The case involved a workplace injury to plaintiff George Worrell, who fell while attempting to secure protruding hydraulic hoses on a Hitachi excavator fitted with a wet kit that defendant Elliott & Frantz had installed for his employer Winzinger. Plaintiffs sued under New Jersey products liability and negligence theories, claiming the installation created a manufacturing defect by increasing the machine's transport height beyond safe and regulatory limits. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact on whether the alleged defect proximately caused the injuries or whether Worrell's own actions were the sole cause. It granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion in part, holding that comparative negligence is unavailable as a defense to the products liability claim under New Jersey law, though the defendant may still contest sole causation.
The case involved a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Phillip A. Wood, an individual found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1981 for arson and murder, who challenged two state court orders from 2000 and 2002. Those orders suspended periodic Krol reviews of his civil commitment during a prison term for later assault and criminal mischief convictions, then reinstated Krol status and continued his commitment upon release. The district court dismissed the petition, finding it moot because Wood had been released from Krol confinement in 2010. The court reasoned that the release eliminated any live controversy over the constitutionality of the prior suspension and reinstatement of Krol hearings, and it denied a certificate of appealability.
In United States v. Barney, the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on a retroactive Sentencing Commission amendment that lowered base offense levels for crack cocaine offenses. Although the court had previously designated Barney a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and then departed downward under § 4A1.3 before imposing sentence under the crack cocaine guidelines, the court denied the motion. The court held that Barney was ineligible for relief because his applicable guideline range remained the career offender range, which was unaffected by the amendment. This conclusion followed from the policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and Third Circuit precedent interpreting when a reduction is consistent with Sentencing Commission directives.
This case involved a dispute over uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits following a 2007 motor vehicle accident where employee Sean Sexton was injured by an uninsured driver while operating his employer's vehicle. The employer's insurance policy from Zurich included a step-down clause that would limit benefits to the lower amount in Sexton's personal policy, but a 2007 New Jersey law prohibited such clauses in policies for business entities. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, ruling the clause unenforceable, because the accident occurred after the law's effective date, allowing the insurer to anticipate and adjust for the change without manifest injustice.
business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability
In Charney v. City of Wildwood, plaintiff Natalie Charney sued the City of Wildwood for injuries from tripping on a small hole in the boardwalk in August 2006, alleging the city breached its duty by allowing a dangerous condition to persist. The court granted the city's motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The decision rested on the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, finding that Charney did not establish the roughly triangular hole—about three and three-eighths inches long and one and one-half inch deep—was a dangerous condition or that the city's failure to repair it was palpably unreasonable, given daily inspections and the maintenance supervisor's view that such holes posed no trip hazard.
The case involved plaintiff Frank Santi, a New Jersey resident, who sued defendant National Business Records Management, LLC, a Pennsylvania company, alleging unlawful termination after three days of employment due to perceived knee issues and a prior age discrimination lawsuit. Defendant moved to transfer the employment discrimination action from the District of New Jersey to the Western District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court granted the transfer motion, finding that the operative facts occurred in Pennsylvania, relevant documents and witnesses were located there, Pennsylvania law governed the claims, and the balance of private and public interest factors favored transfer over the plaintiff's choice of forum.
