Governmental Liability

Court Finds Government Immune to Design Defect Case Arising from Allegedly Dangerous Roadways

January 11, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier last month, a California court heard a case against the County of San Diego brought by an accident victim who was injured when he was struck by another motorist on a roadway he claimed was poorly designed. In the case, Hampton v. County of San Diego, the court ultimately determined that the government’s sovereign immunity was not waived, and as a result it was immune from the lawsuit.

Hampton v. County of San Diego: The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a man who was seriously injured when he was involved in a collision with another motorist on a rural intersection. The man filed suit against the other driver in an unrelated case, in which he admitted he could not remember if he stopped at the stop sign prior to entering the intersection. The other driver testified in that case that the plaintiff pulled out “right in front of him, leaving too little time to stop before the collision.” The Highway Patrol conducted an investigation and determined that the accident was caused by the plaintiff’s failure to stop at the stop sign.

After that lawsuit, the plaintiff filed this case against the County, claiming that it designed and maintained a dangerous roadway. Essentially, the plaintiff claimed that the design and construction of the road provided inadequate visibility of oncoming traffic due to a high embankment that was covered with vegetation.

U.S. Supreme Court Discusses Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in Recent Decision

December 8, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court decided a case that gave the court occasion to discuss the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the “Act”). The Act is an agreement among nations that limits the liability of foreign governments. The Act generally gives foreign sovereign countries immunity unless the alleged conduct falls within one of the Act’s several exceptions.

In the case, OBB Personenverkehr AG (OBB) v. Sachs, the plaintiff was a California woman who purchased a Eurorail pass over the internet through a U.S.-based travel retailer. In Austria, the plaintiff was attempting to board a train when she fell through a gap between the rail car and the boarding platform. After she fell, a train ran over her legs, requiring the amputation of both her legs. The woman filed suit against OBB, which is wholly owned by the Austrian government.

At trial, OBB sought to dismiss the case against it based on the Act, which generally grants foreign governments immunity from lawsuits. The plaintiff, however, claimed that her case met an exception to the Act’s grant of immunity, specifically that her case “is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by [a] foreign state.”

State Supreme Court Refuses to Hold City Liable in Slip-and-Fall Case on City Property

October 14, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Idaho Supreme Court decided a case brought by a man who was injured when he slipped and fell while attending a Pop Warner football game in Plummer, Idaho. In the case, Hayes v. Plummer, the plaintiff sued the city who owned the park where the injury occurred, but he was prevented from recovering damages because the court determined that the City of Plummer enjoyed sovereign immunity from this type of lawsuit.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was attending his grandson’s Pop Warner football game back in September 2011 when he slipped on some uneven ground that was covered by a tuft of grass. The man did not pay any admission to get into the park nor to watch the game. The man sustained injuries and filed a premises liability lawsuit against the city, seeking monetary compensation.

As it turns out, back in 1976, the park was conveyed to the City from a local school district. Park of the agreement was that the school district would continue to pay for the utilities and make improvements on the land, as needed.

Family Brings Suit Against Department of Transportation in Failure-to-Maintain Case

September 15, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Mississippi decided a case that was brought by a family who was involved in a serious car accident that they attributed to the negligence of the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). In the case, Logan v. MDOT, the Supreme Court of Mississippi determined that the plaintiffs should have been able to submit an affidavit of a family member who talked to several MDOT employees after the accident and was told that they had received complaints of the dangerous condition earlier that day.

According to court documents, the family was driving over a bridge that had recently undergone some asphalt repair work. MDOT, the organization responsible for the repairs, placed several thick metal planks over the asphalt as it cured. However, according to the plaintiffs, some of the planks were laying on top of one another in a way that made them stick up, creating a danger to passing motorists.

Indeed, as the plaintiffs’ car traveled across the bridge and over the planks, it got caught and spun out, injuring several family members inside. The family filed suit against MDOT, claiming that its failure to maintain the road was negligent. The family also claimed that MDOT’s failure to warn passing motorists of the dangerous condition was negligent.