Recently in Injury & Tort Law Category

Is a teacher’s pattern of inappropriate conduct toward students sufficient proof to support a Title IX sexual harassment lawsuit against the school district? Not necessarily, according the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

J.F.K. and M.C.K. sued the Troup County School District for sexual harassment under Title IX after learning that Elizabeth Gaddy, a 45-year-old teacher, had molested O.K.K., their 12-year-old son. O.K.K.’s parents claimed that multiple parents had alerted the school principal, Thomas Whatley, to Gaddy’s unprofessional behavior toward O.K.K. and other students, but Whatley failed to intervene.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Hustler this week in a lawsuit over the magazine's decision to print 20-year-old nude photos of slain former-wrestler Nancy Toffoloni Benoit months after her husband, Chris Benoit, killed her.

Last year, a jury hit Hustler with $19.6 million in punitive damages for publishing the pics, according to the First Amendment Center. A federal judge later reduced the award to $250,000 to comply with a Georgia damages cap, and awarded Nancy's family $125,000 in compensatory damages.

This week, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the $250,000 punitive damages award.

It’s okay for a borrower to whine and complain if a bank denies his request for a mortgage loan modification, but doesn't mean that he has a claim that can withstand a 12(b)(6) motion.

This week, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) does not give a homeowner a private cause of action against a bank.

In debt collection — as in love — there is no such thing as a harmless error. Even when a plaintiff doesn’t suffer an actual, measurable harm, statutes can provide her with a cause of action that results in damages.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently highlighted one such case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court this week that could affect insurance claims in Florida.

The question is whether, under Florida Statute 627.736, an insurer can require an insured to attend an examination under oath (EUO) as a condition precedent to recovery of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits?

Just because a court doesn't know its own power doesn't mean the court committed reversible error.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that a district court's lack of familiarity with the specifics of Federal Rule of Evidence 706 wasn't sufficient to reverse the court on summary judgment.

Do Hustler's First Amendment rights protect the magazine's decision to print 20-year-old nude photos of slain former-wrestler Nancy Benoit months after her husband, Chris Benoit, killed her?

Hustler claims that the First Amendment insulates the publication from right of publicity liability because the murder made Nancy a newsworthy figure. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Hustler in 2009, noting, "The Georgia courts have never held, nor do we believe that they would hold, that if one is the victim of an infamous murder, one's entire life is rendered the legitimate subject of public scrutiny."

As much as we love bestowing FindLaw Top Dog honors on deserving jurisprudential pups, we're not going to award Rosco, the canine subject of today's Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision, with our coveted designation. That's because we don't want to reward Rosco's Orlando police handlers for using excessive force.

(Rosco, this hurts us more than it hurts you. Really.)

This week, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Officers Bryan Shanley and Justin Levitt were not entitled to qualified immunity after they permitted Rosco to attack a suspect, who was not resisting arrest, for five to seven minutes.

We occasionally enjoy bouncing out our frustration over bad appellate rulings at the trampoline park, which is great fun as soon as we forget about the electronic liability waiver form we had to complete to get in the door.

That waiver says jumping is an inherently dangerous activity, and that we won't hold the facility liable for injuries resulting from things like exposed springs, or lack of proper equipment, safety measures, or supervision. We grudgingly sign such forms, knowing that a judge would guffaw if we ever tried to challenge their validity. (Stupid heightened understanding of the law.)

But if the trampoline park was on a cruise ship, and we were challenging the liability waiver form in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, we might prevail.

Dramamine and rubber-soled shoes are critical when sailing.

The open sea, though relaxing, is full of threats: stingrays, icebergs, 15-foot swells, barnacles, Carib shortages, and very slippery floors.

Perhaps that's where today's Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals plaintiff, Lydia Rosenfeld, erred: She didn't anticipate the slippery floor on her cruise ship.

But according to Rosenfeld, Oceania Cruises should have known that the floor was dangerous.