Miscellaneous

Seat Belt Evidence Admissibility – S.B. 439

West Virginia|2021

Displaces a longstanding provision that had excluded seat belt non-usage

[…]

Displaces a longstanding provision that had excluded seat belt non-usage evidence for any purpose if the claimant stipulated to a reduction of damages by a mere five percent. Juries will be allowed to consider and use evidence that a claimant had failed to wear seat belt when they determine the damages resulting from motor vehicle crashes. In the case of adult drivers and passengers who bring product liability claims against vehicle and component sellers, evidence of the claimant’s failure to buckle-up is admissible without limitation. For other types of claims, an adult’s failure to use a seat belt may be considered by juries with respect to the exacerbation and contribution to that claimant’s injuries, but not to establish comparative negligence or fault. For child passengers, allows juries to consider seat belt non-usage evidence in support of a finding that the driver was negligent in contributing to the child’s injuries, but the evidence may not be considered in determining injury causation. The failure to use a seat belt is an affirmative defense, that the defendant must support with admissible opinion testimony. Finally, exceptions apply so that seat belt non-usage evidence will be excluded when an at-fault driver is determined to be intoxicated or fleeing law enforcement. The bill is applicable to claims arising from collisions that occur on or after July 6, 2021.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Intermediate Court of Appeals – S.B. 275

West Virginia|2021

Establishes an intermediate court of appeals in the State of

[…]

Establishes an intermediate court of appeals in the State of West Virginia. Prior to enactment of this legislation, the state did not have an intermediate court of appeals.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Asbestos & Silica Litigation Reform / Over-Naming – H.B. 2495

West Virginia|2021

Provides that within 60 days of filing an asbestos or

[…]

Provides that within 60 days of filing an asbestos or silica action, a plaintiff must file a sworn information form that specifies the evidence that provides the basis for each claim against each defendant and include supporting documentation. Plaintiffs have a continuing duty to supplement the required disclosures. The court, on motion by a defendant, shall dismiss a plaintiff’s asbestos or silica action without prejudice as to any defendant whose product or premises is not identified in the required disclosures.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Business Court Divisions: H.B. 4352 (2010)

West Virginia|2010

Authorized the West Virginia Supreme Court to create a business

[…]

Authorized the West Virginia Supreme Court to create a business court division within certain circuit court districts.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Asbestos Trust Transparency: S.B. 411 (2015)

West Virginia|2015

Creates the Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act and Asbestos

[…]

Creates the Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act and Asbestos and Silica Claims Priorities Act.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Consumer Protection Act Reform: S.B. 315

West Virginia|2015

Amends West Virginia’s Consumer Protection Act and provides that no

[…]

Amends West Virginia’s Consumer Protection Act and provides that no award of damages under the CPA may be made without proof that the person seeking damages suffered an actual out-of-pocket loss that was proximately caused by a violation of the statute.  Provides that either party in a CPA action has the right to demand a jury trial.  Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature that, in construing this statute, the courts be guided by the policies of the Federal Trade Commission and interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts to Section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade 10 Commission Act (15 U. S. C. §45(a)(1)).


[hide]

Unchallenged

Open and Obvious Doctrine: S.B. 13 (2015)

West Virginia|2015

Reinstates the open and obvious doctrine.  Limits civil liability of

[…]

Reinstates the open and obvious doctrine.  Limits civil liability of a possessor of real property for injuries caused by open and obvious hazards and reinstates and codifies open and obvious doctrine of common law as it existed prior to judicial abolition.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Trespasser Liability: S.B. 3 (2015)

West Virginia|2015

Codifies existing common law in West Virginia regarding the duty

[…]

Codifies existing common law in West Virginia regarding the duty of care land owners owe trespassers.  Provides that a possessor or real property owes no duty of care to a trespasser except in limited circumstances.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Workers’ Compensation: H.B. 2011 (2015)

West Virginia|2015

Establishes liability and defenses for employees and employers making a

[…]

Establishes liability and defenses for employees and employers making a claim to the Workers’ Compensation Fund where an injury is self-inflicted or intentionally caused by the employer.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Judicial Elections: H.B. 2010 (2015)

West Virginia|2015

Requires the election of justices of the State Supreme Court

[…]

Requires the election of justices of the State Supreme Court of Appeals, circuit court judges, family court judges and magistrates to be on a non-partisan basis.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Comparative Fault: H.B. 2002 (2015)

West Virginia|2015

Predicates actions for damages upon comparative fault principles.  Abolishes joint

[…]

Predicates actions for damages upon comparative fault principles.  Abolishes joint liability and implement several liability and provides that the fault of a nonparty may be considered if the plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with the nonparty or if the defendant party gives notice no later than 180 days before the trial date that a nonparty was wholly or partially at fault.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Wrongful Conduct: S.B. 7 (2016)

West Virginia|2016

Provides that in any civil action, a defendant is not

[…]

Provides that in any civil action, a defendant is not liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the negligence of the defendant if such damages arise out of the plaintiff’s commission or attempted commission of a felony, and the plaintiff’s injuries were suffered as a proximate result of the commission or attempted commission of the felony.  It further provides that an action against a health care provider cannot be maintained by a plaintiff whose damages arise as a proximate result of the commission or attempted commission of a felony.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Workers’ Compensation Reform: SB 744 (2005)

West Virginia|2005

Strengthened requirements necessary for an employee to prove injury as

[…]

Strengthened requirements necessary for an employee to prove injury as a results of the employer’s “deliberate intentions” under West Virginia Code §23-4-2, which preserves an action where the employee is injured through the deliberate intention of the employer (under West Virginia Code §23-2-6, employers in good standing with the Workers’ Compensation fund are immune from suits by injured workers, except as provided under §23-4-2). The five part test for proof of deliberate intention in §23-4-2(d) was strengthened by doing the following: (1) made clear that §23-4-2 governs actions by employees against their employers arising from workplace injuries, whether a workers’ compensation claim was filed or not. Section §23-4-2(c) is amended to reflect that it applies whether a claim is filed or not, and §23-4-2(d)(2)(E) reflects that claims must satisfy the statutory requirements of compensability whether a claim is filed or not; (2) the second of the five part test, §23-4-2(d)(2)(B), is amended to require actual knowledge before the injury of the specific unsafe working condition and high degree of risk. This replaces the prior language of “subjective realization and appreciation.”; (3) the third element, which encompasses violation of “commonly accepted and wellknown safety standard within the industry or business of the employer,” now requires proof “by competent evidence of written standards or guidelines which reflect a consensus safety standard in the industry or business.”; (4) subsection (D) contains a grammatical change that retains the requirement of intentional exposure; and (5) section §23-4-2(d)(2) is corrected to make reference to the immunity provision in §23-2-6, which was inadvertently omitted when the statute was amended.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Volunteer Liability Reform: SB 744 (1998)

West Virginia|1998

Limits liability for physicians who volunteer for certain athletic events

[…]

Limits liability for physicians who volunteer for certain athletic events sponsored by a public or private elementary or secondary school


[hide]

Unchallenged

Prisoner Lawsuit Reform: SB 109 (2000)

West Virginia|2000

Prohibits an inmate from filing a lawsuit until all administrative

[…]

Prohibits an inmate from filing a lawsuit until all administrative remedies against the facility have been exhausted. Allows the facility sixty days to complete these remedies. Permits certain court proceedings to occur at the inmates place of incarceration by telephone or video conference. Requires an inmakte to pay for all court filing fees. Upon finding that an inmate filed a frivolous suit, time earned for good behavior may be forfeited. Any award to an inmate shall be paid to any outstanding court-ordered payments pending against the inmate.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Opportunity to Cure: SB 456 (2005)

West Virginia|2005

Provided that no action may be brought until the consumer

[…]

Provided that no action may be brought until the consumer has informed the seller or lessor in writing and by certified mail of the alleged violation and provided the seller or lessor 20 days from receipt of the notice of violation to make a cure offer. The consumer shall have 10 days from receipt of the cure offer to accept the cure offer or it is deemed refused and withdrawn. If a cure offer is accepted, the seller or lessor shall have 10 days to begin effectuating the agreed upon cure and such must be completed within a reasonable time. Any applicable statute of limitations shall be tolled for the 20-day period or for the period of time the effectuation of the cure offer is being performed, whichever is longer. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a consumer that has accepted a cure offer from bringing a civil action against a seller or lessor for failing to timely effect such cure offer. Where an action is brought, it shall be a complete defense that a cure offer was made, accepted and the agreed upon cure was performed. If the finder of fact determines that the cure offer was accepted and the agreed upon cure performed, the seller or lessor shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs attendant to defending the action. No cure offer shall be admissible in any proceeding unless the cure offer is delivered by a seller or lessor to the person claiming loss or to any attorney representing such person prior to the filing of the seller or lessee’s initial responsive pleading in such proceeding. If the cure offer is timely delivered by the seller or lessor, then the seller or lessee may introduce the cure offer into evidence at trial. The seller or lessor shall not be liable for such person’s attorney’s fees and court costs incurred following delivery of the cure offer unless the actual damages found to have been sustained and awarded, without consideration of attorney’s fees and court costs, exceed the value of the cure offer.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Monitoring Settlements in Lawsuits Against State Agencies: SB 667 (2002)

West Virginia|2002

Required anyone planning to sue a state agency to notify

[…]

Required anyone planning to sue a state agency to notify the agency 30 days before filing in court. The law required an agency defendant to alert the Senate President and the House Speaker. The purpose of S.B.667 was to avoid the kind of settlements that occurred previously in the Recht School and the Hartley mental health cases. In those cases, agencies settled without aggressively defending the state’s interests, leaving the Legislature to foot the costs of the settlements by rebuilding schools and revamping the mental health system.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Landowner Liability: SB 378 (1997)

West Virginia|1997

Provides that landowners owe no duty of care to keep

[…]

Provides that landowners owe no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or to give warning of dangerous or hazardous condition to others who use the premises for recreational or wildlife propagation purposes. Exceptions provided for deliberate, willful or malicious infliction of injury or when a sum is charged to enter the land.


[hide]

Unchallenged

HB 601 (2001)

West Virginia|2001

Establishes a certificate of merit in medical liability actions, abolishes

[…]

Establishes a certificate of merit in medical liability actions, abolishes third-party bad faith lawsuits in medical liability actions, and permits parties to submit their claim to either pretrial mediation or a summary jury trial. In jury trials, increases the number of jurors from 9 to 12, but adjudication of claim if nine members of the jury are in agreement, rather than a unanimous verdict.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Business Court Divisions: HB 4352 (2010)

West Virginia|2010

Authorized the West Virginia Supreme Court to create a business

[…]

Authorized the West Virginia Supreme Court to create a business court division within certain circuit court districts.


[hide]

Unchallenged