Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A man died from burn injuries after his clothing ignited while he was working near a portable propane tank top heater manufactured by Enerco Group, Inc. The decedent’s estate, represented by Jesse Near, filed a wrongful death suit alleging that the heater was defectively designed because it lacked an adequate guard or feasible alternative design to prevent clothing ignition when someone came close to the heater. The plaintiff did not assert a separate failure-to-warn claim. However, the sufficiency of the product warnings was central to the dispute, as Enerco maintained that adequate warnings rendered the product nondefective under South Carolina law.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina addressed three key issues: it denied the plaintiff’s motion to certify to the Supreme Court of South Carolina the question of whether adequate warnings preclude a design defect claim; it excluded the plaintiff’s expert witness on the adequacy of warnings, finding her methodology unreliable; and, after treating the warnings as adequate as a matter of law (because there was no admissible evidence to the contrary), it granted summary judgment to Enerco, holding that under South Carolina law, adequate warnings preclude a design defect claim. The district court relied on the Fourth Circuit’s prior decision in Hickerson v. Yamaha Motor Corp., which interpreted South Carolina law to that effect.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the exclusion of the plaintiff’s expert witness, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert’s opinions unreliable. However, the Fourth Circuit found that South Carolina law was unsettled on whether adequate warnings categorically preclude a design defect claim, especially in light of subsequent developments in South Carolina case law. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit certified this specific legal question to the Supreme Court of South Carolina and deferred ruling on the summary judgment issue until the Supreme Court responds. View "Near v. Enerco Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a resident of Salem, South Carolina, frequently visited her local post office. During one visit, after experiencing poor service, she was confronted and physically attacked by a postal employee, resulting in significant injuries. The Postmaster, rather than assisting her or calling for help, allegedly exacerbated the situation by physically handling her and preventing her from seeking help. The plaintiff claimed the employee had a history of aggressive behavior known to postal management.The plaintiff initially filed suit in South Carolina state court against the individual employees and the United States. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, which, after the government substituted itself for the individual defendants under the Westfall Act and moved to dismiss, dismissed all claims. The district court determined the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) did not waive sovereign immunity for most claims, including those arising from assault and battery, and that the claims for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention were barred by the discretionary function exception. The court also dismissed the Bivens constitutional claims and the FOIA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of most claims, holding that the FTCA’s intentional tort exception precludes claims against the government for injuries arising from assault and battery by a postal employee, even if pleaded as negligence. However, the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded as to a narrow aspect of the negligence claim against the Postmaster, holding that under the Supreme Court’s decision in Sheridan v. United States, a claim may proceed if the government employee negligently created the risk of harm, independent of the tortfeasor’s employment status. The Fourth Circuit otherwise affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Lusk v. Merchant" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a lawyer, visited Suburban Hospital in Maryland in October 2015 with abdominal pain and other symptoms. He was diagnosed with gallbladder disease and underwent surgery performed by Dr. Daee, who was presented to him as a hospital agent or employee. Complications from that surgery led to a second operation at a different hospital a month later, where alleged medical malpractice was discovered. During subsequent litigation, the plaintiff learned in May 2022 that Dr. Daee was not a hospital employee but an independent contractor, and that the hospital may have misrepresented this relationship.The plaintiff first filed a medical malpractice action against the hospital and Dr. Daee in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in 2020. In 2022, after discovering new information, he tried to amend his complaint to add fraud and conspiracy claims, but the district court denied this request. He then filed a separate lawsuit in May 2023, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy to commit fraud regarding the hospital’s representations about Dr. Daee’s status. The hospital moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were barred by Maryland’s five-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice under the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act. The district court agreed and dismissed the complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that the district court applied the incorrect statute of limitations. It determined that the plaintiff’s fraud and conspiracy claims were not traditional malpractice claims and should be governed by Maryland’s general three-year statute of limitations for civil actions, not the five-year period for medical malpractice. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings, without deciding whether the claims were timely under the correct statute. View "Brunenkant v. Suburban Hospital, Inc." on Justia Law

A large group of cities, towns, and counties in West Virginia sued a pharmacy benefit manager, alleging that it contributed to the oversupply of opioids in their communities, thus creating a public nuisance. The local governments sought an injunction requiring the defendant to fund the abatement of the ongoing public nuisance and to compensate them for the costs of rectifying it. This proposed “abatement fund” was described as covering not just eliminating the oversupply itself, but also providing addiction treatment, education, and community rehabilitation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied the defendant’s demand for a jury trial, determining that the Seventh Amendment did not confer a right to a jury trial because this was a governmental public nuisance action seeking only abatement, which the court characterized as an equitable remedy. The district court also ordered a bifurcated bench trial on the public-nuisance claim, with a potential statewide abatement phase, and denied the defendant’s motions for reconsideration or for interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case on a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Fourth Circuit held that the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial because the relief sought by the local governments included a classic legal remedy—compensation for downstream harms resulting from the alleged public nuisance, such as addiction treatment and community rehabilitation. The court explained that, at the time of the Founding, only courts of law—not equity—could award such monetary relief for the consequences of a public nuisance. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to a jury trial on the public-nuisance claim, and the petition for mandamus was granted in part. View "In re: Express Scripts, Inc." on Justia Law

Jonathan Lewis was injured when he slipped and fell on a painted line in the parking lot of a convenience store in South Carolina. The fall occurred after a store employee had cleaned the area using water and a powdered concrete cleaner, but no warning signs, cones, or safety vests were present, despite company policy. Lewis injured his right leg, undergoing surgery and incurring significant medical expenses. He had a prior history of injury to the same tendon, but the circumstances of the fall were undisputed: he slipped immediately after stepping on the wet surface as he exited the store.Lewis filed a premises liability suit against the store, alleging negligence in failing to warn about or remedy the hazardous condition. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the store. It held: first, that the wet and cleaned surface was an “open and obvious” hazard, removing the store’s duty to warn; second, that there was no evidence the store could have foreseen the specific risk; and third, that Lewis failed to offer expert testimony establishing causation for his injury. The district court also denied Lewis’s Daubert and spoliation motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that genuine disputes of material fact remained regarding whether the hazard was “open and obvious” and whether expert testimony was required to establish causation. The court vacated the district court’s Daubert and spoliation rulings, remanding for further proceedings. The main holding is that, under South Carolina law, questions of breach and causation in slip-and-fall cases with these facts are for the jury, and expert testimony is not always required for causation in such cases. View "Lewis v. Circle K Stores Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure involving multiple surgical staplers, one of which was used to create an anastomosis that subsequently leaked. In October 2021, the plaintiff filed a products liability suit against several manufacturers of surgical staplers. Over the course of pretrial proceedings, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina issued multiple scheduling orders, ultimately extending the plaintiff’s expert disclosure deadline to March 15, 2024. The plaintiff failed to disclose any experts by this deadline. Twenty days later, the plaintiff moved to extend the expert disclosure deadline, citing delays in obtaining discovery and the model number of the stapler at issue.The district court denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling order, finding that he had not shown “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), and entered summary judgment for the defendants due to the absence of expert testimony needed to support the plaintiff’s claims. The court noted that the plaintiff had not acted diligently, as required by Rule 16(b)(4), and had not filed a motion to compel or otherwise timely challenged the adequacy of discovery responses. The district court also relied on the plaintiff’s own representations regarding when he learned the model number of the stapler.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the denial of the motion to amend for abuse of discretion and the grant of summary judgment de novo. The appellate court held that the district court correctly applied Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard to the request to extend the expert disclosure deadline and did not abuse its discretion in finding a lack of diligence. Because the plaintiff failed to offer expert evidence, the court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings in full. View "Eichin v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, LLC" on Justia Law

A sheriff’s deputy in Virginia arrested an individual for skateboarding on a public road and suspected public intoxication. During the arrest, the deputy punched the individual in the face multiple times, causing significant injuries, including facial fractures and a brain hemorrhage. The individual sued the deputy for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and for common law battery. The deputy argued that the force he used was necessary because the individual resisted arrest and that, regardless, he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia reviewed the case on the deputy’s motion for summary judgment. The district court examined the record, including body camera footage, and found that several key facts were disputed, such as whether the individual had surrendered and ceased resisting before the deputy continued to use force. The court held that if a jury found in favor of the individual on these disputed facts, it would be clearly established that the level of force used was excessive. Therefore, the district court denied the deputy’s motion for summary judgment, including his claim of qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed its jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity at this interlocutory stage. The court explained that it could not review the district court’s factual determinations but could consider whether, taking the facts most favorably to the plaintiff, the deputy was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. The Fourth Circuit held that, under the facts as viewed by the district court, prior precedent clearly established that the deputy’s actions would constitute excessive force. As a result, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. View "Barricks v. Wright" on Justia Law

A tenant and her adult son rented a house in Arlington, Virginia, for a year. Several months into the lease, they noticed water leaking through a skylight and informed the landlord. The landlord and a contractor inspected the skylight and confirmed it was leaking, but no repairs were made. After a period of snow and rain, the tenant slipped on water that had accumulated from the leak, suffering significant injuries. She then sued the landlord, alleging breach of contract for failing to complete repairs as required by the lease and state law, and common-law negligence in failing to take steps to prevent injury from the leak.The landlord removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which treated the landlord’s demurrer as a motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed the negligence claim, finding the complaint did not allege that the landlord or contractor undertook repairs or performed any negligent acts—only that they inspected and confirmed the leak. The court concluded Virginia law does not impose a tort duty on landlords for failing to repair, but only for negligent acts in the course of repair. The breach of contract claim survived the motion to dismiss, but the parties later stipulated to voluntarily dismiss it to allow an immediate appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit first determined it had appellate jurisdiction, accepting the tenant's binding representation that she was abandoning the contract claim with prejudice. The court then affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the negligence claim. It held that, under Virginia law, a landlord is not liable in tort for failing to make repairs unless the landlord undertakes repairs and does so negligently. Because the complaint did not allege any negligent repair or positive act, only nonfeasance, the negligence claim failed as a matter of law. View "Metz v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

A resident of a retirement community, who has celiac disease and relies on a gluten free diet, experienced multiple episodes of illness after consuming meals labeled as gluten free at the facility. She signed a residential contract based on assurances that her dietary needs would be accommodated. Over several years, she reported incidents of illness to staff, including a crab cake in 2018, a stuffed tomato in 2020, and chicken marsala in 2021, all purportedly gluten free. The facility made various adjustments in response to her complaints, including menu changes, staff training, and kitchen modifications. She continued to use her meal plan but gave away the food. In 2023, she filed suit alleging violations of federal disability rights statutes and several state-law claims.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment to the retirement community on all claims. The court found her federal claims untimely and denied her request for injunctive relief, concluding she lacked standing. It also rejected her state-law breach of contract and negligence claims, holding they were barred by the statute of limitations and unsupported by evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment as to the federal claims, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and that her Fair Housing Act and Rehabilitation Act claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. It also affirmed dismissal of state-law claims related to the 2018 incident. However, the court vacated summary judgment as to her breach of contract and negligence claims arising from the January 2021 chicken marsala incident, finding genuine issues of material fact that should be resolved by a jury. The case was remanded for further proceedings on those claims. View "McGinn v. Broadmead, Inc." on Justia Law

A sixteen-year-old boy and his friend were waiting for transportation under a carport near the boy’s home when they were approached by an off-duty Baltimore City police officer who had just returned from firearms training. The officer, dressed in plain clothes and carrying a loaded handgun, questioned the boys about their presence in the neighborhood. After a brief exchange, the officer brandished his gun at “low ready,” causing the boys to fear for their lives. The incident had a lasting traumatic effect on the boy, resulting in emotional distress, behavioral changes, and ultimately leading him to attend a boarding school to distance himself from the event.The boy filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Maryland state law against the officer, the Baltimore Police Department, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, and the State of Maryland. All claims against the institutional defendants were dismissed by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and some claims against the officer were dismissed at summary judgment. At trial, the district court submitted to the jury both constitutional claims and state law gross negligence claims, including gross negligence in the officer’s capacity as a private person. The jury found for the officer on constitutional claims but found him grossly negligent as a private person, awarding $250,000 in compensatory damages for emotional harm. The officer moved to alter or amend the judgment or for a new trial, arguing lack of notice on the private person claim and excessiveness of damages, but the district court denied the motion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged gross negligence as a private person and that the officer had notice of this claim. The court rejected the officer’s arguments regarding supplemental jurisdiction, plain error in jury instructions, and excessiveness of damages, finding no abuse of discretion or plain error by the district court. The judgment was affirmed. View "Nicholson v. Durant" on Justia Law