Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in Injury Law
by
Brian Milward and his wife sued, among other defendants, Rust-Oleum Corporation alleging that Defendants’ negligence caused Milward’s Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia. To succeed against Rust-Oleum, the Milwards had the burden of establishing general and specific causation through expert testimony. The district court excluded the Milwards’ general causation expert and entered judgment in favor of Defendants. The First Circuit reversed and remanded for the trial court to consider the issue of specific causation. The district court ultimately excluded the testimony of Plaintiffs’ specific causation expert. Because the Milwards could not establish specific causation without this testimony, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Rust-Oleum. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in excluding the specific causation expert's testimony because the analysis was unreliable; and (2) once the district court excluded the expert testimony, it correctly granted Rust-Oleum’s motion for summary judgment. View "Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp." on Justia Law

Posted in: Injury Law
by
Plaintiff was shot and wounded in the vicinity of San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico, after one of several police vehicles closely approached him. Plaintiff plausibly alleged that he had been shot by a police officer. Plaintiff filed suit seeking damages against named and unnamed members of the Puerto Rico Police Department (PRPD), the San Lorenzo municipal police, and the Puerto Rico Department of Justice. While Defendants’ motions to dismiss were pending, the PRPD produced documents indicating, for the first time, the identity of the shooter. The district court subsequently denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiff’s supervisory liability and conspiracy claims failed to satisfy the minimum requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The First Circuit reversed the judgment of dismissal as to the superintendent of the PRPD at the time of the shooting and affirmed the judgment in all other respects, holding (1) Plaintiff’s supervisory liability claim against the supervisor crossed the plausibility threshold; (2) the district court did not err in dismissing the supervisory claims against the other supervisory defendants; and (3) Defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal were waived. View "Guadalupe-Baez v. Police Officers A-Z" on Justia Law

by
Flovac, Inc. and Airvac, Inc. both fabricate vacuum sewer systems. Flovac filed suit against Airvac seeking relief under both federal and Puerto Rico antitrust laws and alleging that Airvac’s conduct in marketing its vacuum sewer systems was anticompetitive. Flovac also brought claims of tortious interference with advantageous economic relations under Puerto Rico’s general tort statute. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Airvac on all claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) because the summary judgment record disclosed a relevant market much broader than Flovac claimed and a market where Defendant lacked market dominance, summary judgment was properly granted on Flovac’s antitrust claims; and (2) Flovac’s claim of tortious interference with advantageous economic relations was time-barred. View "Flovac, Inc. v. Airvac, Inc." on Justia Law

by
Flovac, Inc. and Airvac, Inc. both fabricate vacuum sewer systems. Flovac filed suit against Airvac seeking relief under both federal and Puerto Rico antitrust laws and alleging that Airvac’s conduct in marketing its vacuum sewer systems was anticompetitive. Flovac also brought claims of tortious interference with advantageous economic relations under Puerto Rico’s general tort statute. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Airvac on all claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) because the summary judgment record disclosed a relevant market much broader than Flovac claimed and a market where Defendant lacked market dominance, summary judgment was properly granted on Flovac’s antitrust claims; and (2) Flovac’s claim of tortious interference with advantageous economic relations was time-barred. View "Flovac, Inc. v. Airvac, Inc." on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff was allegedly raped and assaulted by an officer of the Fall River Police Department. Plaintiff filed federal civil rights and state law negligence claims against the City of Fall River, Massachusetts, and Daniel Racine, the Fall River Police Chief. The district court dismissed the claims against Racine and the City for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the 42 U.S. 1983 claims against Racine and the City and her negligent hiring, training, and supervision claim against the City. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim for holding Racine and the City liable under section 1983 or under the law of negligence in Massachusetts. View "Saldivar v. Racine" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff was allegedly raped and assaulted by an officer of the Fall River Police Department. Plaintiff filed federal civil rights and state law negligence claims against the City of Fall River, Massachusetts, and Daniel Racine, the Fall River Police Chief. The district court dismissed the claims against Racine and the City for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the 42 U.S. 1983 claims against Racine and the City and her negligent hiring, training, and supervision claim against the City. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim for holding Racine and the City liable under section 1983 or under the law of negligence in Massachusetts. View "Saldivar v. Racine" on Justia Law

by
During 1997, Appellant was prescribed Pondimin, a weight loss drug developed and sold by Wyeth and its subsidiaries and other affiliates (collectively, Wyeth). Appellant later filed suit against Wyeth, alleging that Pondimin caused him to develop primary pulmonary hypertension. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wyeth on the majority of Appellant’s claims, including his claim for negligent design, and allowed only Appellant’s claim for negligent failure to warn to go to trial. After a trial, the jury found in Wyeth’s favor on Appellant’s negligent failure to warn claim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) summary judgment was properly entered in Wyeth’s favor on Appellant’s negligent design claim; and (2) the district court did not err by denying Appellant’s motions in limine seeking to exclude evidence of his prior incarceration and cocaine use. View "Tersigni v. Wyeth" on Justia Law

Posted in: Injury Law
by
Plaintiffs - all minors at the relevant times - were all trafficked through advertisements posted on Backpage.com. Plaintiffs filed suit against Backpage, alleging that Backpage tailored its website to facilitate sex traffickers’ efforts to advertise their victims on the website, leading to Appellants’ victimization. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Backpage engaged in sex trafficking of minors as defined by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and its Massachusetts counterpart, violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and abridgments of intellectual property rights. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the facts alleged here did not state grounds that Plaintiffs were plausibly entitled to relief on their claims. View "Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC" on Justia Law

by
Lopez & Medina Corp. (L&M) filed a lawsuit against several insurers for Patriot Air, LLC, alleging that the insurers were liable for L&M’s breach of contract claims against Patriot Air. The district court dismissed L&M’s complaint, concluding that the relevant insurance policy did not provide coverage for contract claims. The First Circuit affirmed. L&M and its owner subsequently filed the complaint in this action seeking recovery in tort for Patriot Air’s negligence arising out of the same set of facts that underlay the previous suit’s breach of contract claims. The district court dismissed the case on the ground of res judicata. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly invoked res judicata in dismissing the action. View "Medina-Padilla v. US Aviation Underwriters, Inc." on Justia Law

by
Angela Rivera-Carrasquillo was injured when she was thrown from a horse during a guided ride she took at a ranch outside San Juan, Puerto Rico. Rivera and her husband filed a personal injury action in the federal district court in Puerto Rico. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs. Certain defendants appealed, arguing that the district court erred in refusing to grant them judgment as a matter of law or to submit the question of whether the statute of limitations barred Plaintiffs’ claims. The First Circuit remanded the case, holding that a remand was necessary because the Court was unable to discern the district court’s reasons for its decision with respect to the statute of limitations defense and the grounds on which certain parties were held liable for Rivera’s injuries. View "Rivera-Carrasquillo v. Calderon-Lozano" on Justia Law

Posted in: Injury Law