Remove Cause of Action Remove Court Remove Litigating Remove Tort
article thumbnail

No cause of action against employers for take-home COVID

At the Lectern

Victory Woodworks , the Supreme Court today holds that employers currently can’t be sued for failing to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members. Allowing liability “would impose an intolerable burden on employers and society in contravention of public policy,” the court says. In Kuciemba v.

article thumbnail

United Kingdom Supreme Court confirms that consequential loss satisfies the tort gateway for service out of the jurisdiction

Conflict of Laws

In FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Lady Brownlie [2021] UKSC 45 (“ Brownlie II ”), the Supreme Court held as a matter of ratio by a 4:1 majority that consequential loss satisfies the ‘tort gateway’ in Practice Direction (“ PD ”) 6B, para. Economic torts? Background. PD 6B, para. Three main reasons were given.

Tort 52
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Decedent’s personal injury settlement did not become wrongful death proceeds after his death.

Day on Torts

The trial court dismissed the action, finding that the settlement of the personal injury case “very clearly intended to foreclose upon any future wrongful death funds related to the mesothelioma litigation,” and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. In Welch v. Welch , No. M2021-00081-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.

article thumbnail

In a first for climate nuisance claims, a Hawai‘i State Court allowed Honolulu to proceed with its case against fossil fuel companies

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Starting in 2017, cities, counties, and states across the United States have filed claims (see here and here ) in state courts against fossil fuel companies seeking redress for the climate harms their products have caused. Many of these cases asserted nuisance and other tort law claims. The Hawai‘i Circuit Court’s decision.

Court 80
article thumbnail

Court endorses private Section 1983 enforcement of spending clause enactments

SCOTUSBlog

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person acting under color of state law who deprives a person of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. The court then applied its long-standing two-step analysis to conclude that FNHRA is enforceable through Section 1983.

Statute 99
article thumbnail

Court explores continued private enforcement of spending clause enactments

SCOTUSBlog

Talevski did not reveal a Supreme Court ready to reconsider or overrule a line of cases allowing private suits for damages in federal court under 42 U.S.C. Robbins responded that private litigation is antithetical to the substantial enforcement power and discretion FNHRA accords states and the secretary of health and human services.

Court 88
article thumbnail

Border agents, the First Amendment, and the continued vitality of Bivens

SCOTUSBlog

Share The Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider the continued vitality and expansion of lawsuits for damages against federal officers under Bivens v. Boule considers whether to “extend” the Bivens cause of action to First Amendment retaliation claims and Fourth Amendment claims arising from immigration enforcement near the U.S.