Recently in Injury & Tort Law Category

A Las Vegas jury is in deliberations over punitive damages totaling $2.5 billion against Nevada's largest health management organization and another provider for the worst U.S. outbreak of hepatitis C. The plaintiffs' attorneys, The Associated Press reports, want the stunning punitive damages to send a strong message to corporations and Wall Street: No more putting profits ahead of patient safety.

The jury last week awarded $24 million in compensatory damages -- but do the punitive damages go too far?

A California jury has awarded Loren "Bill" Kransky $8.3 million in what could be the first of thousands of verdicts against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for injuries caused by a metal hip inplant, developed by the company's DePuy unit.

Jurors found that the health care products company was negligent in designing the ASR hip implant. Kransky's award includes $338,136 for his medical bills and $8 million for his physical pain and mental suffering, reports Bloomberg.

Kransky's lawyers had also sought $179 million in punitive damages. However, jurors found that J&J did properly warn consumers of the dangers with the hip implant, and did not award any punitive damages.

A Motrin lawsuit verdict has resulted in a $63 million judgment against Johnson & Johnson. With interest, the award totals $109 million.

Samantha Reckis was 7 years old when she took Children's Motrin ibuprofen a decade ago. Shortly after taking the drug, the girl suffered a serious life-threatening side effect. She lost 90% of her skin, was blinded, and suffered severe respiratory impairment, among other injuries, reports The Associated Press.

The family sued in 2007. This week, the jury finally handed down its verdict, awarding $63 million to the family plus interest, resulting in a total $109 million judgment.

Remember that sheriff's deputy who got his Burger King Whopper with extra loogie? He sued just over a year ago for emotional distress.

His original case was thrown out by a federal court because his lawsuit was about mental distress without physical harm. The court claimed that wasn't allowed under the laws of Washington state, where the case took place.

But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, and said it should be up to Washington's Supreme Court to decide what is and isn't allowed under Washington state law.

Well the court has issued an answer, and it looks like this case will continue.

Toyota has agreed to a $1.1 billion recall settlement over claims of its vehicles accelerating unintentionally.

The settlement would compensate consumers for economic losses related to any safety defects in their vehicles, but does not cover claims for wrongful death and injuries, Reuters reports.

While the settlement would compensate many car owners, it does not include an admission of fault by the Japanese automaker, nor does it include an acknowledgement that its cars were actually faulty. In fact, Toyota's attorneys continue to maintain that "reliable scientific evidence" and "independent evaluations" have confirmed the safety of its cars.

Riddell was found not liable in a lawsuit brought against it for a high school football player's injury.

A Mississippi jury took five days to unanimously hold that the football helmet manufacturer was not responsible for the stroke suffered by a ninth grade student, reports The Associated Press.

The student had been participating in a school-sponsored football practice when he was hit. The parents of the student claimed that the helmet pushed back on the student's neck, causing the stroke. However, the Mississippi jury basically found that Riddell was not an insurer against all injuries and sometimes tragic accidents will happen.

A New York state appeals court ruled that a gun manufacturer and distributor could be liable for someone's injuries despite the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The federal statute generally shields firearm manufacturers and sellers from liability for harm caused by criminal use of their products, reports Reuters.

However, the appellate court unanimously reversed a 2011 ruling and said that shooting victim Daniel Williams could go ahead and sue gun manufacturer Beemiller and MKS Supply for his injuries.

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by an American Indian tribe against several beer manufacturers and stores blaming them for the rampant alcoholism on the Indian reservation.

The Oglala Sioux Tribe, which governs the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, brought the lawsuit against four beer stores across the border in Nebraska as well as large beer manufacturers Anheuser-Busch, Molson Coors Brewing Company, MIllerCoors LLC, and Pabst Brewing Company, reports The Associated Press.

Alcohol is banned on the reservation, and it was alleged that the stores in Nebraska would sell booze to tribe members knowing that the alcohol would be brought back across the border and illegally consumed. The federal judge dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, expressed sympathy for the Indian tribe, and said that the proper venue for the lawsuit was in a state court.

The Army Corps of Engineers is not liable for property damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, according to a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Three years ago, U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr. ruled that the federal government is not immune from suits blaming post-Katrina damage on corps' operation and maintenance. The appeals court overturned that decision on Monday.

The same panel of judges had originally ruled in favor of plaintiffs but reversed their decision, reports MSNBC. That ruling changes everything for families who lost their property during Katrina.

Steve Wynn was awarded a hefty sum by the jury in the ruling of his slander lawsuit against 'Girl's Gone Wild' founder Joe Francis.

The ruling is only the latest in a string of lawsuits between the two men over Francis's gambling debt and the statements he's made surrounding Wynn's conduct over the debt. The jury found on Monday that Francis's statements were false and awarded $20 million in damages to Wynn.

In their decision, the jury also found that Francis knew the statements were false when he made them. That could result in a higher penalty for the flashy entrepreneur.