October 24, 2014

Powers v. 31 E 31 LLC - Apartment Fall Premises Liability Lawsuit

Building codes are established to keep structures safe. When those codes are violated or ignored, innocent people - including tenants, guests and bystanders - may become injured. In these situations, injured parties may be entitled to relief through a premises liability lawsuit.
However, sometimes claims are not as straightforward as they appear on the surface, particularly when older buildings are involved. That's because while older buildings may not conform to current standards of construction, sometimes those structures are "grandfathered in," so long as they adhered to the previous codes at the time they were built or renovated.

Still, that might not be a catch-all defense, depending on the facts of the case.

Continue reading "Powers v. 31 E 31 LLC - Apartment Fall Premises Liability Lawsuit" »

October 22, 2014

Christensen v. Alaska Sales - Early Head Injury Treatment Critical

Several years ago, a woman in rural Alaska struck two moose on a dark highway. She found herself disoriented, but she hadn't broken any bones. She had the capacity to call police and her husband. They noted a large mark in the middle of her forehead, but she shrugged it off, declining emergency treatment.
But in the days that followed, she began to experience dizzy spells and headaches. Her balance increasingly worsened, and she kept falling. Her short-term memory began to suffer. Her speech became disjointed. Her symptoms continued to worsen. After a week, she sought help from a doctor. She was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury. The injury gave rise to a claim of seat belt defect in Christensen v. Alaska Sales & Service, Inc..

Latent head injuries are common, as the effects are not always immediately apparent. Early intervention can be key in reducing the damage. This is why it's critical for anyone who has suffered a head injury - whether in a car accident or sports injury or fall.

Continue reading "Christensen v. Alaska Sales - Early Head Injury Treatment Critical" »

October 19, 2014

Young v. U.S. - Federal Park Hazard Injury Lawsuit Proceeds

Suing a local government entity is accompanied by a unique set of legal hurdles. Suing the federal government for injury can have mountainous hurdles.
Bu that doesn't mean a case isn't ever worth pursuing, as Young v. United States recently revealed. Here, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted plaintiffs the right to continue their case under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), after a woman suffered serious injuries after she fell into a deep hole formed underneath the snow near a buried transformer in a national park, close to the main visitor center. She alleged the National Park Service knew of the danger because it had created it and failed to warn visitors.

Although the lower court dismissed the claim as barred under the discretionary function exception under FTCA, the appellate court flatly rejected this defense. Justices called the decision not to warn "totally divorced" from any other policy consideration except the one the park service should have upheld: the safety of some 2 million visitors who patronize the park every year.

Continue reading "Young v. U.S. - Federal Park Hazard Injury Lawsuit Proceeds" »

October 16, 2014

Temple v. Mary Washington Hospital: On Discovery Motions in Medical Malpractice Cases

Temple v. Mary Washington Hospital, a case from the Supreme Court of Virginia, involved a medical malpractice case filed in the name of decedent. According to court records, decedent went to defendant's emergency room complaining of chest pain and shortness of breath. Four hours after getting to the hospital, he was deceased.

ekg-293359-m.jpgAfter filing the personal injury case, plaintiff, through counsel, requested certain discovery from defendant. Included in these requests were copies of defendant's policies and procedure related to how a patient in decedent's condition should be treated by hospital staff. Defendant responded to plaintiff's requests for production of documents, claiming these documents were not relevant to the lawsuit and were privileged documents.

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery, requesting that the trial judge order defendant to produce the requested documents. The trial judge found that these documents were not relevant, as they would not lead to discoverable evidence, agreed that they were privileged, and denied the motion.

Continue reading "Temple v. Mary Washington Hospital: On Discovery Motions in Medical Malpractice Cases" »

October 14, 2014

Nguyen v. Western Digital Corp: On the Statute of Limitations in Personal Injury Cases

Nguyen v. Western Digital Corp., a case from the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, involved plaintiff who was born in 1994. Her mother worked for defendant from the late 1980s through 1998. Her mother worked in clean rooms in which she was exposed to tetratogenic and reproductively harmful chemicals for extended periods of time.

3mspraymount-138829-m.jpgThese chemicals are now known to cause serious harm to unborn children. Plaintiff's mother was pregnant during the time she was exposed to the chemicals. Her employment involved the manufacturing of semiconductors that required the use of a combination of toxic substances and chemicals, and there is to no way to separate which specific chemical she was exposed to at any give time.

Plaintiff (through her guardian) alleged in her complaint that the clean rooms were clean in terms of protecting the company's products but not in terms of protecting workers from toxic chemicals. The protective clothing given to workers was also to protect the semiconductors from contamination from the workers and did nothing to prevent the workers from absorbing the toxic material through their skin or inhaling toxic vapors into their lungs.

Continue reading "Nguyen v. Western Digital Corp: On the Statute of Limitations in Personal Injury Cases" »

October 12, 2014

Santana-Concepcion v. Centro Medico del Turabo, Inc.: On the Discovery Rule in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits

Santana-Concepcion v. Centro Medico del Turabo, Inc., a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, involved a plaintiff who was a registered nurse. She had a head CT (CAT scan), which revealed a large arachnoid cyst. An arachnoid cyst is fluid-filled membrane sac that forms between the base of the brain and the spinal chord.

mri-head-scan-370098-m.jpgAfter being diagnosed with the cyst, her doctors told her that surgery was not necessary. Later that same year, she experienced extreme pain and went to a local emergency room. She was referred to a neurosurgeon who recommended surgery to remove the cyst and medicine to reduce the intracranial pressure. The surgeon told her that it was a matter of life or death.

Plaintiff told the surgeon to do whatever he needed (including the placement of a shunt) as long as she wouldn't be in any more pain. This occurred while she was on vacation in Puerto Rico.

Continue reading "Santana-Concepcion v. Centro Medico del Turabo, Inc.: On the Discovery Rule in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits " »

October 9, 2014

Jones v. Imperial Palace of Mississippi, LLC: On Slip and Fall Lawsuits

Jones v. Imperial Palace of Mississippi, LLC, is a premises liability case in which plaintiff was walking through a casino parking garage when he was injured. Plaintiff was walking in the space between the wall and the front of the parking space when he tripped on a concrete parking bumper at the front of one of the spaces and fell to the concrete floor. It should be noted that the area in which he was walking was not designated for pedestrian travel, but there was nothing to indicate that pedestrian travel was prohibited in that area.

fence-726216-m.jpgPlaintiff's allegation is the concrete parking bumper was not properly aligned with the front of the parking space to the point where it was is in his path of travel and that the bumper was the actual and proximate cause of his injuries.

Continue reading "Jones v. Imperial Palace of Mississippi, LLC: On Slip and Fall Lawsuits " »

October 4, 2014

Hunting Accident in North Carolina Results in Death

According to recent report from ABC News 13, a North Carolina man was killed in a hunting accident when his friend allegedly shot him with a crossbow. The two men were deer hunting on private property when one hunter had mistaken his friend for a deer.

archery-2-358728-m.jpgThe hunters were wearing camouflage and not blaze orange. However, under North Carolina law, during archery bow season, hunters are not required to wear blaze orange, as they are during rifle season. The apparent logic behind this regulation is that a hunter will be much closer to a deer when shooting with a bow, as opposed to a gun, where it is more likely that a fellow hunter could be mistaken for a deer.

As of this time, charges have not been filed against the hunter, and authorities have stated that, at least for now, they are treating this as an accident pending further investigation.

Continue reading "Hunting Accident in North Carolina Results in Death " »

October 2, 2014

North Carolina Man Dies in Rafting Accident

Whitewater rafting has steadily gained popularity since the 1970s. It is an exciting and fun outdoor activity enjoyed by people across the nation. Unfortunately, on some occasions the fun can quickly turn to tragedy.

river-rafting-864944-m.jpgAccording to a recent news article from the Johnson City Press, a North Carolina man has died in a rafting accident on the Ocoee River. The victim was on a rafting trip led by a professional guide when the raft flipped over on a rapid. He and five other occupants on the raft fell out of the raft.

After being pulled from the water farther down the river, he was unresponsive. He was taken to a local hospital but was pronounced dead upon arrival. Authorities have not released a cause of death but noted that there were no apparent external injuries and that the victim was wearing a life jacket and helmet.

Continue reading "North Carolina Man Dies in Rafting Accident" »

September 30, 2014

Davis v. Brickman Landscaping - Fire Death Negligence Standard of Proof High

The death of two children in a horrific hotel fire sparked a civil lawsuit brought by their parents, after they learned a storage closet beneath the stairwell lacked a fire sprinkler, as is required under state fire codes.
Our Spartanburg wrongful death attorneys know in negligence actions where municipal building and fire codes may have been breached, the attorney handling the case must have extensive experience. Statutes regarding these matters can be convoluted, and when it's alleged someone died as a result of a violation, there is a lot at stake.

In Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., the primary question before the New Jersey Supreme Court was whether plaintiff's expert witness testimony was adequate in showing the defendant, a private company that employed fire sprinkler inspectors, breached the applicable standard of care in carrying out its duties. Because of the complexity of state and local fire codes, an expert witness was required in the case, and the one produced by plaintiff reportedly failed to adequately attest to the alleged breach of industry standards. Therefore, dismissal of the claim was upheld.

Continue reading "Davis v. Brickman Landscaping - Fire Death Negligence Standard of Proof High" »

September 28, 2014

Gregory v. One Republic Home Protection - Wrongful Death Claim Denied

The verdict favoring a home warranty company, sued for wrongful death by the mother of a Greensboro man who died of carbon monoxide poisoning in his home in 2008, has been upheld by the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

The mother/plaintiff alleged the warranty company was negligent in hiring a heating/cooling company with a poor business quality record. The firm had been on probation by the North Carolina Board of smokealarm.jpgExaminers of Plumbing, Heating and Fire Sprinkler Contractors. Later, the same company was the target of a complaint alleging incompetence that nearly resulted in a customer's new home catching fire.

Our Greensboro wrongful death lawyers understand that while plaintiff sued on a host of negligence theories, including negligent retention and vicarious liability, the two at issue upon appeal were two claims dismissed prior to trial - Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice and breach of implied warranty. The appellate court ultimately indicated the directed verdict for defendant on the UDTP claim was proper, and the plaintiff failed to properly preserve the grant of directed verdict on the breach of implied warranty claim.

Continue reading "Gregory v. One Republic Home Protection - Wrongful Death Claim Denied" »

September 24, 2014

Brewer v. Hunter - Medical Records of Non-Parties Relevant in Malpractice Suit, Court Rules

A man rendered permanently paralyzed following back surgery has won a key victory in his lawsuit against the surgeon and hospital, after the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's decision to allow the medical records/outcomes of other surgical patients to be considered as evidence.
Medical malpractice attorneys in Charlotte know that while the outcome of any case is going to be heavily weighted to the facts in that particular instance, the assertion of malpractice is a complex one, and by allowing a broader range of evidence, the courts gave plaintiffs an opportunity to determine whether this physician had a problematic history. This information would be relevant in a medical malpractice case, where plaintiffs have to prove a breach in the acceptable standard of care. A pattern of such breaches would strengthen the claim and potentially dampen defendant doctor's credibility.

Here, in Brewer v. Hunter et al., the patient in question first underwent thoracic spinal surgery to treat his severe back pain, leg weakness and spinal stenosis. Less than a decade later, he sought treatment from his primary care physician for many of these same issues. He was referred to a neuroscience and spine center specialist doctor after an MRI scan revealed severe canal stenosis and diffuse degenerative disease in his lumbar.

Continue reading "Brewer v. Hunter - Medical Records of Non-Parties Relevant in Malpractice Suit, Court Rules" »

September 20, 2014

Reed v. Malone's Mechanical, Inc., et al.: On Jury Instructions in a Personal Injury Case

Reed v. Malone's Mechanical, Inc., et al., an appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, involves a mechanic ("Plaintiff") who was hired to help renovate a chicken processing plant. Plaintiff was employed by a contractor ("Defendant 1"), and that contract was managed by another contractor ("Defendant 2").

pipes1.jpgPlaintiff was performing work on overhead pipes designed to transport hot cooking oil to cooking equipment located in other parts of the factory. Plaintiff was diagnosing a problem with a commercial fryer when another worker ("Defendant 3") was operating a scissor lift. The worker on the lift was adjusting a 12-pound pipe saddle when it fell and landed on Plaintiff, injuring him.

Plaintiff first sued all parties except Defendant 2 in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. As your Winston-Salem personal injury lawyer can explain, for a case to be heard in federal court, it must involve either a federal question (such as the constitutionality of a statute) or have complete diversity and an amount in controversy over $75,000. In the context of a federal case, diversity means that the plaintiff and defendants are from different states. A corporation is considered a resident of the state in which it has its principal place of business, corporate headquarters, or any state in which it conducts business.

The chicken plant owner ("Defendant 4") moved for summary judgment, and the case was dismissed. At this point, Plaintiff re-filed his lawsuit against Defendant 1 and Defendant 3, claiming that the employer was negligent in failing to secure the pipe saddle, for failing to warn him that dangerous construction work was going on above him, and that it was negligent to schedule work on an overhead pipe while others were working below.

Continue reading "Reed v. Malone's Mechanical, Inc., et al.: On Jury Instructions in a Personal Injury Case " »

September 19, 2014

Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC: On the Agency Relationship in Civil Actions

Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, a case from the Supreme Court of California, involved an employee ("Plaintiff") who was employed by a franchised pizza restaurant operated by Defendant. Defendant hired a male employee to work as a supervisor at the restaurant. Plaintiff was hired to serve costumers at the store.

gavel22.jpgPlaintiff filed lawsuit against Defendant, alleging that her supervisor had sexually harassed her anytime they worked the same shift. She claimed that he made lewd comments and gestures and grabbed her breasts and buttocks. She asked her supervisor to stop, but he continued to harass her, according to court records.

At this point, Plaintiff informed her father, who called police. He also called corporate offices of the pizza franchise and spoke with someone in human resources. Plaintiff did not return to work for one week. When she returned, her hours had been reduced, and she quit her job. It was Plaintiff's belief that her hours were cut in retaliation for filing a complaint against her employer.

Her lawsuit contained various claims, including sexual harassment, failure to take reasonable steps to avoid harassment, and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. She also made common law claims of negligence, assault and battery, and emotional distress. She sought both compensatory and punitive damages. As our Charlotte personal injury lawyers can explain, compensatory damages, as the name implies, are designed to compensate an injured party for any damages caused by the defendant's negligent or intentional conduct. These are the normal form of damages awarded under our legal system.

Continue reading "Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC: On the Agency Relationship in Civil Actions" »

September 15, 2014

Ainsworth v. Chandler: On Third Party Interveners in Premises Liability Cases

Ainsworth v. Chandler, a case heard in the Supreme Court of Vermont, involved a woman ("Plaintiff") who was injured at a business owned by Defendant. Plaintiff was at Defendant's electrical company when she tripped on a coil of wires that had been left in a stairway.

stairs.jpgAccording to court records, Defendant was leading her down the set of stairs when the coil of wire caught her ankle and caused her to fall. Plaintiff testified that she did not see the coil of wires prior to her fall.

Plaintiff has alleged that she suffered permanent injuries, including partial blindness, damage to her ankle, a broken tooth and painful cuts and bruises.

At the time of her accident, Plaintiff had been dating Defendant for the past six months, and her purpose for being at that location was that she was visiting her boyfriend.

Defendant filed a civil lawsuit against his liability insurance company on grounds they breached the terms of their coverage agreement by not awarding her the more than $1 million in damages she had requested. In response to this lawsuit, the insurance company denied any and all liability and counterclaimed for a declaration of noncoverage on grounds that he had breached his agreement. Plaintiff filed her lawsuit against Defendant four months later.

In her lawsuit, Plaintiff demanded over $2 million in damages and, in response, Defendant admitted to liability and conceded to the allegations in the complaint. When his insurance company learned of Defendant's admissions, it intervened in the lawsuit to protect its interests. As our Spartanburg premises liability lawyers know, a third party can intervene in an ongoing lawsuit if their interests will be substantially affected by the outcome of the pending litigation.

Continue reading "Ainsworth v. Chandler: On Third Party Interveners in Premises Liability Cases " »