Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner and his wife were guests at the hotel of the Mardi Gras Casino and Resort (Casino) when Petitioner was injured when he fell off a retaining wall between the hotel and the Casino onto the roadway. Petitioner filed a complaint against the Casino, alleging negligence for its failure to protect him from the dangerousness of the retaining wall. Casino moved for summary judgment, asserting that Petitioner was a trespasser rather than a business invitee at the time of his injury. The trial court granted the motion, concluding (1) by proceeding down a hillside rather than utilizing a skyway bridge or the roadway, Petitioner exceeded the scope of his invitation as an invitee and became a trespasser; and (2) under the standard of care that governs trespass, the Casino did not breach the duty of care owed to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that factual issues existed as to whether Petitioner acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the scope of his invitation to use the Casino premises, and those issues should be resolved by a jury. View "Ragonese v. Racing Corp. of W. Va." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Quicken Loans, Inc., alleging that Quicken committed common law fraud and violated the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act in connection with a loan agreement between Plaintiff and Quicken. The circuit court found in favor of Plaintiff on all but one of her claims. The Supreme Court reversed in part, concluding that the circuit court improperly cancelled Plaintiff’s obligation to repay the loan principal, failed to support its punitive damages award with the correct analysis, and failed to offset the compensatory damages award against Plaintiff’s pretrial settlement with defendants who did not proceed to trial. After remand, the circuit court entered an opinion and order. The Supreme Court again reversed, holding that the circuit court (1) improperly created a lien on Plaintiff’s property; (2) erred in increasing the compensatory damages award to Plaintiff; (3) erred in awarding attorney fees and costs for both the first appellate proceeding and the post-appellate proceedings; (4) improperly increased the punitive damages award; and (5) erred in refusing to offset Plaintiff’s award of attorney fees and costs by a pretrial settlement between Plaintiff and the codefendants. Remanded. View "Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Brown" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued the City of Huntington, arguing that the City was negligent in its maintenance of a “trash rack” within a stormwater management project in the City, which negligence proximately caused flooding in Petitioners’ Spring Valley neighborhood. A jury found the City negligent and awarded damages for both the cost to raise the foundations of Plaintiffs’ homes to prevent additional flooding as well as the diminished value of the homes. The circuit court granted the City’s motion for remittitur, concluding that West Virginia law permits only recovery for the lesser of the diminution of value of the homes or the cost of the foundation repair. Accordingly, the court remitted the verdict to provide recovery for only the lost value of the homes. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in remitting the verdict because, where the owner of residential real property which is damaged can establish that the pre-damage fair market value of the real property cannot be fully restored by repairs, then the owner may recover both the cost of repair and for such remaining residual diminution in value. View "Brooks v. City of Huntington" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that while housed at the Southern Regional Jail, she was raped repeatedly by a correctional officer. Plaintiff filed suit against the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority (WVRJCFA), alleging vicarious liability and negligence-based claims. The WVRJCFA moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The circuit court denied summary judgment, concluding (1) disputed issues of fact precluded a determination as to whether the WVRJCFA was vicariously liable for the alleged sexual assaults committed by its employee; and (2) Plaintiff’s claims of negligent supervision, training, and retention did not encompass “discretionary decisions in the administration of fundamental government policy.” The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting the WVRJCFA summary judgment, holding that the WVRJCFA was entitled to immunity on Plaintiff’s claims. View "W. Va. Reg’l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth. v. A.B." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individuals who had next-of-kin decedents buried in an old, rural cemetery, sued Defendants, claiming that Defendants desecrated their decedents’ graves during a gas pipeline relocation project. The jury returned a verdict finding Defendant liable to Plaintiffs for desecration of their decedents’ graves and awarded both compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, Defendants argued that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could find Defendants negligent and award Plaintiffs damages under W. Va. Code 29-1-8a, which protects ancient, unmarked gravesites of historic significance. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in instructing the jury about section 29-1-8a, and the error was not harmless. View "Gen. Pipeline Constr., Inc. v. Hairston" on Justia Law

Dorothy Douglas died from severe dehydration not long after leaving Heartland Nursing Home, where she stayed for nineteen days. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of Douglas’s estate, brought claims of negligence, violations of the West Virginia Nursing Home Act (NHA), and breach of fiduciary duty against Defendants, several corporate entities related to Heartland. After a jury trial, Plaintiff was awarded $11.5 million in compensatory damages and $80 million in punitive damages. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred in concluding that the NHA was not governed by the Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA), and due to a lack of evidence that the pre-suit requirements of the MPLA were met, the claim is dismissed and the accompanying $1.5 million award is vacated; (2) the circuit court erred in recognizing a breach of fiduciary duty claim against a nursing home, and therefore, the claim is dismissed and the accompanying $5 million award is vacated; and (3) the punitive damages award is reduced proportionate to the reduction in compensatory damages. Remanded. View "Manor Care Inc. v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Mark Miller sued Justin Golden for criminal conversation, adultery and breach of fiduciary duty to a beneficiary, alleging that his ex-wife engaged in an adulterous affair with Golden that led to the Millers’ divorce. Golden filed a motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court denied. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for a writ of prohibition, arguing that all of Miller’s causes of action were, in essence, claims for alienation of affections, which are statutorily prohibited. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ of prohibition, holding (1) all of Miller’s causes of action were based on claims for alienation of affections; and (2) because all claims for alienation of affections are prohibited by W. Va. Code 56-3-2a, the torts of criminal conversation and adultery are hereby abolished. View "State ex rel. Golden v. Hon. Kaufman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was seriously injured in a car accident caused by Defendant. Plaintiff incurred medical bills in excess of $70,000, a portion of which was discounted. Plaintiff sought to recover the entire amount of his medical bills as his necessary and reasonable expenses. Defendant filed a motion in limine asserting that Plaintiff’s damages should be limited to the amounts actually paid by Plaintiff and the amounts paid on Plaintiff’s behalf by any collateral source, such as Plaintiff’s health insurance provider. The circuit court denied Defendant’s motion, reasoning that the discounts or write-offs were a collateral source to Plaintiff. After a trial, the jury awarded Plaintiff compensatory damages of more than $3 million, which included $74,061 for Plaintiff’s past medical expenses, and returned a punitive damage verdict for $300,000. The Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s award of compensatory and punitive damages, holding (1) the trial court did not err in applying the collateral source rule to exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s discounted medical bills; and (2) there was no error underlying the jury’s punitive damage verdict. View "Kenney v. Liston" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed an action individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated against Respondents, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC) and CAMC Health Education and Research Institute, asserting causes of action for breach of duty of confidentiality, invasion of privacy, and negligence for placing Plaintiffs’ personal and medical information on a specific CAMC electronic database and website that was accessible to the public. The circuit court denied class certification, finding that Plaintiffs did not meet the prerequisites for class certification and that Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue Respondents. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that Petitioners lacked standing and abused its discretion in ruling that Petitioners failed to meet the requirements for class certification. Remanded. View "Tabata v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

Respondent, a towing service, filed suit against Petitioners, the police department, police chief, and city manager, alleging that Petitioners violated W. Va. Code 24-6-12 by not using the towing rotation list adopted by the county commission. Petitioners sought to dismiss the case on statutory immunity grounds. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss without addressing the issue of immunity. Petitioners requested a writ of prohibition, arguing that they were immune from prosecution based on the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ of prohibition, holding that Petitioners were entitled to legislative immunity in this case. View "State ex rel. City of Bridgeport v. Judge Marks" on Justia Law