Tenth Circuit Jurisdictional Considerations in Personal Injury Cases
| Jurisdiction | United States,Federal,Utah |
| Citation | Vol. 26 No. 1 Pg. 22 |
| Pages | 22 |
| Publication year | 2013 |
Vol. 26, No. 1. 22. Tenth Circuit Jurisdictional Considerations in Personal Injury Cases
Volume 26 No. 1
Jan/Feb 2013
Assume for a moment that your client has been served with a significant personal injury complaint and needs your legal expertise and guidance. Alternatively, assume for a moment that your client has been injured, wants to file suit, and likewise needs some direction. If the hypothetical complaint exclusively pleads claims of ordinary and gross negligence (or close relatives thereof), as is often the case, you should consider a couple key issues that may be outcome determinative. First, is the ordinary negligence claim susceptible to an enforceable pre-injury release agreement? If it is, move on to consideration number two. Second, is there diversity of citizenship enabling the defendant to remove to federal court if the plaintiff files in Utah State Court? These two considerations very well may determine whether or not you go to trial, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit made abundantly clear in Milne v. USA Cycling, 575 F.3d 1120 (10th Cir. 2009).
The Milne case, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah under diversity jurisdiction, involved a bicycle race called the "Tour of Canyonlands" in which multiple racers collided with an on-coming SUV and trailer. One racer died and another was seriously injured. As is often the case with serious injuries, a lawsuit followed and the plaintiffs made claims for ordinary and gross negligence. The parties ultimately agreed that a pre-injury release agreement signed by plaintiffs precluded plaintiffs' ordinary negligence claim, but not their gross negligence claim. The parties diverged, however, with respect to whether plaintiffs offered evidence sufficient for a jury to conclude that defendants' actions were grossly negligent. In other words, could the federal district court determine, as a matter of law, that defendants' actions were not grossly negligent? Gross negligence is defined as "'fail[ing] to observe even slight care'" and "'carelessness or recklessness to a degree that shows utter indifference to the consequences that may result.'" Moon Lake Elec. Ass'n. v. Ultrasystems W. Constructors, Inc., 767 P.2d 125, 129 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (citation and internal quotation marks...
To continue reading
Request your trial