Comments on Recent Cases: July 2022

Image credit

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 “Emergency Doctrine” to Aid Defendant in Negligence Case

In negligence lawsuits, a plaintiff may prevail if she establishes that the defendant failed to act in a reasonable way.  But litigants often debate what “reasonable” means.  And in lawsuits arising from emergency situations, like car accidents, courts may be more permissive with that standard.

The state appellate court in Rochester, New York recently held that the “emergency doctrine” applied in a personal injury case involving a car accident.  It affirmed that, so long as the defendant driver did not create an emergency, the court should not hold her to the same standard of judgment as someone who was not in an emergency and did not have “the full opportunity to reflect” before making a decision.”

Cases like this illustrate the defenses available in negligence lawsuits.

Judge, Not Jury, Decides What a Particular Word in a Contract Means

Trials may be necessary to determine whether a plaintiff is liable to a defendant when there is any ambiguity in the law or a contract. But in some litigation, a court will decide whether the facts meet a legal definition for relief and avoid the need for a trial, even when a key word at issue is ambiguous.

For example, in a recent state court appellate decision in Manhattan, the court considered a case in which an employee was injured at work while changing lightbulbs. The applicable insurance policy did not apply to injuries sustained during “construction or renovation.” The trial court decided a trial was necessary to determine whether the employee’s changing lightbulbs met the definition of “construction or renovation,” but the appellate court held that, as a matter of law, it did not.

Cases like this illustrate how courts can decide whether facts meet certain definitions without a trial.

Court Applies Collateral Estoppel to Dismiss Lawsuit Over Same Issue That Was Litigated in Another Court

Litigants often only get one chance to litigate their disputes. To reference this principle, there is a common saying that parties should not get a “second bite at the apple” in litigation. Part of how courts enforce this rule is through a doctrine called “collateral estoppel,” which bars litigation over issues the parties have already litigated.

The state appellate court in Brooklyn applied this concept in a recent case. In that case clients sued a lawyer for stealing their money. The clients won in New Jersey court, but afterwards the lawyer tried to litigate the same issue in New York court. The appellate court affirmed dismissal of his complaint because the New Jersey court had already decided whether the lawyer had misappropriated his clients’ money.

Cases like this illustrate how defendants can use previous litigation to argue for dismissal of new lawsuits concerning previously litigated issues.

Court Permits Defendant to Amend Answer to Add a New Affirmative Defense

After a plaintiff files a complaint, she may be able to make changes and file an amended complaint. Sometimes, plaintiffs need to ask the court’s permission to do this, but courts will generally permit them to do so. Less often in litigation, defendants amend their answers to complaints.

The state appellate court in Brooklyn recently decided whether the trial court properly allowed a group of defendants to amend their answer to assert a new defense. It acknowledged that the defendants did not state a good reason for not asserting the defense in their original answer.  But it permitted the amendment because there was no harm to the plaintiff because of the delay in making the defense and because the plaintiff did not contend that the new defense was “patently devoid of merit or palpably insufficient.”

Cases like this illustrate how litigants can adapt their pleadings after filing them.