THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Dependent children -- Torts -- Immunity -- Child abuse reports -- False imprisonment -- Battery -- Intentional infliction of emotional distress -- Medical malpractice -- Agency -- Action brought against hospital where plaintiff child was admitted and subsequently sheltered by dependency court following hospital's reports of suspected abuse and neglect, which subsequently resulted in child's months-long placement with hospital, supervised and limited parental visitation, and the eventual suicide of mother -- Discussion of section 39.203(1)(a) immunity and the interplay of chapter 39 with claims raised in instant case -- Statute protects not only institutions which report abuse in good faith, but also those institutions which participate in good faith in any act authorized or required by chapter 39 -- Trial court erred by not considering the entirety of section 39.203(1)(a) and its application to the facts of case beyond hospital's immunity from claims premised on or immediately resulting from the reports of suspected child abuse -- Trial court erred by denying hospital's motions for directed verdict on false imprisonment claim where section 39.395 provided color of authority for hospital's detention of child during period between first and second reports to Department of Children and Families -- Moreover, hospital's actions were authorized or required by chapter 39, and there is no evidence that its participation was not in good faith -- Trial court erred by denying motion for directed verdict on claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress specific to mother, which were based on statements made to child and father, where plaintiffs failed to present evidence that mother was target of any conduct alleged to be outrageous and evidence was insufficient as a matter of law -- Trial court erred by denying motion for directed verdict on claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress specific to child where trial court considered evidence for which hospital should have been immune from liability -- Actions for which hospital should have been immune pursuant to section 39.203(1)(a) cannot be used to establish liability -- Additionally, IIED conduct must not be violative of another tort, and conduct alleged to be outrageous in instant action was itself a pleaded tort -- With regard to medical negligence claim, trial court erred by denying motion for directed verdict on issue of apparent agency as it related to medical director of the Child Protection Team to whom hospital reported alleged abuse where evidence showed that plaintiffs were aware director was not employed by hospital and plaintiffs presented no evidence that they materially changed their position on basis of director being an apparent agent of hospital -- Even if director was an apparent agent of hospital, she was authorized by chapter 39 to take the actions she took and was acting in good faith -- Damages -- Punitive damages -- Trial court erred in denying hospital's motion for directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages as to the false imprisonment and battery claims where there was no evidence that hospital actively and knowingly participated in or engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence, or that the officers, directors, or managers of hospital condoned or ratified the conduct -- Fraudulent billing -- Trial court erred by denying motion for directed verdict on claim that hospital fraudulently billed plaintiffs' health insurance carrier where plaintiffs presented no evidence that hospital made a false statement of material fact in billing insurer under code for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome -- Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered pecuniary injury from alleged fraudulent billing -- Because trial court's error in interpreting section 39.203 pervaded not only the court's evidentiary rulings but the trial itself, a new trial is necessary on all remaining counts
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Probate Rules -- Amendment -- Scope
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Wrongful death -- Product liability -- Tobacco -- Engle-progeny case -- Evidence -- Hearsay -- Exceptions -- State of mind -- Action asserting claims of strict liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy to conceal -- Trial court reversibly erred by admitting harmful testimony in which decedent's sons relayed statements made by decedent expressing anger at tobacco companies because the companies had lied that filtered cigarettes would “filter out the bad stuff and keep her safe” -- Statements were not admissible under state of mind exception to hearsay where statements weren't offered to establish why decedent currently smoked filtered cigarettes or her reasoning in continuing to do so, but were, instead, after-the-fact statements of why decedent smoked in the past -- Harmless error -- Discussion of harmless error test -- Error in admitting erroneous hearsay statements was not harmless where statements were offered to reinforce central theory in plaintiff's case that tobacco companies deceived decedent into believing that smoking filtered cigarettes was safer than smoking non-filtered cigarettes, and statements were re-introduced during closing argument -- Even with the Engle findings and the resulting finding and stipulation that defendant and other tobacco companies lied and misled the public regarding the safety of filtered cigarettes, the estate must still prove decedent's reliance on those lies -- Court rejects argument that error was harmless because hearsay evidence was cumulative to other properly admitted testimony -- Hearsay testimony was not necessarily harmless, or even cumulative, if it proved the same point as other evidence that was properly admitted where inadmissible hearsay testimony was perhaps more credible than the properly admitted evidence on the same issues and had a different narrative resonance -- Fact that jury awarded the largest Engle punitive damages verdict in state history also undermines estate's harmless argument -- Remand for new trial
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal Law Headnotes (Jump to Civil Law Headnotes)

THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Criminal law -- Driving under the influence -- Driving under influence with property damage -- Information -- Amendment -- Charges stemming from incident in which defendant allegedly damaged a total of eight different vehicles -- Trial court erred by permitting state to amend information after close of all evidence to add a new owner and the make of one of the allegedly damaged vehicles -- Defendant was prejudiced by the amendment where defendant was not able to cross-examine the state's witnesses or examine her own witnesses regarding the new factual allegation -- Double jeopardy -- Defendant's conviction for simple DUI constituted a double jeopardy violation -- Simple DUI conviction and conviction for DUI with property damage arose from single criminal episode where evidence showed no temporal break in defendant's driving sufficient for her to reflect and form a new intent to commit a separate act of driving under the influence -- While section 316.193 does not express a clear legislative intent to prohibit or authorize separate punishments, separate convictions of simple DUI and DUI with property damage violate Blockburger test -- Costs -- Trial court erred by imposing costs under section 318.18 -- Although statute authorizes various penalties for traffic infractions, those penalties do not apply to DUI convictions -- Sentencing -- Portion of sentence requiring defendant to enroll in DUI school within ten days of sentencing and completed DUI school within ninety days of sentencing was inconsistent with trial court's oral pronouncement and impossible to complete given defendant's term of incarceration -- Remand for entry of order conforming to oral pronouncement
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Search and seizure -- Vehicle -- Traffic stop -- Statements of defendant -- Custodial interrogation -- Trial court erred by granting motion to suppress physical evidence discovered during traffic stop based on determination that defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes when he told officers about contraband in the vehicle and had not been read his rights -- Questioning of defendant did not amount to a custodial interrogation -- Officer's questions about defendant's license and weapons in the vehicle after defendant was stopped for an expired license plate were reasonable inquiries related in scope to the purpose of the stop and officer safety during the stop -- Questioning whether there were any firearms in the vehicle didn't convert the encounter into an arrest for Miranda purposes -- Automobile exception to warrant requirement provided basis for search of vehicle -- Inevitable discovery -- Even assuming traffic stop morphed into an arrest at some point after defendant revealed that he had a concealed firearm in vehicle, search of vehicle would have been permitted as a search incident to arrest with the same items recovered
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Criminal Procedure -- Amendment -- Pretrial motions
VIEW OPINION (login required)