Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In July 2019, Brent Bartlett, an off-duty police officer with the Juneau Police Department (JPD), rear-ended Arlene Tripp’s vehicle while driving his personal car under the influence of alcohol, resulting in her injury. Bartlett, who had a history of alcohol abuse and PTSD, was found to have a blood alcohol content of 0.239. Bartlett’s partner, also a JPD officer, was aware of his issues but did not report them. The Tripps sued the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ), JPD, and the police chief, alleging negligent training and supervision of Bartlett.The Superior Court of Alaska, First Judicial District, dismissed the case, ruling that JPD did not owe a duty of care to the public to protect them from harm caused by officers’ off-duty alcohol consumption. The court found no statutory duty under AS 18.65.130 or CBJ’s Drug-Free Workplace policy and JPD Conduct Rule 114. It also determined that existing precedent did not impose such a duty and that public policy considerations did not support recognizing a duty of care in these circumstances.The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the Superior Court’s decision. The court held that neither statutes nor precedent imposed a duty of care on JPD to train officers against excessive off-duty alcohol consumption. It also concluded that public policy did not favor imposing such a duty, as it was not foreseeable that training officers on alcohol consumption would reduce the likelihood of them driving under the influence while off duty. The court emphasized that the connection between JPD’s conduct and the Tripps’ injuries was too remote and that the moral blame lay with Bartlett’s criminal conduct. Therefore, the dismissal of the lawsuit was upheld. View "Tripp v. City and Borough of Juneau" on Justia Law

Justin and Jared Brackett own and operate two restaurants in Harwich, Massachusetts: Ember Pizza, Inc. and The Port Restaurant and Bar, Inc. Both establishments held liquor and entertainment licenses issued by the town. Allegedly, they violated Harwich's noise ordinance and Massachusetts COVID-19 restrictions, leading to suspensions and restrictions on their permits. In response, they sued Harwich, several town officials, and other individuals in federal district court, asserting various federal and state claims.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts largely granted the defendants' dispositive motions, rejecting all of Ember and The Port's claims. The court also denied their request for leave to amend their complaint, finding that an amendment would be futile. Ember and The Port then appealed the district court's decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's rulings. The appellate court held that Ember and The Port failed to state a plausible claim for relief under federal law, including their First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and procedural due process claims. The court also found that the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act claims and common law claims, including civil conspiracy and defamation, were inadequately pleaded. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for leave to amend the complaint, as the proposed amendments would not have cured the deficiencies in the original complaint. View "3137, LLC v. Town of Harwich" on Justia Law

A disabled woman, T.M.B., was sexually assaulted by an employee of West Mont, a nonprofit organization contracted by the State of Montana to provide community-based services for developmentally disabled individuals. T.M.B. sued both the State and West Mont, alleging they owed her a nondelegable duty of care. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants, concluding neither owed a nondelegable duty of care for the employee’s criminal acts. T.M.B. appealed.The District Court of the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County, found that the State had satisfied its statutory obligations by contracting with West Mont to provide services and did not owe a nondelegable duty to T.M.B. because she was not under state custody or control. The court also found that West Mont did not owe a nondelegable duty, as there was no statute or rule explicitly stating such a duty existed for state contractors operating community homes.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It affirmed the District Court’s decision regarding the State, agreeing that the State did not have a close, continuing relationship with T.M.B. that would impose a nondelegable duty. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision regarding West Mont, finding that the relationship between West Mont and T.M.B. was sufficiently close and continuing to impose a nondelegable duty under Restatement (Second) of Agency § 214. The court held that West Mont had a duty to protect T.M.B. from harm due to her dependence on their care and supervision. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "T.M.B v. West Mont" on Justia Law

Houston Police Department Officers Richard Corral and C. Goodman were involved in a high-speed chase of a suspect who had solicited an undercover detective and fled in a stolen vehicle. During the pursuit, Corral's patrol car hit a curb and collided with a pickup truck driven by Ruben Rodriguez and Frederick Okon. Corral claimed the accident occurred because his brakes did not stop him in time. Rodriguez and Okon sued the City of Houston, alleging Corral's negligent driving caused their injuries.The trial court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, which argued that Corral was protected by official immunity because he acted in good faith and that the emergency exception to the Tort Claims Act applied. The Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas affirmed, holding that a fact issue existed regarding whether Corral knew his brakes were not functioning properly, which precluded summary judgment.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that Corral acted in good faith as a matter of law. The Court found that Corral's statement about the brakes not working did not reasonably support an inference that he had prior awareness of any defect. The Court emphasized that the summary-judgment evidence showed Corral's brakes were functional but did not stop him in time. The Court also held that the City conclusively established Corral's good faith in making the turn during the pursuit, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a fact issue to controvert this proof.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and rendered judgment dismissing the case, holding that the City’s governmental immunity was not waived under the Tort Claims Act because Corral was protected by official immunity. View "CITY OF HOUSTON v. RODRIGUEZ" on Justia Law

A fugitive led police on a high-speed chase in Austin, during which Officer Bullock collided with Noel Powell's minivan, causing injuries. Powell, who was not at fault, sued the City of Austin for damages. The City claimed immunity under the Tort Claims Act's emergency exception, which applies if the officer was responding to an emergency and did not act with reckless disregard for safety.The trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction, and the City appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed, finding a fact issue regarding whether Officer Bullock's actions were reckless, thus requiring further proceedings.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the officer's conduct did not violate any specific law or ordinance applicable to emergency actions. The court also found that Powell did not raise a fact issue regarding the officer's recklessness. Consequently, the Tort Claims Act did not waive the City's immunity. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and rendered judgment dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. View "THE CITY OF AUSTIN v. POWELL" on Justia Law

The case involves Lori Ann Wiley, who, along with Charles Wallace Hanson, engaged in a verbal altercation at a Kern High School District (KHSD) high school. The incident began when a school employee blocked a handicap parking spot they intended to use. Wiley later submitted a written complaint about the incident to the school. Subsequently, KHSD police officer Michael Whiting recommended various misdemeanor charges against Wiley, leading to her being cited and a prosecutor filing a criminal complaint with three misdemeanor charges. After a mistrial, the court dismissed Wiley’s charges in the interest of justice.Wiley sued KHSD police officers Edward Komin, Michael Whiting, Luis Peña, and Steven Alvidrez, alleging violations of her First Amendment rights, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. She brought causes of action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the Bane Act, and common law torts for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrer to Wiley’s causes of action in the second amended complaint on multiple grounds without leave to amend and granted a motion to strike Wiley’s punitive damages allegations without leave to amend.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision in part and reversed it in part. The appellate court held that Wiley failed to adequately plead her claims under section 1983 for malicious/retaliatory prosecution and abuse of process, as well as her claims under the Bane Act. The court also found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that Wiley did not sufficiently allege facts to support her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. However, the court granted Wiley leave to amend her section 1983 claim but denied leave to amend her other causes of action. The court affirmed the trial court’s order granting the motion to strike without leave to amend. View "Wiley v. Kern High School District" on Justia Law

A bicyclist was struck by a vehicle while crossing a marked, non-signalized crosswalk on an onramp from Jeffrey Road in Irvine, leading to the I-405 freeway northbound. The bicyclist’s parents sued the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Irvine, claiming the crosswalk was dangerous due to the lack of a signal, inadequate signage, and a high speed limit. They alleged these factors contributed to their daughter's death and that the public entities failed to warn of the dangerous condition.The Superior Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of Caltrans and the City. The court found no triable issue of material fact regarding design immunity, which shields public entities from liability for creating a dangerous condition if the design was approved by a discretionary authority. The court also ruled that the lack of a traffic control signal did not constitute a dangerous condition as a matter of law. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to show the alleged dangerous condition was a concealed trap or that there was a failure to warn.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that Caltrans had established design immunity and that the plaintiffs did not raise a triable issue of material fact. The appellate court also found that Caltrans had no notice of the alleged dangerous condition, as there were no similar accidents in the area in the decade prior. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Caltrans had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, which is necessary for a failure-to-warn claim. View "Kabat v. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Randi Mariani crashed her motor scooter and sustained a serious injury during a driving skills test, which she was taking to obtain a motorcycle endorsement to her driver license. Following the crash, the Utah Department of Public Safety-Driver License Division (DLD) denied Mariani’s application for the endorsement. Mariani sued the DLD for negligently causing her injury. The district court granted summary judgment to the DLD based on governmental immunity, and the court of appeals affirmed.The district court concluded that the DLD was immune from Mariani’s suit under the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah (GIA), reasoning that Mariani’s injury arose out of the administration of her motorcycle skills test, which was part of the licensing process. The court of appeals agreed, stating that Mariani’s injury was at least incident to the licensing approval process.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court focused on the specific language of the GIA’s licensing exception, which provides immunity for injuries that arise out of or in connection with the denial of a license. The Court concluded that the relevant conduct was the denial of the motorcycle endorsement, not the licensing process itself. The Court further determined that there was no causal relationship between the denial of the license and Mariani’s injury, as the injury occurred before the denial. Therefore, the licensing exception did not apply, and the DLD was not immune from Mariani’s suit. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Mariani v. Driver License Division" on Justia Law

Officer Henry Volentine, a deputy of the Hardin County Office of Sheriff (HCOS), initiated a traffic stop of Maurice Green on October 14, 2014, after noticing Green's vehicle had an expired license plate belonging to a different vehicle. Green initially pulled over but then drove off, prompting Volentine to pursue him. During the pursuit, Volentine believed Green had committed assault and wanton endangerment by nearly hitting two pedestrians. The pursuit ended in a head-on collision with Susan Sheehy’s vehicle, leading to the present litigation.The Hardin Circuit Court denied Volentine’s and HCOS’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified and governmental immunity. The court found that Volentine did not have a reasonable basis to believe a violent felony had occurred to justify the pursuit and that his actions were not in good faith. The court also determined that Volentine violated ministerial duties by failing to terminate the pursuit when it posed an extreme safety hazard and by not obtaining approval from a supervisor to continue the pursuit.The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that Volentine was entitled to qualified official immunity and that HCOS was entitled to governmental immunity. The Court of Appeals reasoned that Volentine’s belief that he witnessed a felony was reasonable and that his actions during the pursuit were discretionary.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that Volentine was not entitled to qualified official immunity because he failed to abide by ministerial duties and lacked good faith in exercising his discretion to initiate the pursuit. Consequently, HCOS’ governmental immunity was waived by operation of KRS 70.040. The case was remanded to the Hardin Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. View "SHEEHY V. VOLENTINE" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Larissa Marland, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Norman Marland, filed a medical malpractice claim against the University of Connecticut Health Center and related entities. The decedent had been treated at the hospital and was later admitted to the intensive care unit, where he fell and subsequently died. The plaintiff alleged that the hospital staff breached the standard of care owed to the decedent.The plaintiff filed a notice of claim with the claims commissioner, including a physician’s opinion letter. The claims commissioner failed to resolve the claim within the statutory two-year period and an additional one-year extension granted by the General Assembly. Despite this, the commissioner eventually authorized the plaintiff to sue the state. The plaintiff then filed the present action in the Superior Court.The state moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims commissioner’s waiver of sovereign immunity was invalid because it was issued after the expiration of the one-year extension. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the commissioner did not have the authority to grant the waiver beyond the extension period.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court improperly dismissed the plaintiff’s action. The court held that, once the claims commissioner authorizes suit and waives sovereign immunity, the state cannot challenge that decision in the Superior Court. The court emphasized that such challenges should be raised before the claims commissioner. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with direction to deny the state’s motion to dismiss. View "Marland v. University of Connecticut Health Center" on Justia Law