Comments on Recent Cases: April 2021
Part of my work involves reading court decisions to keep abreast of how judges decide the types of cases I handle. And in addition to my work, I serve as a contributing editor to the American Bar Association magazine, Litigation News. This month, Litigation News published two of my articles.
Below, I share some thoughts on recent New York court decisions and my two Litigation News articles.
Federal Appeals Court Recognizes New Statute of Limitations Rules in Employment Discrimination Cases
One of my articles concerned a recent federal appeals case involving the federal law against sex discrimination in employment. I’ve worked on several employment discrimination cases, and so I was very interested to read a federal appellate decision describe how legislation signed into law by President Obama made it possible for plaintiffs to address sexism at work.
The case in the article involved a teacher in Indiana who was paid less than a male counterpart, allegedly because she had a husband who was already earning a high salary. The school claimed the statute of limitations had run since the decision to pay her less was made, but the appeals court said that every lower pay check re-started the clock on her claim.
Texas Supreme Court Declines to Extend Liability to Asset Purchaser
My other recent article was about a recent Texas Supreme Court case that examined the liabilities assumed in asset purchases.
The case concerned personal injury plaintiffs who sued the company that bought the assets of the manufacturer of an allegedly defective treadmill. The court held that, because the asset purchaser didn’t agree to assume the manufacturer’s liabilities, it could not be responsible for them. Cases like this one illustrate a key difference between mergers and asset purchases.
Still, the appeals court came to a different conclusion, showing that in litigation, complicated doctrines and agreements can be interpreted in different ways.
Appeals Court Reviews Fact Decisions by Trial Court After Bench Trial
After an unfavorable trial verdict, many litigants consider an appeal, even though that often means spending more on the litigation. Appeals are often helpful to resolve disputed areas of the law, and to correct a misapplication of the law. But because appeals courts often defer to trial courts for factual issues, they are more difficult when the purpose of an appeal is to reconsider the evidence.
Even so, some appeals decisions re-evaluate evidence and reverse the conclusions of the trial court. For example, the state appeals court in Manhattan recently modified the judgment after a trial based on a review of the evidence. Among other things, the appeals court held that one witness’s testimony established that a contract was between two different parties than the trial court had held. But this case involved a bench trial, in which a judge decided the facts and wrote out her findings. This may make it easier for an appeals court to identify errors. Since juries do not leave the same record, courts could offer them more deference.
Court Narrowly Applies the “Danger Invites Rescue” Doctrine in a Personal Injury Case
If a defendant puts someone in danger, she may owe a duty to a third party to protect their safety while they come to help. Although this “danger invites rescue” doctrine can help good samaritans when they are injured, it does not always apply.
For example, in a recent decision, the state appeals court in Manhattan held that the doctrine did not apply to an EMT who was transporting a patient from the sidewalk to an ambulance. The EMT slipped on ice after the defendant hosed the sidewalk. The EMT claimed that the defendant owed a duty to keep the sidewalk safe for a rescuer like himself, but the court held that the doctrine didn’t apply where the EMT was able to see and avoid the ice.
Cases like this help parties in premises liabilities cases know when this doctrine applies, and when it does not.
Court Reverses Trial Court’s Punishment to Lawyers Because They Were Not Allowed to Defend Themselves First
Judges in commercial #litigation have discretion to punish people in their courtroom for misconduct. Although they almost never put people in jail, they do occasionally sanction them by making them pay money.
The state appeals court in Manhattan recently reversed a $10,000 sanction a trial court judge ordered both sides to pay. After a trial had gone on for several days, the parties started to debate whether the same issues belonged in arbitration instead of trial. The judge was angry at both sides for wasting the court’s time and fined them both. But the appeals court said that the parties should have had more time to explain themselves before being subject to sanctions.
Although this case is unusual in a few respects, it still illustrates the court’s power to sanction parties for angering the judge.