News
Personal Injury
- [03/17] Hawaii inmate sues state, private prison operator
- [03/17] Father of boy missing with mother arrives in Wash.
- [03/17] IG: Vets waiting too long to give disability exams
- [03/17] First lady: Diet is key to children's productivity
Product Liability
- [03/17] Toyota, US inspectors examine wrecked NY Prius
- [03/17] YRC says March volume up; still on shaky ground
- [03/16] Honda to recall 410,000 vehicles for brake problem
- [03/16] Toyota dismisses Calif. man's runaway Prius report
Top Headlines
- [03/17] Toyota, US inspectors examine wrecked NY Prius
- [03/17] Wachovia settles money laundering case for $160M
- [03/17] YRC says March volume up; still on shaky ground
- [03/17] Viacom-YouTube secrets to be exposed in lawsuit
Tort
Case Summaries
Injury & Tort Law
[03/17] Holmes v. Kimco Realty Corp.
In plaintiff's negligence suit against a retailer for injuries he sustained when he fell on ice/snow in the parking lot, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as the state of New Jersey would not impose a duty on an individual tenant for snow removal from the common areas of a multi-tenant parking lot when the landlord has retained and exercised that responsibility.
[03/17] In re Ephedra Prods. Litig.
In a personal injury action alleging injuries resulting from the ingestion of the drug ephedra, the Second Circuit certified the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: 1) Are the provisions of N.Y. C.P.L.R. section 214-c(4) providing for an extension of the statute of limitations in certain circumstances limited to actions for injuries caused by the latent effects of exposure to a substance? 2) Can an injury that occurs within 24 to 48 hours of exposure to a substance be considered "latent" for these purposes? 3) What standards should be applied to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists for resolution by a trier of fact as to whether "technical, scientific or medical knowledge and information sufficient to ascertain the cause of [the plaintiff's] injury" was "discovered, identified or determined" for N.Y. C.P.L.R. section 214-c(4) purposes?
[03/16] McBride v. CSX Transp. Inc.
In plaintiff's action under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA) seeking compensation for injuries he sustained while performing switching operations for his employer, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) common law proximate causation is not required to establish liability under the FELA; and 2) district court did not commit instructional error refusing defendant's proffered instruction and giving the causation instruction to the jury instead as it correctly and completely informed the jury of the applicable law.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.






