MG+M Boston Attorneys Kevin Hadfield and Christos Koutrobis successfully obtained judgment on the pleadings for its client in Shepard v. AG Realty Investment, LLC, WWM-CV18-6014773-S, a personal injury case brought in the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Putnam.

Plaintiff, a police officer, was attacked and bitten by a dog while executing a search warrant at an apartment building owned by MG+M’s client. In his complaint, Plaintiff stated that the dog was owned by a friend of the landowner’s tenant. Plaintiff claimed that the landowner should nevertheless be held liable because he was aware of, but did nothing to quell, significant alleged criminal activity on the premises. The alleged criminal activity resulted in Plaintiff’s need to be present on the property in his official capacity as well as the subsequent dog bite. Plaintiff asserted premises liability negligence claims in his complaint.

MG+M moved to strike the Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. As grounds for its motion, MG+M argued that pursuant to the common law “firefighter’s rule,” a landowner owes no duty of care to a first responder that enters the premises within the scope of his official duties. In fact, the Connecticut Supreme Court has made clear that “under the firefighter’s rule, the landowner generally owes the firefighter or police officer injured on his property only the duty not to injure him willfully or wantonly . . . .” Levandovski v. Cone, 267 Conn. 653, 654 (2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Plaintiff opposed MG+M’s motion, asserting that the claims were based on principles of “ordinary” negligence, rather than premises negligence, and were therefore excluded from the protections afforded by the firefighter’s rule. Plaintiff attempted to draw parallels between his case and Sepega v. DeLaura, 326 Conn. 788 (2017), in which the Connecticut Supreme Court permitted a case sounding in ordinary negligence to proceed against a landowner that actively barricaded himself into a house, forcing the officer to break the door down, resulting in injuries. The Superior Court rejected Plaintiff’s comparison, and held that the Sepega Defendant’s “active” negligence created an immediate hazard for the Plaintiff who had already entered the premises, which was distinguishable from the “passive” defective premises negligence allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s complaint.

In its memorandum of decision granting MG+M’s motion, the Court highlighted Plaintiff’s failure to allege that AG Realty had any knowledge of the presence of the dog that allegedly attacked the Plaintiff and also failed to assert factual allegations that would suggest willful or wanton misconduct on the part of the defendant. The Court struck plaintiff’s complaint and entered judgment on the stricken complaint in MG+M’s favor.

This common-sense application of the “firefighter’s rule” affirms the protections afforded to landowners from lawsuits by first responders, who may enter their premises at any time, from any direction, without invitation or warning, and without prior notice and opportunity to the landowner to remedy potential defects on the property. The rule prevents landowners from being held to an
Continue Reading

MG+M Boston Attorneys Eric Skelly and Christos Koutrobis successfully obtained dismissals for two clients in James T. Casey, Jr. v. Apax Partners et al., 1:18-cv-11211-DJC, a case that was pending at the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On behalf of MG+M’s foreign client, a motion to dismiss for improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction was granted by Judge Casper. MG+M navigated a voluntary dismissal for its other client through the discovery process by demonstrating, based on the evidence, that the client was not liable for the product at issue.

Plaintiff alleged in his lawsuit that he was ordered to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet as part of his pre-trial probation. In his complaint, he stated that the bracelet wrongfully indicated that he was outside of the approved geographic area, which resulted in two days of imprisonment. As such, he brought forth claims against the defendants under the Massachusetts’ consumer protection laws as well as claims for design defect and negligence.

In its decision on defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court highlighted Plaintiff’s allegation that the defendant, a foreign entity, was liable because its unidentified affiliate assumed the rights and liabilities of the former manufacturer of the electronic monitoring bracelet. The Court noted that even if the Plaintiff established that this affiliate conducted activities in Massachusetts that would subject it to the Court’s jurisdiction, Plaintiff still would need to prove that the affiliate’s conduct could be imputed to the foreign entity by “piercing the corporate veil.” Under Massachusetts law, corporations are presumed to be separate entities. To ignore corporate separateness a party must demonstrate: 1) “active and direct participation by the representatives of one corporation, apparently exercising some form of pervasive control, in the activities of another and there is some fraudulent or injurious consequence of the intercorporate relationship;” or 2) “a confused intermingling of activity of two or more corporations engaged in a common enterprise with substantial disregard of the separate nature of the corporate entities, or serious ambiguity about the manner and capacity in which the various corporations and their respective representatives are acting.” My Bread Baking Co. v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 353 Mass. 614, 619 (1968). Plaintiff attempted to satisfy these requirements through evidence that suggested the foreign entity merely advised its unidentified affiliate during the acquisition of the electronic monitoring business. The Court, however, held that this evidence fell short of the threshold to disregard corporate separateness and “pierce the corporate veil.” Accordingly, the Court held that it did not have personal jurisdiction over the foreign entity.

This decision reinforces the long-standing principle of corporate separateness and should be beneficial to foreign defendants challenging personal jurisdiction in the future.
Continue Reading

Defendants DCo, LLC (formerly known as Dana Companies) and Ford Motor Company (collectively “Defendants”) recently obtained a defense verdict in an asbestos personal injury matter following a nine day trial that took place in the Western District of Washington. Plaintiffs alleged the decedent, Patrick Jack, developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured or supplied by the Defendants. Plaintiff passed away at the age of 81. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that Mr. Jack was exposed to asbestos: (1) during his childhood and teenage years through his father’s work at Union Pacific; (2) through his own work as a machinist and piping inspector during his service in the U.S. Navy from 1955 to 1962 and 1967 to 1973; and (3) through his own work as an automotive mechanic from 1955 to 2001. Plaintiffs* claimed Mr. Jack was exposed to asbestos through his father’s work clothing. Mr. Jack testified at his deposition that after finishing a day’s work, his father returned home dirty and was routinely greeted by Mr. Jack. Further, Mr. Jack testified at his deposition that he remembered being present as his grandmother shook out his father’s clothes before washing them. On occasion, Mr. Jack accompanied his father to work at Union Pacific and recalled witnessing individuals cut cement pipe and handle insulation. Through his own work, Mr. Jack alleged exposure to asbestos from work with automotive clutches and brakes manufactured by Ford, among others, and automotive gaskets manufactured by Victor (a brand associated with DCo, LLC formerly Dana Companies), among other manufacturers. In April 2017, Plaintiffs brought both common law negligence claims and statutory strict liability claims as enumerated in WASH. REV. CODE 7.72 et seq., in which they alleged defective design and failure to warn against a number of entities, in addition to the Defendants, predominantly associated with Naval vessel equipment. However, because Mr. Jack’s alleged exposure predated the 1986 Washington Tort Reform Act, which established proportionate several liability, the Defendants were subject to the pre-existing law which imposes joint and several liability.

The defendant-equipment manufacturers associated with Mr. Jack’s Naval service were no longer in the case at the time of trial. At trial, Plaintiffs relied on expert testimony of Dr. Carl Brodkin (occupational medicine); Dr. Arnold Brody (cell biology), Dr. Ronald Gordon (pathology; lung fiber burden), and Sean Fitzgerald (geology expert who tested Victor gaskets found in Mr. Jack’s garage). As stated above, because the Plaintiffs’ claims were subject to Washington’s pre-Tort Reform law, mandating joint and several liability with set-offs for prior settlements, only Dana and Ford could be included on the verdict slip. The trial began on October 1, 2018 and both Plaintiffs and Defendants were limited to 24 hours each on the record. After both sides presented their respective cases, the jury began deliberations on October 11, and returned with a verdict the next day. The jury found that neither defendant was strictly liable for allegedly manufacturing and or selling a defective product. However, the jury was not able
Continue Reading

Recently, the Texas Court of Appeals (1) upheld a jury’s finding of gross negligence and (2) explained how a trial court should calculate exemplary damages under Texas law, in The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, v. Vicki Lynn Rogers, et al., No. 05-15-00001-CV, 2017 WL 3776837 (Tex. App. Sep. 13, 2017).  In this case, the decedent, Carl Rogers, passed away from mesothelioma.  From 1974 to 2004, he worked as a tire builder at a Goodyear facility in Tyler, Texas, where he allegedly was exposed to asbestos from overhead insulation and from brakes in tire building machines located in the Tyler facility.  Mr. Rogers’ wife (as the representative of his estate) and two daughters sued his employer, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (“Goodyear”), for wrongful death allegedly caused by Goodyear’s gross negligence.  Typically, workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for plaintiffs who attribute the cause of death to the negligence of a decedent’s employer.  However, Texas’ workers’ compensation law allows a plaintiff’s surviving spouse and heirs to recover exemplary damages when the employee’s death resulted from the employer’s gross negligence.

The jury found by clear and convincing evidence that Goodyear’s gross negligence caused Mr. Rogers’ mesothelioma, and ultimately, his death.  To calculate exemplary damages, the trial court asked the jury to determine plaintiffs’ past and future pecuniary loss, past and future loss of companionship and society, and past and future mental anguish.  In addition to making those findings, the jury assessed $15 million in exemplary damages, with 90 percent of the award apportioned to the widow and 5 percent to each daughter.  After the jury’s verdict, the trial court conducted its own calculation of damages according to section 41.008(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which lowered the total award to $2,890,000.  On appeal, Goodyear unsuccessfully challenged the jury’s finding of gross negligence, but prevailed in its challenge to the trial court’s calculation of exemplary damages, reducing the total award to $1,150,000.

To prove gross negligence, “a plaintiff must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) when viewed objectively from the defendant’s standpoint at the time of the event, the act or omission involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, and (2) the defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.”  U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v. Waldrip, 380 S.W.3d 118, 137 (Tex. 2012).

The Texas Court of Appeals first addressed the objective component of gross negligence, and described extreme risk as the likelihood of the plaintiff’s serious injury, rather than a remote or even high probability of minor harm.  While Goodyear conceded that mesothelioma is a serious injury, it argued the plaintiffs did not prove the likelihood of that injury.  To support this argument, Goodyear used the plaintiffs’ best evidence regarding dosage, which increased the risk of developing mesothelioma by 22 times over that of someone who was not
Continue Reading