NJ officer rescues man from burning truck
Hundreds evacuated after railcar leak in Ohio city
At least 1 in Japan gets HIV from donated blood
Personal Injury-Wrongful Death
What is a Catastrophic Injury?
A catastrophic injury is a physical injury or illness that is regarded as extreme or particularly serious, has a considerable impact on the victim of the injury or illness and needs a considerable amount of medical treatment. Catastrophic injuries may not always be permanent, but take months or years to heal. In some cases, the full extent of the injuries may not be known for a long amount of time. The effects of such injuries may be long lasting, both physically and emotionally. The types of catastrophic injuries are wide ranging. Some examples of such injuries are extensive burns, loss of a limb, severe brain injuries, spinal cord injuries or injuries causing paralysis. These injuries may affect many body systems, such as the central nervous system, gastrointestinal, urinary, respiratory, circulatory, excretory, reproductive and others.
Premises liability laws define the legal duties of property owners to protect persons who come in contact with their property. The duty of care landowners owe an individual on their property may differ by jurisdiction. Some states follow common law, where the landowner’s duty may change depending on whether the person who enters their land was a licensee, invitee or a trespasser. The level of care a landowner owes to licensees or invitees may be much higher than to an individual who is on their property without permission (trespasser). The duty owed, in other words, may be determined by the relationship between the injured person and the property owner.
Injury & Tort Law
Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza
Dismissal of a complaint in an action brought to recover a masterpiece French impressionist painting that was allegedly taken from the plaintiffs' ancestors by the Nazi regime, is: 1) reversed in part and remanded, where the district court erred in concluding that California Code of Civil Procedure section 338(c)(3), the applicable statute of limitations, intruded on foreign affairs and therefore erred in striking section 338 down as unconstitutional on the basis of field preemption; but 2) affirmed in part, where defendant's due process challenge to section 338(c)(3) could not be resolved on defendant's motion to dismiss, and section 338(c)(3) does not violate the defendant's First Amendment rights.
American Petroleum and Transport v. City of New York
Judgment dismissing a complaint by plaintiff vessel owner alleging economic losses for a maritime tort is affirmed, where, although the rule barring damages for economic loss in the absence of an owner’s property damage has been overextended, the rule has been so consistently applied in admiralty that it should continue to be applied unless and until altered by Congress or the Supreme Court.
Sachs v. Republic of Austria
Dismissal of plaintiff's personal injury action arising from a fall when she attempted to board a train in Austria, is reversed and remanded, where: 1) a foreign-state owned common carrier engages in commercial activity in the United States, and thus is not immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), when it sells tickets in the United States through a travel agent, regardless of whether the travel agent is a direct agent or subagent of the common carrier; and 2) under the FSIA, federal courts of the United States will have subject-matter jurisdiction over actions against a foreign sovereign common carrier that engages in commercial activity of this kind as long as the plaintiff's claims are based upon that activity, as they were here.
US ex rel. Ge v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company
Dismissal of two qui tam actions alleging that defendant failed to disclose adequately the risks associated with four of its drugs and generally that this failure resulted in the submission of false claims by various third-party patients and physicians for government payment through, for example, Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement, is affirmed, where: 1) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), plaintiff failed to plead fraud with particularity; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's requests to amend her complaints.