Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Employee filed this action against Employer, alleging that his exposure to diesel exhaust fumes while employed by Employer caused him to develop cancer. Employee subsequently died, and his wife (Petitioner) was substituted as the plaintiff. Petitioner amended the complaint to allege that Employee's death was a result of his exposure to diesel exhaust fumes. Employer moved to exclude the testimony of Petitioner's three expert witnesses on the grounds that their methodology was not reliable. After a hearing, the circuit court excluded Petitioner's experts' testimony. The court then entered summary judgment in favor of Employer because Petitioner did not have an expert. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order excluding the testimony of Petitioner's experts and the grant of summary judgment, holding that the trial court exceeded the scope of its review of the reliability prong of W. Va. R. Evid. 702 in concluding that Petitioner's experts were not reliable. Remanded. View "Harris v. CSX Transp., Inc." on Justia Law

Richard Young was killed while working for Apogee Coal Company (Apogee) after being allegedly instructed by his supervisor, James Browning, to remove a counterweight on an end loader that fell on top of him and killed him. Petitioner, administratrix of Young's estate, sued Apogee, Browning, and Apogee's alleged parent company (collectively, Respondents), alleging, inter alia, a deliberate intent cause of action against Browning and Apogee on the basis that Young had not been property trained on removal of the counterweight. Respondents removed the case to the U.S. district court, which certified a question of law to the West Virginia Supreme Court. The Court answered by holding that a non-employer "person," such as a supervisor or co-employee, may not be made a defendant in a deliberate intent cause of action pursuant to W. Va. Code 23-4-2(d)(2)(ii). View "Young v. Apogee Coal Co., LLC " on Justia Law

In 2009, GameStop, Inc., which operated retail stores that sold video games and video gaming software, hired Petitioner as an assistant manager. When she began her employment, Petitioner received a store associate handbook. In a document included with the handbook was an arbitration agreement. Petitioner signed and dated an acknowledgment of the handbook and rules including arbitration. In 2011, Petitioner sued GameStop and some of its managers (collectively, GameStop) for wrongful discharge, sexual harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other causes of action. The circuit court dismissed the complaint pending Petitioner's submission of her claims to final and binding arbitration. Petitioner appealed, arguing that she did not enter into a valid arbitration with GameStop or, in the alternative, the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner and GameStop entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate Petitioner's claims; and (2) the arbitration agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. View "New v. GameStop, Inc." on Justia Law

Respondent was employed periodically by Petitioner. While engaged in certain activities at an apartment complex that was being demolished by Petitioner, Respondent was injured. Respondent filed a workers' compensation claim for his injuries, but the claim was denied. The Supreme Court found that Respondent's injuries were compensable under the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Act. Respondent subsequently amended his previously-filed negligence action and asserted a deliberate intent claim against Petitioner. The circuit court certified three questions to the Supreme Court, which answered by holding (1) Respondent's claim against Petitioner was governed by the 2005 amendment to the deliberate intent statute; (2) an employer in a deliberate intent action may introduce evidence that is relevant to the issues of whether an employee's conduct created a specific unsafe working condition, whether the employer had knowledge of the unsafe working condition, and whether the employee's injuries were the proximate result of that unsafe working condition; and (3) Petitioner was not precluded from arguing that Respondent was at the site of his own volition and voluntarily agreed to remove a decontamination unit, which caused him to fall and suffer injuries. View "Master Mech. Insulation, Inc. v. Simmons" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a deliberate intent action alleging he was injured while constructing a mine portal canopy at defendant Frontier Coal Company's camp. On the final day of trial, a conversation took place between a trial representative of Frontier and a juror. The circuit court granted Plaintiff's motion to disqualify the juror and seated an alternate juror on the jury. The jury subsequently conducted deliberations and entered a verdict in favor of Defendants. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the jury's verdict and order a new trial based on the alleged improper juror contact. The circuit court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the conversation between the juror and Frontier's representative raised a presumption of prejudice, but the potential prejudice was remedied when the trial court removed the juror and replaced him with an alternate juror before jury deliberations began; and (2) the circuit court abused its discretion when it granted Plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury's verdict and order a new trial because the speculative prejudice the trial court relied upon did not meet the standard set forth in State v. Johnson to set aside a jury's verdict. Remanded. View "Bluestone Indus., Inc. v. Keneda" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was employed as a welder by Defendant when he sustained severe burns from an arc blast emanating from a 480-volt electrical box as he attempted to turn on the power at his work station. Plaintiff sued Defendant, offering as evidence that Defendant was required, under applicable safety standards within the industry, to routinely inspect its 480-volt electrical boxes. Defendant was unable to show that the 480-volt box that caused the accident had been inspected since the 1950s or early 1960s. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in finding (1) the safety standards relied on by Plaintiff were not specifically applicable to his work and working conditions; and (2) no question of material fact existed concerning whether Defendant intentionally exposed Plaintiff to the unsafe 480-volt box. Remanded. View "McComas v. ACF Indus., LLC" on Justia Law

Respondent began employment with Employer in 2005. In 2006, Respondent was terminated for refusing to take a drug test, but he was re-hired one month later. In 2007, Respondent suffered a compensable back injury and later underwent surgery. Respondent filed a worker's compensation claim and later agreed to a settlement for his claim. A few weeks later, Respondent was terminated. Respondent filed a civil action against Employer, asserting discrimination and that his receipt of the workers' compensation settlement was a significant factor in Employer's decision to discharge him. The jury found for Respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Employer's motion for judgment as a matter of law; (2) the circuit court did not err in its denial of Employer's motion for a new trial; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in providing a punitive damages instruction to the jury; and (4) Employer suffered no prejudice emanating from a late disclosure of Respondent's recent employment with Walmart. View "JWCF, LP v. Farruggia" on Justia Law

Petitioner injured her wrist and shoulder at work while assisting a contract employee lift a box of clothes that had been left in Petitioner's office. The Workers' Compensation Board of Review (BOR) denied Petitioner's claim for benefits because Petitioner's injury was not attributable to an injury or disease "in the course of and resulting from" her employment as required by W. Va. Code 23-4-1(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BOR's decision was neither in clear violation of any constitutional or statutory provision, based upon a material misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary record, nor the result of erroneous conclusions of law. View "Morton v. W. Va. Office of Ins. Comm'r" on Justia Law

Petitioner was employed by CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) as a conductor. Alleging that he sustained injuries to his back due to unsupportive seats on the cabooses and locomotives, Petitioner filed this action against CSXT under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). CSXT filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the claim was barred by the FELA statute of limitations because it was filed more than three years after Petitioner's FELA claim accrued. The circuit court granted CSXT's motion. Petitioner appealed, asserting that disputed material facts existed concerning the applicable statute of limitations and whether he knew or should have known of his injury and its cause more than three years before filing his complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to show his cause of action accrued within three years of the filing of his FELA claim. View "Caudill v. CSX Transp." on Justia Law

Respondent was employed by Petitioner. After Respondent was terminated, she filed a complaint with the West Virginia Human Rights Commission alleging that she was unlawfully discriminated against. The director of operations for the Commission issued a finding that no probable cause was found in Respondent's complaint and ordered it dismissed. After the assistant attorney general (Sheridan) conducted an administrative review hearing, the Commission found probable cause was alleged in the complaint. Sheridan then filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Respondent in proceedings before the Commission. Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify Sheridan, arguing that he was conflicted from representing Respondent because he had acted in a judicial capacity while conducting the administrative review. The administrative law judge denied the motion. Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court (1) declined to issue the writ insofar as it requested that Respondent's claims be dismissed; (2) declined to order that a subpoena be issued to allow Petitioner to access documents reviewed during the administrative review; but (3) issued the writ to state that Sheridan could not represent Respondent in proceedings before the Commission. View "State ex rel. Ten S. Mgmt. v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm'n" on Justia Law