SafetyLitigation.com
content top

Case Against Utility Remanded For Punitive Damages Trial Over Decision Not To Relocate Utility Pole

The Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed a jury’s verdict that found in favor of a motorcyclist injured after striking a deer and swerving off a public road where he hit a utility pole.  Yesterday, the appellate court sustained the bulk of the verdict for approximately $700,000 against the owner and operator of the utility pole, on the grounds that the utility failed to abide by the...

Verdict For Automotive Manufacturer Reversed Where Trial Judge Erred In Admitting Entire NHTSA Report

On Wednesday, the Court of Appeals of Missouri reversed a jury verdict in favor of an automotive manufacturer and remanded the case for a new trial.  In 2003, a Missouri state trooper was killed and a passenger in his car was severely injured when a truck driver veered onto the shoulder of the interstate and collided with the patrol car.  The fire began in the left rear fender, at the...

Tenth Circuit Finds Indemnity Clause Unenforceable Under Fair Notice Rule In Pipeline Case

While building a water pipeline in the 1970s, a construction company engaged a contractor to perform some of the work.  In a 190-page plus contract, the construction company promised to indemnify the contractor for claims resulting from the construction company’s work.  During construction, the construction company accidentally hit a methanol pipeline and caused a leak, but the...

Washington Federal Court Emphasizes Privilege Logs Must Describe Nature Of The Documents Withheld

The issuer of a commercial property insurance policy refused to indemnify its insured for losses resulting from the failure of a methane purification system at a landfill gas processing facility in the State of Washington.  The insured filed suit and then sought to compel production of the insurer’s entire claim file or have the court agree to an in camera review of the relevant...

Designated Corporate Witness Must Testify About “Information Known Or Reasonably Available” To Entity

In response to a Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition, a company “must then designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and it may set out the matters on which each person designated will testify … The persons designated must testify about information known or reasonably available to the...

« Older Entries Next Entries »