Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

Parents filed a product liability action on behalf of Child, who was severely burned while attempting to start a fire in his family's fireplace with a fire starter gel. Defendants filed third-party complaints against Parents. Parents argued that the parental immunity doctrine barred Defendants from arguing that Parents' negligence caused or contributed to Child's injuries. The district court subsequently certified questions to the Supreme Court regarding the law on the parental immunity doctrine. The Supreme Court answered by holding that in a product liability action brought for injury to a child (1) the parental immunity doctrine precludes a defendant from asserting a contribution claim against the child's parents, but an allegedly negligent parent may be included as a third-party defendant for the allocation of fault; and (2) the parental immunity doctrine does not preclude a defendant from asserting the defense of abnormal product use by the parents to establish the negligence or fault of the parents or from asserting that the conduct of a parent was an intervening cause of the child's injuries. View "Landis v. Hearthmark, LLC" on Justia Law

The circuit court adjudicated Mother as an abusive and neglectful parent with regard to her child, J.C., on the basis of Mother's drug use, the termination of Mother's parental rights to three other children, the history of domestic violence in Mother's home. After a disposition hearing, the circuit court terminated the parental rights of Mother, concluding that there was no likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect had been or could be substantially corrected in the reasonable future. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Mother's request for a post-adjudicatory improvement period or in its termination of Mother's parental rights to J.C. View "In re J.C." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of child neglect. Thereafter, a jury convicted Defendant on recidivist charges, for which Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial court subsequently granted Defendant a new trial on the underlying child neglect felony. After a retrial, Defendant was found guilty of child neglect. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to a second recidivist life sentence. Defendant filed a writ of habeas corpus, contending that his second recidivist life sentence was invalid because he was not arraigned on the recidivist information during the same term of court in which he was convicted on retrial for the underlying offense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the recidivist life imprisonment sentence was void and unenforceable because (1) the State failed to comply with the requirements of W. Va. Code 61-11-19 insofar as Defendant was not arraigned on the information during the term of court in which he was convicted of the principal offense; and (2) a recidivist sentence under section 61-11-19 is automatically vacated whenever the underlying felony conviction is vacated. View "Holcomb v. Ballard" on Justia Law

Amanda Dingess was arrested for DUI after Dingess failed three field sobriety tests. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) subsequently revoked Dingess's drivers license for the DUI. Dingess filed a request for an administrative hearing, contending that on the night of her arrest she had not driven a car and was not under the influence of alcohol. The Office of Administrative Appeals (OAH) found that the DMV had established that Dingess had operated a vehicle under the influence of alcohol on the night of her arrest and upheld the DMV's revocation of Dingess's license. The circuit court reversed, concluding that the OAH erred in finding that Dingess had driven the car. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's reinstatement of Dingess's driving privileges, holding that that the circuit court failed to afford proper deference to the rulings made during the underlying administrative process and that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the administrative license revocation of Dingess. View "Dale v. Dingess" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding (1) Defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court's exclusion of members of the press from pretrial hearings; (2) the circuit court did not commit reversible error by failing to strike two potential jurors for cause; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of malfunctions within Defendant's gun; (4) the circuit court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on manslaughter; (5) the circuit court erred by admitting the testimony of certain witnesses, but the errors were harmless; and (6) the trial court erred by admitting disputed W. Va. R. Crim. P. 404(b) "bad character" evidence, but the error was harmless. View "State v. Bowling" on Justia Law

Petitioners, who had a liability policy with State Farm, were involved in a motor vehicle accident. Petitioners filed an underinsured motorist claim with State Farm. Based on the absence of underinsurance coverage in Petitioners' policy, State Farm denied coverage. Petitioners filed a complaint against State Farm, asserting that a "knowing and intelligent" waiver of underinsurance coverage had not occurred. The circuit court granted Petitioners' motion for partial summary judgment, concluding (1) State Farm's underinsured motorist selection/rejection form did not precisely comply with the state Insurance Commissioner's prescribed form; and (2) State Farm's failure to use the Commissioner's prescribed forms resulted in underinsured motorists coverage being added to the policy as a matter of law. The Supreme Court answered the circuit court's certified question by holding that an insurance company's failure to use the Commissioner's prescribed forms pursuant to W. Va. Code 33-6-31(d) results in the loss of the statutory presumption that the insured provided a reasonable offer which was knowingly rejected and a reversion to the lower standards set forth in Bias v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. View "Thomas v. McDermitt" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of one count of child neglect resulting in death and two counts of gross child neglect creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or of death. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's convictions, holding (1) the indictment, which charged Petitioner with child neglect causing injury, did not result in the trial court imposing an illegal sentence on Petitioner for child neglect resulting in death because the indictment provided Petitioner with enough information to defend against the charge of child neglect resulting in death; and (2) the evidence at trial was clearly sufficient to convict Petitioner of child neglect creating a substantial risk of bodily injury. View "State v. Chic-Colbert" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of one count of second degree sexual assault and sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten to twenty-five years in prison. Petitioner appealed, alleging several assignments of error. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the circuit court erred by allowing the State to question the victim regarding Petitioner's sexual history, as the victim's answers, which attacked Petitioner's reputation and character as an alleged sexual predator, constituted the type of character evidence that is barred by W. Va. R. Evid. 404(a). View "State v. Maggard" 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