Falls remain a top cause of unintentional injuries throughout the United States. In fact, in 2011 alone, almost nine million people sought treatment at the emergency room as a result of injuries sustained in falls. An experienced Spartanburg fall injury lawyer knows that many of these ER visits could be prevented if some basic efforts were made to try to reduce the risk of slips, trips and falls.
Recently in Personal Injury Category
It is ski season in North Carolina. Numerous resorts throughout the state including Wolf Ridge Ski Resort, Appalachian Ski Mountain, the Cataloochee Ski area, Sugar Mountain and Beech Mountain have open trails and open lifts and skiers are taking advantage of the opportunity to hit the hills.
As people enjoy this winter outdoor activity, however, a Greensboro injury lawyer knows that there are some serious dangers associated with skiing. In addition to the chances of falling on the slopes, ski lift injuries are a major safety issue. Ski resorts need to be responsible for maintaining lifts in a safe way, as well as for ensuring that skiers do not encounter unexpected dangers due to problems on open ski trails.
Scooters have become increasingly popular in North Carolina. From electronic scooters used by kids as a means of recreation to scooters as a means of transportation on the roads, scooters are everywhere. Unfortunately, a Greensboro injury lawyer knows that all types of scooters can be very dangerous.
Intercollegiate sports generate many millions of dollars annually for universities and colleges nationwide. Just as one example, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has a seven-year, $1 billion contract with CBS.
Colleges benefit a great deal financially from their student athletes, and this has generated a debate regarding the duty of care owed by these institutions to student athletes. Generally, colleges may be bound by general theories of negligence with regard to most students, but many student athletes have asserted - successfully - that a "special relationship" exists between them and the school, which increases the duty of care owed by the school to the student athletes.
Establishment of this "special relationship" can be critical in negligence litigation, where otherwise a school might argue it had no duty of care to someone injured. Courts have generally not been inclined to find colleges liable for injuries to students while they are attending classes. Basically, it's been assumed college students are mature adults, capable of independently looking out for their own safety. General negligence laws may apply in injuries, but it holds colleges to a lower standard with regard to protection of students. A primary exception, however, is when a special relationship exists. Essentially, this heightens the duty of care standard regarding foreseeable injuries involving student athletes.
Asbestos is a fibrous material that for decades was used in everything from flooring material to vehicle brakes. It also happens to be deadly when those fibers are inhaled, causing chronic and terminal illnesses such as lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma, which often don't manifest until decades post-exposure.
Many companies that manufactured and sold asbestos-laden products have been the subject of thousands of lawsuits, mostly because there is ample evidence these companies knew of the dangers this material caused and failed to warn users and workers. In some cases, it's been found the companies actively concealed this information.
Some firms have established asbestos trusts to pay out proven asbestos injury and wrongful death claims. Others continue to fight the claims in court.
Construction workers have some of the most dangerous jobs in the country. One of the most dangerous sub-categories of construction work is demolition.
Earlier this year, after a series of demolition-related injuries and fatalities, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety & Health Administration noted far too many workers' lives were risked or sacrificed because employers and/or property owners neglected demolition safety fundamentals. The official went on to say all employers of workers involved in demolition projects have to be aware of the hazards and necessary safety measures before such work begins.
The agency recently updated its standards and page on demolition dangers, entitled, "Demolition: Construction in Reverse, with Additional Hazards."
For many women, undergoing painful procedures in the sake of beauty is not unheard of. However, going through painful procedure with resulting disfigurement and burns is never expected. According to New York Magazine, many women have suffered from serious burns and scarring after getting laser hair removal. Many of the victims have been young teens, and now the practice is being scrutinized. While women may take certain risks to meet beauty standards, parents, physicians, and other advocates should be concerned about the potential danger of laser hair removal.
Laser hair removal is a procedure that obliterates hair follicles to prevent future hair growth. Teenagers have been known to seek out the procedure for legs, underarms, or even unsightly facial hair that has led to bullying. Though the practice has been noted among many teenagers, and even 11 or 12 year-olds, there have been significant reports about the potential dangers of laser hair removal. According to reports, patients have suffered burns that turned to discoloration. According to the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, nearly half a million laser treatments were performed in the U.S. in 2011 by trained doctors. Treatments are also performed by non-doctors, which can increase the potential for risk and injury.
In the weeks leading up to the notorious "Black Friday" for bargain-seeking shoppers, media sources reflected on past incidences of injury, even death related to stampedes, fighting, and brawls between customers and employees. In the event that a shopper is injured onsite, who is at fault? Can a consumer take action against a shop owner or corporation if they have suffered an injury? Black Friday attracts shoppers from all over the nation and has even spread to the UK. It is the busiest and most publicized commercial day of the year, but has also resulted in serious injuries and poses risk to consumers as well as retail employees.
The National Retail Federation reports that there were over 90 million consumers participating in online and in-store Black Friday events. Those who decide to brave it in the masses could face potentially dangerous conditions. While many retailers will invest in a few extra security guards--they are not always sufficient or able to properly manage large crowds. A website found at www.blackfridaydeathcount.com tracks the number of injuries and deaths that have occurred as a result of Black Friday mobs. Individuals who have suffered a Black Friday injury do have the right to take action to collect compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and additional personal losses that may have been incurred.
If you have ever participated in a high-risk activity - think sky-diving or rock-climbing - you were almost certainly asked to sign a "waiver of liability," releasing the organizer and/or property owner from any claims of negligence relating to that activity.
These waivers, also known as "exculpatory clauses," are becoming increasingly popular, even for participation in seemingly innocuous activities, such as a gym class or a charity 5K.
In South Carolina, these agreements may be enforceable as valid private contracts, but only if the language is sufficiently specific and the negligence asserted does not stem from a reckless or intentional act by defendant. It's also worth noting the South Carolina Supreme Court, in its 2003 ruling in Fisher v. Stevens, established exculpatory contracts are not favored by the law, and will be strictly construed against the party relying thereon.
Football players have become the unfortunate poster child for sports-related head injuries in recent years, with a flood of lawsuits filed by professional players on down to those in the Pop Warner-age leagues.
Certainly, football can be a dangerous sport, and reports one of the highest rates of head injuries for any athletic activity. But it's not the only one. As the recent case of Zylstra v. Boise State University highlights, wrestling too can be hazardous to participants - especially when coaches fail to recognize possible head injury symptoms or take appropriate precautionary measures.
A 2010 study published in the Western Journal of Emergency Medicine researched numbers and characteristics of wrestling injuries among male athletes in the U.S. between 2000 and 2006. Culling figures from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, study authors found 173,600 emergency room visits involving wrestlers between the ages of 7 and 17. Of those, 91 percent involved wrestlers 12 to 17, with an injury rate in that group of nearly 30 injuries per 1,000 wrestlers. Those included sprains, fractures and bruises, but the vast majority of injuries (75 percent) occurred above the waist (including to to the head).
Tourists and visitors to the Southeast region may be put at additional risk if they are unaware of their surroundings or attempting new recreational activities. According to reports, a 77-year-old North Carolina woman drowned in the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia after she fell out of a boat in the Suwanee Canal. The woman was visiting the swamp with her husband at the time of the accident. Authorities reported that the Efland woman was staying with her husband at the Laura S. Walker State Park while visiting the swamp.
Drowning and boating accidents are common along the coast and on inland streams, rivers, and lakes throughout the Southeast. According to reports, the victims' husband stopped to look at something and had turned off the engine. When he restarted the motor, the boat lurched forward, "standing on end" and they both fell backwards out of the boat. Police reports indicate that the husband tried to help his wife, but she become entangled in the boat's propeller and suffered fatal injuries. The accident occurred approximately 7 or 8 miles down from the boat basin where they launched. After initial calls for help were made, local law enforcement officials, fire and rescue personnel, as well as officers from U.S. Fishing and Wildlife Service and the State DNR responded to the scene. Though attempts were made to revive the woman, she was pronounced dead at the refuge by the Ware County coroner.
The family of a South Carolina mayor who was shot by a police officer has been awarded $97 million in a wrongful death case. According to reports, the mayor was shot and killed after he complained about the officer's aggressive behavior. The wrongful death verdict was considered a success for the family who tragically lost their loved one in a preventable crime. The mayor was shot in the chest with a revolver belonging to an officer in May 2011. The mayor was shot on a small dirt road and, according to local authorities, the officer still has not been charged with the crime.
The tension between the mayor and the officer grew after the mayor objected the arrest of an employee in his construction business. The family sued the officer and the town of Cottageville, alleging that it should never have hired the officer due to his checkered past and troubled employment history. An attorney representing the officer alleges that the mayor had bipolar disorder and was enraged when he confronted the officer. A defense attorney claimed that the officer only shot the mayor in self-defense.
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.
These 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.
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.
The 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.
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.