article thumbnail

No cause of action against employers for take-home COVID

At the Lectern

” “[E]xclusivity provisions bar a third party claim only when proof of an employee’s injury is required as an element of the cause of action,” the court says. Winning on the special relationship and workers’ compensation issues isn’t enough to get the plaintiffs to trial, however.

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. Decedent himself ultimately accepted a settlement in lieu of further litigation.

article thumbnail

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

SCOTUSBlog

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.-Canada The judicially created Bivens cause of action functions as the counterpart to 42 U.S.C. Six Unknown Named Agents. Canada border.

article thumbnail

Reckless infliction of emotional distress plaintiffs was not within the reasonably foreseeable scope of the alleged tort.

Day on Torts

To prove a case of reckless infliction of emotional distress (RIED), a plaintiff must show three elements: “(1) the conduct complained of must have been reckless; (2) the conduct must have been so outrageous that it is not tolerated by civilized society; and (3) the conduct complained of must have caused serious mental injury to the plaintiff.”

Tort 52
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.

Court 80
article thumbnail

Australian Federal Court dismisses the novel duty of care previously found in Sharma: what does it mean for future climate litigation in Australia?

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The decision has significant implications for future climate litigation claims in Australia. Prior to this decision, the Sabin Center’s Network of Peer Review Scholars on Climate Litigation held a webinar on the Sharma case. Sharma and Others and its impact for climate litigation in Australia. Background on the claim.