Comments on Recent Cases: April 2024

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse#/media/File:Solar_eclipse_1999_4.jpg

Part of my work involves reading court decisions to keep abreast of how judges decide the types of cases I handle. Below, I share some thoughts on recent decisions.

Court Applies Strict Liability Despite Contributory Negligence Claim

A court may find a defendant liable to a plaintiff, even in situations where the plaintiff bears some responsibility.  Where a law assigns “strict liability,” a defendant is expected to do whatever it can to prevent an injury because it may be responsible where there is one.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff sued a defendant because he fell from a ladder.  The plaintiff won without a trial, and the defendant appealed, arguing that the court should have considered whether the plaintiff caused the injury himself based on where he placed the ladder and the fact that the plaintiff inspected the ladder and found it to be safe.  The court affirmed the decision since a New York law assigns strict liability to accidents arising from a fall from a ladder; assigning “contributory negligence” to the plaintiff is irrelevant, the court held.

Cases like this illustrate the need for defendants with strict liability to assume responsibility to prevent injuries.

Court Reverses Sanctions Against Attorney Making Losing Argument

There is a difference between arguments that a court rejects and arguments that are so bad that the court will punish a litigant or her attorney with sanctions for making them.  And there is often litigation about the difference between those arguments.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a lawyer made an argument about the meaning of a document.  The lawyer told the court that no document existed that concerned the timing of a payment.  The trial court rejected the argument because there was a document that would have mentioned timing had there been a relevant deadline.  And it sanctioned the lawyer for arguing otherwise.  The appeals court reversed the sanctions since, although the argument was rejected, it was not “completely devoid of merit.”

Cases like this illustrate the considerations courts go through when deciding to sanction lawyers.

Court Affirms Decision In Favor of Tenant Who Breached Lease

A lot of litigants get focused on whether another side has breached an agreement, but do not focus enough on what the correct procedure is following a breach.  This may lead to unexpected outcomes and frustrating situations.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a tenant had a lease with a landlord that required him to get permission to sublet.  The tenant did not get permission before subletting, and so the landlord changed the locks.  The tenant sued and won, and the appeals court affirmed the decision since, even though the tenant breached the agreement, the landlord should have sued instead of unilaterally changing the locks.  Worse yet, the case dragged on for over a decade since the plaintiff declared bankruptcy.

Cases like this illustrate the need to properly follow legal procedures, even when another party breaches an agreement.

Insurer Properly Excludes Coverage for Negligence Claim Arising From Assault

Since litigation is expensive, many people rely on their insurance carriers to assume the costs of a lawsuit.  But since insurance often contains exceptions to coverage, there are often lawsuits to determine whether the insurer is obligated to defend.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, an insured asked his insurer to defend him against a negligence claim.  The insurer argued that there was an exception to the insurance policy for claims arising from assault.  The insured claimed that negligence is different from assault, but the court affirmed the decision that the negligence claim was “arose” from the assault and so was excluded.

Cases like this illustrate the kinds of arguments that arise in insurance coverage litigation.

New Evidence Does Not Persuade Court to Re-Open Old Case

After the end of a litigation, the unsuccessful party may go to court and ask for another opportunity to argue the case, citing new evidence.  While courts allow for this opportunity, they are generally skeptical of these claims and limit the circumstances where old cases can be re-litigated.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff asked the court to reinstate a 2014 lawsuit on the basis of new evidence.  But the court affirmed the rejection of this effort since, among other reasons, the new evidence was just more of the same kind of evidence the court had when it dismissed the case originally.  It also was skeptical that the new evidence would have changed the outcome of the original dismissal.

Cases like this illustrate the burden litigants face when arguing that new evidence justifies re-opening an old case.