Decided - The FindLaw Noteworthy Decisions and Settlements Blog

Recently in Injury & Tort Law Category

Starbucks customers are pretty fussy when it comes to their daily fix. That much was evidenced by fans of their lattes filing a class action lawsuit claiming the coffee chain was shorting them on their steamed milk. "Starbucks lattes are uniformly underfilled pursuant to a standardized recipe," the suit alleged. "By underfilling its lattes, thereby shortchanging its customers, Starbucks has saved countless millions of dollars in the cost of goods sold and was unjustly enriched by taking payment for more product than it delivers."

But a federal judge disagreed, ruling that the lawsuit "fail[ed] to show that lattes contain less than the promised beverage volume represented on Starbucks' menu boards," and dismissing the suit.

There are times when a person's immigration status will be relevant in a court of law. Say, if a person is accused of falsifying documents to hide that status. It could also come up if a witness is receiving some immigration benefit in exchange for or in order to facilitate their testimony. In an on-the-job personal injury case? Immigration status is not so relevant.

So said the Washington Supreme Court back in 2010, when it granted an injured worker a new trial on the grounds the jury in his first may have been prejudiced by knowledge that the man had overstayed his visa. Last week, the court officially adopted that rule of evidence, making immigration status "generally inadmissible" in both civil and criminal court.

'The normal expectations of the participants in a school sponsored educational trip abroad involving minor children supported the imposition of a duty on the defendant to warn about and to protect against serious insect-borne diseases in the areas to be visited on the trip.'

Most of that is pretty standard stuff: we want schools to adequately warn students and parents about the dangers they might encounter on a field trip. It's the "serious insect-borne diseases" part that gives one pause. And it should -- that disease was tick-borne encephalitis, or TBE, contracted by a 15-year-old boarding school student in northeast China. And the full quote was from Connecticut Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, upholding a $41.7 million verdict against the school for failing to inform her that the U.S. Center for Disease Control had issued a warning to protect against the disease in the exact area where the students would travel.

There's no doubt our smartphones can be distracting. There's no doubt that distracted driving is dangerous, even deadly. And there's no doubt smartphones, or at least some alerts, could be disabled while we're driving. So does not automatically disabling distracting smartphone functions while we're driving mean that smartphone manufacturers are liable for distracted driving accidents?

Not according to a California Superior Court in Santa Clara, California. The father of a man killed by an 18 year old who was texting and driving, sued Apple, claiming the company knew the dangers of texting and driving, possessed a "lock-out mechanism" capable of disabling functions like texting while someone is driving, and failed to provide the feature for users. But the court dismissed the lawsuit, saying Apple's role in the accident was far too attenuated" to be legally responsible for the death.

Shakespeare was wrong. A rose by any other name might still smell as sweet, unless that name is pink slime. Then, there's a good chance consumers would never know what it smells like because no one smells pink slime.

Do you remember the news reports about "pink slime" that made the local news circuit back in 2012? How could anyone forget right? Finding out that over half the nation's ground beef contained pink slime was eye opening. But the phrase pink slime didn't win any friends over at Beef Products Inc. who were the ones skewered by the report. Instead, it led to the company hiring some lawyers, filing suit, and winning a sizable settlement from Disney and ABC news.

When Rolling Stone published their story, "A Rape on Campus," in November 2014, about an alleged ritualistic rape in a fraternity on the University of Virginia's campus, the series of events that unfolded landed the rock n' roll magazine in seriously costly legal trouble. Nearly three years later, the last chapter in their legal saga may finally be closing as they've agreed to pay the fraternity named in the story $1.65 million. Notably, a lawsuit filed by the individual members of the lawsuit was dismissed.

Last year, a jury awarded a $3 million verdict in the defamation lawsuit filed by the then dean, Nicole Eramo, against Rolling Stone. Eramo alleged that the magazine portrayed her as callous and uncaring when it came to the alleged sexual assault victim at the center of the story. The case actually settled this year for a confidential amount while the verdict was being appealed by Rolling Stone.

United Airlines has settled the legal case against it being brought by Dr. David Dao, the UA passenger who was forcibly removed from his seat by law enforcement, on April 9 of this year, when he refused to get bumped from a flight. Dr. Dao allegedly suffered a concussion, a dental injury, and other injuries, as a result of the incident which went viral causing a PR nightmare for UA.

While the settlement is for an undisclosed amount, most commentators agree that the amount must have been enormous to achieve a resolution this quickly. The level of public vitriol over this incident was enormous. While United Airlines initially attempted to stand by the actions of their crew and law enforcement, after the massive public backlash, the company reversed their position.

The company that promised it could, but then couldn't, Theranos has agreed to pay out over $4.5 million to settle the Arizona class action case against it. The settlement resolves the consumer protection and fraud claims against the blood testing company brought by Arizona.

The settlement will provide each individual who used Theranos in Arizona between 2013-2016 with a full refund. With 175,000 class members, the average breaks down to around $25 per person. In addition to the monetary relief for consumers, a $25,000 attorney fee award was secured, as well as an agreement for Theranos to cease operation in Arizona for two years.

A federal district court in the state of Kentucky ruled last Friday that a lawsuit against President Donald Trump, the Trump campaign, and other individuals, can proceed. The defendants sought to have the lawsuit dismissed, but were only successful in each having one claim dismissed, despite each being sued under multiple claims.

The lawsuit stems from a March 2016 campaign rally where three protesters were forcibly removed from the audience after Trump stated: "Get 'em out of here." The lawsuit requests damages for injuries stemming from the removal, as well as punitive damages.

A federal court judge has approved the $25 million class action settlement against Trump University. The case stemmed from allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, in essence claiming that Trump University provided no value to students, and worse, simply took advantage of students. The settlement actually resolves three separate cases against Trump University that all stem from similar allegations.

Although neither President Donald Trump, nor the Trump University, will be required to admit fault, a $25 million settlement says quite a bit about who was in the wrong, particularly given that the facts were heavily one sided against Trump University. The settlement was approved by the same Indiana-born judge whom President Trump accused of being biased against him for wanting to build the border wall due to the judge's heritage.