Comments on Recent Cases: March 2021
Part of my work involves reading court decisions to keep abreast of how judges decide the types of cases I handle. Below, I share some thoughts on recent decisions.
New York Court Declines to Dismiss Claims Based on French Law
New York courts may apply foreign law in their decisions, but litigants may need to do a lot of work to explain the foreign law.
In a recent decision, a Manhattan appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision not to dismiss claims because they are prohibited under French law. One side submitted an affidavit from an expert in French law, as well as translations of relevant statutes and an intermediate court decision. The other submitted a translation of a decision by France’s highest court and also translations of relevant statutes. Ultimately the court held that it did not have enough information to confidently determine the claim should be dismissed under French law.
Cases like this provide guidance for parties that want to present foreign law for a court to consider.
Disclaimers and Integration Clause Help Defendant Win Dismissal
Parties frequently expect more from contractors than what their contract explicitly requires. Often they believe that the contract is a formality and the real agreement comes from their pre-contract discussions or common sense. This is not always the case.
In a recent decision, a Manhattan appellate court upheld the dismissal of a complaint by a gourmet brand that sued a social media company. The gourmet brand claimed the social media company said it would help it directly target customers online, but the contract said nothing about direct targeting. Whereas some plaintiffs could sue for fraudulent inducement, lying to get them to sign, or sue based on an oral agreement separate from the contract, the brand in this case was out of luck. The contract had common terms that limited the agreement to its written words and disclaimed any other representations.
Cases like this should remind parties to be extra careful to put the important terms of their agreement into their written contracts.
Court Decides No Trial is Needed to Apply the “Storm-in-Progress” Defense
Last month, I commented on a lawsuit arising from personal injuries sustained in a snowstorm. The defendant cited the “storm-in-progress” defense, which says that a defendant does not need to make their premises safe during a storm, but can wait for the storm to pass first.
A recent decision by the state appellate court in Manhattan recently provided some additional details on how this defense works. In that case, the plaintiff was injured 45 minutes after the storm ended. The appeals court upheld a judgment for the defendant without a trial, holding that 45 minutes was not a reasonable amount of time after the end of the storm for the defendant to have ensured its property was safe.
This case is interesting to me because the court held that no trial was necessary to determine the reasonable amount of time after a storm for the defendant to address it. And because the judge ruled the plaintiff’s expert testimony about the effect of prior snowstorms on the property to be only “speculative” without letting a jury consider it. This should alert all lawyers about the need for expert reports to be strong and clear to avoid an adverse judgment.
Court Allows Personal Injury Verdict for Plaintiff Through “Res Ipsa Loquitur”
In personal injury actions, plaintiffs often rely on a doctrine called “res ipsa loquitur,” which translates to “the thing speaks for itself.” The doctrine allows a fact finder to conclude the defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s injury without direct evidence.
For example, the court in a recent Manhattan appeals court decision decided that a plaintiff could sue Whole Foods after a letter in its sign fell and struck her in the head. Whole Foods argued that the sign was not dangerous, but the court held that a jury could conclude it was through “res ipsa loquitur” since it is a “common experience” that signs don’t fall down and strike people without its owner’s negligence.
This case illustrates how a plaintiff could succeed with limited details, and how property owners need to take extra care to make sure their premises are safe.