Comments on Recent Cases: July 2024
Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_French_legislative_election#/media/File:Place_de_la_République,_Juillet_7_2024_06.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 Holds Defendant Strictly Liable Even Where Accident Not Foreseeable
Some laws allow a plaintiff to recover in litigation against a defendant, even if the defendant did not breach an agreement, lie, or act negligently. These laws confer “strict liability” on the defendant, providing an incentive for the defendant to do whatever it takes to protect the safety of potential plaintiffs. Since these laws are so strict, defendants challenge when they apply.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a construction worker sued a defendant when a floor of the defendant’s building collapsed and he got injured. The defendant argued that the law conferring strict liability on it for the injury did not apply since the collapse was unforeseeable. The trial court agreed, but the appeals court reversed since, while that specific collapse was unforeseeable, the elevated risk of harm from the plaintiff’s work made an injury generally foreseeable.
Cases like this illustrate how courts apply strict liability.
Court Holds Referee Did Not Engage in Improper Burden Shifting
The plaintiff ordinarily has the burden to establish its case. That means that the defendant ordinarily need not present any evidence and, if the evidence is equivocal between both sides, the defendant should prevail. But some cases involve “burden shifting,” where once the plaintiff presents some evidence of something, the “burden shifts” to the defendant to prove something. This usually arises in contexts like discrimination where there is something difficult for anyone to prove, like subjective motive.
This issue was recently litigated in the disbarment proceedings for former Mayor Giuliani. The government had the burden to establish that the former Mayor deliberately made false statements. The former Mayor presented evidence to respond and, when the referee rejected that evidence, complained that the referee engaged in “burden shifting,” forcing him to prove the statements were believed to be true rather than requiring the government to prove they were deliberately false. The state appeals court in Manhattan, however, held there was no improper burden shifting: the referee merely held that the government’s evidence was more persuasive than the evidence in opposition.
Decisions like this illustrate how litigants debate the appropriate burdens in disputes.
Court Dismisses Defamation Claim Arising From Claim Plaintiff Was QAnon Supporter
A major issue that arises in defamation litigation is whether the statement at issue is a fact that can be proven true or false or whether it is an opinion. Only a false statement of fact can be the basis of a damages claim, and so a judge must decide whether the statement is a fact before the question of falsity can go before a jury. And the legal definition of a fact may differ from how many people understand it from generally using the word.
For example, in a recent case before the federal district court in Manhattan, a couple sued CNN because the network aired video footage that suggested that they were QAnon followers. They claimed that this was a false fact. But the judge dismissed the case, holding that whether someone is a QAnon follower is too vague of a claim to be true or false and was therefore an opinion that could not be the basis for a claim. The judge compared the case to others that dismissed defamation claims arising from statements that a plaintiff was racist, a communist, a fraud, or a bully. And it noted that the evidence before the court suggested that there was no single definition of what constituted a QAnon follower, and so it was impossible to prove or disprove whether someone was one.
Cases like this illustrate a major challenge in defamation claims.
Court Finds Bank Created Special Relationship By Publicizing Anti-Fraud Policy
Under New Jersey law, banks have no duty to protect depositors from the wrongful conduct of third parties except when they have a “special relationship” conferring such a duty. Since it can be unclear when that “special relationship” arises, parties have brought claims against banks, seeking to recover their damages when they could not collect against the third parties who directly harmed them.
For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff sued Chase Bank, alleging it is responsible for allowing a third party to open an account without providing a taxpayer identification number or corporate identification. That third party stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from the plaintiff and Chase’s negligence allowed the third party to conduct the scheme. The bank claimed that, under New Jersey law, it was not liable for the fraudster’s conduct. But a divided panel of the appeals court agreed that its publicized anti-fraud policies conferred a duty upon it to abide by those policies.
Cases like this illustrate how plaintiffs may argue that a special relationship exists when seeking relief from a bank.
Court Refuses to Dismiss Case Based on Defendants’ Sworn Statement
A motion to dismiss is frequently limited to the “four corners of the complaint.” In other words, the motion often criticizes the legal sufficiency of the complaint, assuming its contents were true, instead of rebutting the allegations in the complaint. But in some situations, a motion may present evidence outside of the complaint to show why the court should dismiss the complaint.
The burden to present that evidence, however, may still be high. For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff sued doctors for negligence in connection with his care at a hospital. The doctors claimed immunity under a law meant to protect healthcare workers during the covid-19 pandemic, and submitted a sworn statement that the level of care they provided was impacted by the pandemic. The court refused to dismiss the case, holding that the statement did not conclusively establish that the man’s care was impacted by the pandemic, even though it stated that the pandemic had major effects in the hospital.
Cases like this illustrate the major burdens defendants face when presenting evidence in connection with a motion to dismiss.