wrongful death

Each year, thousands of individuals are severely injured or die from intentional inhalation of everyday products like computer duster to achieve a euphoric high. When these injuries or deaths lead to lawsuits against manufacturers, plaintiffs often argue that the products were defectively designed or inadequately warned. A recent Tenth Circuit decision reinforces a critical limit on such claims under Kansas law: when the plaintiff’s own criminal conduct is the proximate cause of the harm, recovery is barred.

On December 21, 2024, Governor Kathy Hochul of New York vetoed, for a third time, the Grieving Families Act (“Act”), a significant bipartisan legislative proposal in New York aimed at reforming the state’s wrongful death statute, which has remained largely unchanged since 1847. The Act’s provisions, including expanding recoverable damages, extending the statute of limitations, and broadening the definition of beneficiaries, have significant implications on civil law in New York, including asbestos litigation.

Gold wedding rings with golden bokeh background. Banner for design with copy space.Generative AI

In Ripple v. CBS Corporation, et. al., the Florida Supreme Court held a surviving spouse is entitled to recovery for wrongful death under the Florida Wrongful Death Act (the Act), codified at Fla. Stat. §§ 768.16-768.26 (2015), even if their marriage to decedent occurred after decedent’s injury. This ruling has significantly redefined the scope of wrongful death claims and supersedes a longstanding common law doctrine in Florida that historically barred such recoveries.

Missouri State Law Legal System Concept

In reversing nearly $700,000 in post-judgment interest, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District clarified that post-judgment interest can be recovered only after the trial court enters a final judgment. Notably, in wrongful death cases, a trial court’s failure to apportion damages among beneficiaries renders a judgment not final and precludes post-judgment interest.

MN outline

On May 20, 2023, the Minnesota legislature amended Minnesota’s Survival of Claims and Wrongful Death statutes. The amendments extend a potential-defendant’s liability by: (1) allowing trustee-plaintiffs to maintain claims on behalf of a deceased party, that historically could not be brought after death; and (2) allowing trustee-plaintiffs to potentially recover for all damages allegedly suffered by the decedent, not just economic harms stemming from and related to the death of the deceased party.

On May 18, 2023, the Illinois General Assembly passed House Bill 219 (Bill) which, if signed by Governor Pritzker, would allow punitive damages in wrongful death cases. Illinois law does not currently permit punitive damages for recovery, only allowing compensatory damages. Suits against state and local government officials will still be exempt from damages if the legislation passes.

In a move that further cements Louisiana’s place as the 7th Ranked Judicial Hell Hole of 2023, the Court of Appeals of Louisiana affirmed a second 8-figure verdict of 2023 for a mesothelioma personal injury case in Strauder v. Shell Oil Co., 2023 WL 2009251 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/15/23). The first affirmation came in Pete v. Boland Marine, 2023 WL 110608 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/5/23).  Included within the $10.4 million total verdict in Strauder was a $2.75 million award to each of Decedent’s two adult children for wrongful death damages.

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that to recover for loss of consortium under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, a surviving spouse must be married to the decedent at the time of injury—not the time of death. In so holding, the Fourth District, in Ripple v. CBS Corp., 337 So. 3d 45…

The Dallas Court of Appeals sitting en banc recently denied review of a panel decision that reversed an $8.8 million dollar asbestos verdict and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of an employer in Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Dickson. The Court found missing any evidence that the employer knew in the 1960s that the millboards at issue contained asbestos. Because there was no evidence the employer had actual, subjective knowledge of any asbestos exposure risk, the employer could not be held liable under Texas law.

In a consolidated appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals recently looked at the proximate cause standard for asbestos cases in Davis v. John Crane. 2019 WL 5558711 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019). In so doing, the appellate court declined to extend the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries to cases outside of a maritime tort context. While the Davis Court is not the first to analyze the DeVries decision, it is one of the first to hold that the case is exclusively limited to maritime torts.