Articles Posted in Interesting Cases

The US Supreme Court in the case of Scott v. Harris today articulated what is arguably a new rule when it comes to police officers chasing criminals.  In that case, Victor Harris was fleeing from the police.  Police Officer Scott, in an effort to stop Harris’ vehicle. rammed it from the rear with his police cruiser.  This resulted in Harris’ vehicle careening off a highway and down an embankment.  Harris was rendered a paraplegic from the accident.

Harris’ lawyers argued to the Court that under the 4th Amendment, the actions of Officer Scott in ramming Harris’ vehicle was reasonable and not a violation of Harris’ constitutional rights.  This case arguably creates a "per se" rule when it comes to high-speed car chases, and allows the police to use nearly any means necessary to stop a suspected criminal during a vehicle chase.

The following is provided courtesy of Massachusetts Law Updates:

In the case of Haglund v. Phillip Morris, the Supreme Judicial Court yesterday ruled that the fact that a smoker knew that cigarettes were dangerous but smoked anyway does not constitute an "unreasonable" use of the product under Correia v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 388 Mass. 342 (1983) and thus cannot serve as a defense for the tobacco company. The opinion says, in part, "the Correia defense presumes that the product at issue is, in normal circumstances, reasonably safe and capable of being reasonably safely used, and therefore that the consumer’s unreasonable use of the product he knows to be defective and dangerous is appropriately penalized. Here, however, both Philip Morris and the plaintiff agree that cigarette smoking is inherently dangerous and that there is no such thing as a safe cigarette. Because no cigarette can be safely used for its ordinary purpose, smoking, there can be no nonunreasonable use of cigarettes. Thus the Correia defense, which serves to deter unreasonable use of products in a dangerous and defective state, will, in the usual course, be inapplicable."

This is a rather unusual case.  A Texas woman died after she allegedly developed a staff infection following a pedicure she received at a salon.  The woman died of a heart attack which her estate claims was caused by the staff infection.  The estate in suing the salon for wrongful death.

This is a case which highlights the difficulty in establishing causation in certain personal injury cases.  In my mind, establishing causation will be very difficult in this case.   Here is an excerpt of the story provided courtesy of the  Associated Press:

AP) – FORT WORTH, Texas-Kimberly Kay Jackson loved getting pedicures each month, especially with bright pink nail polish, although as a paraplegic she couldn’t feel the massages and bubbling water on her feet.

I found this over at injuryboard.com which highlights a unique case of medical malpractice, and the problems faced when a doctor does not have medical malpractice insurance:

A Hawaii jury has awarded damages of nearly $5.6 million in a lawsuit against a surgeon who placed a piece of a screwdriver in the patient’s back.

Two hours into the surgery the doctor discovered that the titanium rods to be placed in the patient’s back were missing and he improvised a new rod by cutting the shaft of a stainless steel medical screwdriver. He did this despite the fact that a representative of the medical supply company said another set of titanium rods could be at the hospital in 90 minutes. A week later the piece of screwdriver broke requiring another operation. Further surgery was required and the patient later died from complications.

Many people think medical malpractice liability only applies to doctors.  Actually, medical malpractice liability applies to EMT’s, to doctors, and nearly everyone in between in the medical field.  Here is an ignominious example of possible medical malpractice committed by a nurse, as provided by the Associated Press:

U.S. hospital: Unsterilized instruments may have exposed patients to HIV

(AP) – SAN DIEGO-A hospital nurse who failed to clean surgical instruments may have exposed nearly 300 patients to hepatitis or HIV, officials have said.

Here is a rather interesting post from The Total Injury Blog about a recent case out of Illinois where a woman sustained personal injuries due to alleged bed bug bites:

"A Chicago couple has filed a $20 million law suit against a Catskills resort where the woman sustained nearly 500 bed bug bites. Although bed bug bites are usually fairly harmless, the woman apparently suffered an allergic reaction that required medical treatment.

In at least one previous case, a hotel has been ordered to pay large punitive damages to a guest bitten by bed bugs. In a 2003 case, the plaintiff was awarded $5000 in compensatory damages for bed bug bites that were annoying but not harmful, and an additional $186,000 in punitive damages.

The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer yesterday reported on a Columbus, Ohio woman who received a jury verdict against a department store stemming from an unlawful arrest.  The woman, Patricia Gail Jackson, on May 21, 2003 purchased a pair of shorts at the store.  After leaving the store and while approaching her car, two plain-clothes security officers employed by the store told her she had just been caught shoplifting.  The woman tried to show the two officers her receipt of the purchase but the men would not look at the receipt and insisted she come back into the store.

At this time the woman told the men she wanted to call the police, but the men took her phone away from her and placed her in handcuffs.  The woman was then brought to a detention room in the store.  Eventually, the security guards, after verifying the woman’s purchase, released her from custody and allowed her to leave the store.

Unlike auto accidents, slips and falls, and other accidents where negligence is involved, this case demonstrates what is often referred to as "intentional torts."  Intentional torts include civil assault, battery, and false imprisonment.  These three intentional torts were at play in this case.  This case sent a message to department stores, as well as other stores, that they will be financially punished if they do not respect the rights of their customers.