Cases & Developments

Opinion reversing partial summary judgment in favor of the State. In March 2019, an employee of Murray State College drove a College vehicle head-on into a semi-trailer truck owned by plaintiff. Plaintiff asserted that in addition to damage to the truck it also suffered consequential damages of $68,636.61 for towing, vehicle rental, and related expenses. The State offered to settle for $25,000, which is the statutory cap for property loss under the Oklahoma Government Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff argued for a higher cap of $125,000 provided in the statute for “any other loss” arising out of a single act, accident, or occurrence. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the state on the question of the statutory cap. In reversing, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that because plaintiff’s consequential damages arose indirectly from the loss of the truck the higher statutory cap applied.   

Opinion reversing summary judgment in favor of the University and remanding. Plaintiff, a student at Indiana University Bloomington, brought negligence claims against the University after a window in a University building where she was studying for exams in April 2018 fell out of the wall and shattered on her head. The University did not inspect the windows regularly, and the window in question, which had adjustable blinds between two glass panes, was last repaired in March 2017 in response to a work order noting that the blinds would not raise. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the University, finding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not permit an inference of negligence. In reversing and remanding, the Court of Appeals of Indiana found that there were material issues of fact as to whether the University exercised exclusive control over the window even though others might adjust the blinds and whether such adjustments should not cause a window to fall from the wall absent negligence.

Decision affirming judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, who uses a cane when she walks, sued Cleveland State University after she was injured in its Wolstein Center arena when an usher guided her to a seat where she could catch her breath and the seat gave way under her as she tried to sit down. In affirming judgment in favor of the University, the Court of Appeals of Ohio held that under the reasonable inspection standard of care, the University is only required to make a visual inspection of the 14,000 seats in the arena when there have been no recent complaints of defects in seats rather than to test or inspect the spring mechanism of each seat prior to each performance.   

Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, an employee at the University of California, Irvine, brought premises liability and negligence claims against the University after an accident in which she left work at the end of the day, mounted her bicycle to ride home, and seconds later swerved to avoid a trench that was cordoned off with orange posts and caution tape, falling off her bike and sustaining injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment to the University, finding that (1) workers’ compensation was her exclusive remedy because the accident happened on campus and (2) she had not exercised due care at the time. In affirming on the grounds of the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule, the California Court of Appeals held that the trial court had properly applied the premises line rule, which offers “a ‘sharp line of demarcation’ as to when the employee’s commute terminates and the course of employment commences” under the judicially created “going and coming rule” in workers’ compensation cases.