city. However, the appellate court determined that, despite the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run from when the negligent act occurs. Unfortunately, since the city was improperly served, the case did not abide by the requirements of the statute of limitations. Thus, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Continue reading

Earlier this month, an appellate court in West Virginia issued a written opinion in a personal injury case filed against the state’s department of transportation by the son of a woman who was killed in a car accident. In the case, Department of Transportation v. King, the court determined that the Department of Transportation (“the Department”) was entitled to governmental immunity and reversed the lower court’s decision that had allowed the plaintiff’s case to proceed against the government agency.

Smashed CarThe Facts Giving Rise to the Case

The plaintiff’s mother was killed in a car accident that was caused by another driver. The at-fault driver possessed a valid license at the time of the accident that was issued by the Department. However, the driver’s license had been suspended several years prior and had only recently been reinstated.

Evidently, when the at-fault driver applied for reinstatement, the Department issued the license without submitting relevant medical forms to the Department’s medical advisory board. There were rules in place governing when a referral was proper, but those rules allowed for the Department to use its discretion in making referrals. The plaintiff’s claim was that the Department’s failure to refer the at-fault driver’s application to the review board was negligent.

Continue reading

In early November, the Supreme Court of Connecticut heard oral arguments stemming from a governmental immunity matter. According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff was hit by a vehicle near his school’s driveway. Through his parents, he brought a lawsuit against several defendants, including the superintendent and assistant principals of the school. The plaintiff argued that the named defendants negligently supervised the school’s staff and students, and as a result the plaintiff suffered injuries.

SchoolyardThe defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they enjoyed governmental immunity and could not be held liable. The trial court agreed and found that the defendants’ duty to supervise the students and staff was considered discretionary, and as a result governmental immunity applied. The trial court also found that although the superintendent and principals had a ministerial duty to assign staff to guard the lot, these administrators were also entitled to summary judgment because they fulfilled their duty by creating a schedule of assigned staff to monitor the lot. However, on the day in question, there was no staff member monitoring the lot because the scheduled staff member was out sick.

Continue reading

The Supreme Court in the State of Rhode Island ruled on a case stemming from a tragic diving accident occurring back in 2008. The plaintiff, then 29, became paralyzed from the neck down after diving into a pond at a Veterans Memorial Park. The man and his wife filed a case against the state Department of Environmental Management and two individuals for negligence under a theory of premises liability.

Lake at DuskThe family claimed that the state failed to warn and guard against a dangerous condition on their property. The jury at the trial court returned a verdict in favor of the state. The plaintiffs then went on to file a motion for a new trial, but the state filed a cross-motion, arguing that they did not owe a duty to the plaintiff. The court referred to the state’s recreational use statute and found that although the state acknowledged the design of the pond was hazardous, the plaintiff also admitted that he was aware of the danger and that he may have been irresponsible in failing to check the depth of the water. The Supreme Court found that, even in looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the behavior of the state did not rise to egregious conduct. Moreover, there was no evidence to support the premise that the state “willfully or maliciously” failed to warn or guard against the dangerous condition. As a result, the court entered a judgment in favor of the State.

Continue reading

The New Mexico Court of Appeals recently decided in favor of a plaintiff in a loss of consortium case stemming from a March 2010 accident. Apparently, several Albuquerque police officers responded to a report of a stolen car in a parking lot. The officers parked in various locations around the parking lot in unmarked cars.

Police SirensThe decedent and his children drove into the parking lot and parked next to the stolen car, and one of his children got out of the car and walked up to the stolen vehicle. The officers then parked one car behind the father, and as the father was backing out of the spot, he hit the police car. The officer then shot at the father’s car and hit him in the chest. Tragically, the unarmed father died from the gunshot wounds.

About four years later, the children’s guardian brought a lawsuit against the city for loss of consortium under the Tort Claims Act, arguing that the defendant shot the father in violation of City policy, and the father did not pose a threat. Furthermore, they contended that the city was also responsible for the death in the negligent hiring, training, and retraining of the officer who killed the father.

Continue reading

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court recently released its opinion in a case involving a personal injury lawsuit against a city. According to the facts outlined in the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was visiting the city hall when he tripped and fell down several steps. He ended up slamming into the concrete floor and then proceeded to crash into glass doors. City employees contacted emergency personnel, while other employees performed rudimentary first aid. The plaintiff alleged that one of the employees at the Clerk’s office asked him to sign some insurance paperwork in order to be transported to the hospital, but the city disputed this fact.

time-273857_960_720A few months after the fall, the plaintiff spoke with someone at City Hall and told them he had the intention to file a claim against the city. Approximately 197 days following the fall, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter of a claim against the city, and the plaintiff then went on to file the complaint with the superior court. The city moved for summary judgment and claimed that the plaintiff did not comply with the state’s Tort Claims Act because he did not submit a written notice within the 180-day timeline. The plaintiff argued that he substantially complied because the City knew he was injured on their property, and he verbally told them he would bring suit. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Maine found that the plaintiff did not comply with the statute by providing verbal notice. Written notice was required.

The Importance of Complying with Negligence Statutes of Limitations in New Mexico

As the above case illuminates, it is extremely important that individuals comply with the various statutes of limitations that apply in New Mexico personal injury cases. No matter how strong a plaintiff’s case is, if those procedural requirements are not met, it is likely that the case will be dismissed.

Continue reading

New Mexico has very specific laws that address when sovereign immunity applies and which waivers accompany the statute that was created in the late 1970s. The act that was created to address suits against the government was intended to protect the government from an inundation of legal suits based on actions that are necessary to carrying out the State’s day-to-day business. This act protects the government from being sued without its consent. However, there are still some situations in which this immunity may be waived.

police-car-1515955If an individual wants to file a claim against a government entity, it must be filed within 90 days from the accident that gave rise to the claim. The filing must be very specific, and it has to include many details of the accident. If an individual fails to comply with these requirements, their case will likely be dismissed.

One potential issue with the idea of sovereign immunity is that it may give citizens the idea that the government is not accountable for the tortious acts of its employees, so there is no accountability. In response to that concern, certain waivers to this immunity were created.

Continue reading