Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Supreme Court Tightens Injury Lawsuit Rules

Beyond the decision whether to sue a company or corporation for injuries, there is the decision of where to sue a company or corporation. Is it where you live? Where the company is headquartered? Where the injuries occurred?

Those options got whittled down considerably yesterday when the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas-based railroad company couldn't be sued in Montana for injuries that were sustained elsewhere. The decision could have a significant impact on future personal injury cases.

The Wrong Side of the Tracks

Two different plaintiffs were suing the BNSF Railway Company on unrelated injury charges: Robert Nelson, a North Dakota resident and former BNSF truck driver, sued the company in 2011, claiming he injured his knee in a slip-and-fall while on the job; and Kelli Tyrrel, of South Dakota, sued BNSF in 2014 alleging her late husband developed a fatal kidney cancer while working for the company. Nelson's injury occurred in Washington State, Tyrrel claims her husband was exposed to carcinogenic chemicals in South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa.

Yet both sued in Montana, ostensibly a friendlier venue to plaintiffs that allowed state courts to exercise jurisdiction over "persons found" in Montana also does not help the plaintiffs. According to the lawsuits, BNSF conducts quite a bit of business in Montana, operating trains on more than 2,000 miles of railroad track, employing 2,000 Montanans, and investing $470 million in the state over the last four years. But that wasn't enough for the Supreme Court, who ruled that exercising jurisdiction over BNSF must still be consistent with the Constitution's due process clause, and that merely doing business in-state "does not suffice to permit the assertion of general jurisdiction over claims like Nelson's and Tyrrell's that are unrelated to any activity occurring in Montana." Beyond the specific BNSF lawsuits (of which there are 33 pending in Montana courts), the Court's ruling means state courts cannot hear injury claims if the companies are not based in the state or the alleged injuries did not occur there.

The Wrong Side of the Law?

The Court's ruling, the first in which new justice Neil Gorsuch participated, was not unanimous. The lone dissenter, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, described the decision as a "jurisdictional windfall" for large multistate or multinational corporations. "It is individual plaintiffs," Sotomayor wrote, "harmed by the actions of a farflung foreign corporation, who will bear the brunt of the majority's approach and be forced to sue in distant jurisdictions with which they have no contacts or connection."

This will likely make filing an injury claim even more complicated, so if you're thinking about filing an injury lawsuit against a company or corporation, contact an experienced personal injury attorney first.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/05/supreme-court-tightens-injury-lawsuit-rules.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Fake Person, Real Injury? Man Claims He Was Hurt Fleeing Mannequin

The Planet Hollywood casino-hotel in Las Vegas is known for its memorabilia. Autographed wardrobe items, set pieces, and other film collectibles line the casino and adorn hotel room walls. But apparently one of those relics got a little too real for one guest.

Kent Jacobs Boutwell thought a life-sized mannequin wearing a "Miller Lite" racing suit was a life-threatening intruder and sent him racing from his room, suffering injuries to his "body, limbs, organs and nervous system," that might be "permanent and disabling."

The Reasonable Man

Boutwell is suing Planet Hollywood, claiming that "the presence of a life-sized human figure in a darkened room was a dangerous and/or hazardous condition," and that the hotel "failed to place signs, caution, warn, or otherwise make safe, the Dangerous Condition existing on or about the Premises."

Not only is Boutwell suing for negligence, he also claims Planet Hollywood is liable for assault, because it "intentionally placed a mannequin dressed in human clothing in the guest room assigned to plaintiff" and "created the situation that caused plaintiff to feel apprehension of harmful of offensive contact." Though the mannequin was encased in a glass cabinet, Boutwell claims he "reasonably believed that the human figure placed in the guest room by defendant would cause him bodily injury and harm."

Malicious Mannequin

While the lawsuit doesn't list his injuries specifically, Boutwell is asking for at least $10,000 in general and special damages, based on medical treatment, loss of earning capacity, lost wages, and loss of enjoyment of life. The suit also requests over $10,000 in punitive damages against Planet Hollywood, claiming the hotel's conduct was "willful, intentional, oppressive, malicious, and done in a wanton and reckless disregard" for his rights.

Boutwell is also seeking attorneys' fees. "I've got some experience handling hotel casino cases," Boutwell's lawyer, Richard Johnson, told the AP. "This was certainly a new set of facts."

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/05/fake-person-real-injury-man-claims-he-was-hurt-fleeing-mannequin.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, May 26, 2017

Police and School Sued After Interrogated Teen Commits Suicide

The parents of a deceased 16-year-old high school student in Chicago have sued the police, school, and individually involved personnel, as a result of their son's suicide. Corey Walgren jumped from the fifth floor of a parking garage after being interrogated by the school's police liaison and school's dean regarding an alleged crime.

It is alleged that Corey was threatened with possession and distribution of child pornography charges, and told he would have to register on the sex offender registry, while being interrogated at school. After the interrogation ended, while his mother was en route to pick him up from school, Corey walked out of the school's office and into a downtown Naperville parking garage, where he climbed to the fifth floor and jumped. He did not pass until later that day.

Details of the Case

The lawsuit alleges that Corey was interrogated in violation of the law requiring a minor's parents to be notified. Additionally, it is alleged that Corey was not advised of his right to an attorney, nor of his right to remain silent. After approximately 18 minutes of being interrogated, the questioning stopped when the dean and officer searched his phone and didn't find any child pornography. Corey's mother was then notified, and asked to consent to a further search. However, she requested they wait until she arrived at the school.

Corey's parents are alleging that the stress caused by the interrogation and accusations led their child to commit suicide. To make matters worse, the child pornography allegations were never sustained.

Minors Have Rights

Even though many school kids might feel like they don't have any rights, the U.S. Constitution still applies to them. Schools may be able to conduct limited warrantless searches, or detain students for limited purposes, but students don't just give up their constitutional rights when they walk onto a school's campus.

When it comes to questioning a student about a crime, police officers must still provide the Miranda warning, which explains to a suspect that they have the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/05/police-and-school-sued-after-interrogated-teen-commits-suicide.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Dram Shop Lawsuit: 2 Staten Island Establishments Sued for 1 Crash

In February 2015, two drunk drivers crashed head-on in Staten Island, New York, which left William Cuffee, a passenger in of the driver's vehicles, brain damaged and severely injured. Cuffee's mother, who now cares for her son, recently filed a lawsuit against both drivers, as well as the pair of establishments one driver was drinking in prior to the crash that night.

The drivers each pleaded guilty to separate criminal charges related to the incident. However, when a person convicted on criminal charges caused injury to another person while in the process of committing a crime, a criminal conviction may not be the end of it as they can be sued in civil court as well. Cuffee's mother had to sue on his behalf as the court declared him incapacitated.

Dram Shop Laws

Because drunk driving is such a major on-the-road safety concern, a majority of states have some form of dram shop laws. These laws allow victims of drunk driving accidents to hold alcohol serving establishments liable when patrons are served too much alcohol and allowed to drive away drunk.

These laws not only impose financial liability as a result of an establishment's negligence in allowing a drunk patron to drive, some jurisdictions impose fines, and potential criminal penalties for the employees that serve alcohol to drunk people that later end up on the road. State laws will vary on what must be proven to hold an establishment liable, but it generally involves:

  • Proving the establishment sold the person alcohol
  • Proving the establishment continued to sell alcohol when the person was drunk
  • And sometimes, proving the establishment knew the person was driving

Who's Liable?

Depending on the jurisdiction, dram shop laws will only extend to protect third parties rather than the drunk drivers themselves. This means that only a third party will be able to hold an alcohol serving establishment liable for injuries caused by a drunk driving patron. However, in a few jurisdictions, under the right circumstances, a drunk driver that injures themselves in a crash may be able to pursue the establishment that got them drunk.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/05/dram-shop-lawsuit-2-staten-island-establishments-sued-for-1-crash.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Walmart Sued After Car Crashes Through Store's Front Door Killing 3 Shoppers

On December 1, 2016, Lindsey Rietveld was shopping at the Walmart store where she worked in Pella, Iowa, when a Ford F-150 pickup truck came crashing through the front door of the store. The truck struck and killed Ms. Rietveld and two others. As a result of the fatal crash, Rietveld's estate has filed a lawsuit against Walmart, the driver of the truck, and the architectural designer of the front of the store. The lawsuit claims the lack of barriers is to blame for the wrongful death.

The driver of the truck told police that he choked on a sip of coffee, passed out, and woke up after crashing through the front of the store. As a result of suffering the medical emergency, the driver was not charged criminally.

Liability for Cars Crashing Into Stores

While the civil suit alleges that the driver of the vehicle was negligent in causing the accident, the theory of liability against Walmart and the architectural firm are a little different. Generally, stores can be held liable on a premises liability theory of negligence when an injury occurs in an area controlled by the store, including sidewalks, parking lots, or anywhere else the store controls or maintains. In short, stores are required to make sure their premises are safe for customers. Providing safe premises means not just protecting against obvious causes of injuries, like wet floors and falling debris, but also protection against any kind of foreseeable injury.

While it may seem random, the type of injury accident that occurred in the Pella Walmart is not completely unusual. In fact, many stores routinely install barriers or objects specifically designed to stop out of control vehicles from crashing through a store's door. Some states even require these sorts of barriers for stores in certain locations, or with exclusive parking lots.

A rather similar accident happened last year in Springfield, Massachusetts. In that case, a man had a stroke and crashed through a grocery store's door, killing only one person. That case resulted in a $30+ million verdict. The jury found that the grocery chain had the resources to install safety barriers, and failed to do so despite the obvious risk.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/05/walmart-sued-after-car-crashes-through-stores-front-door-killing-3-shoppers.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Boating Accident Liability: When to Sue for Wrongful Death?

Boats, many of which lack brakes, seat belts, and airbags, can be just as dangerous as cars. And a recent lawsuit in Washington details just how dangerous they can be.

The surviving family members of a man who drowned in a boating accident at Lake Coeur d'Alene last summer claim the man piloting another boat wasn't paying attention after dark and plowed right through a stationary boat, killing three people. The wrongful death lawsuit also claims the man behind the wheel, Dennis Magner, lied to investigators about who was driving at the time of the crash.

Right of Way on the Water

Boating accidents are, tragically, easily avoidable. Boating sober, within posted speed limits, and only in safe weather conditions can prevent most boating accidents. And keeping a close eye out for other boaters is absolutely essential.

Justin Lurh and two of his friends were drifting in a stationary boat when Magner's Mastercraft collided with it last August, according to the lawsuit. The impact threw the three men into the water, where they drowned. Boating law requires moving boats to yield to stationary boats, and the lawsuit alleges Magner's boat was up on a plane at the time of the crash.

"[W]hat we're looking at is that it was a head-on collision," said Kootenai County Sheriff's Lieutenant Stu Miller, while investigating the crash. "The bows of both boats came into contact with each other."

Lake Liability

There are generally three main elements to a successful wrongful death suit:

  1. The death of a human being;
  2. The death was caused by another's negligence, or intent to cause harm; and
  3. The survival of family members suffering monetary injury as a result of the death.

Justin Lurh left behind a wife and two children, and Bill Gilbert, the attorney representing them, believes Magner was negligent the night of the accident. "They weren't out there paying attention, worried they might run into somebody," Gilbert told Spokane's KXLY. "Again, it was after dark. They probably didn't think anybody was on the water. But you still have to pay attention, especially after dark."

The Lurh's lawsuit is seeking compensatory and punitive damages to compensate for Justin's death.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/05/boating-accident-liability-when-to-sue-for-wrongful-death.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, May 22, 2017

Florida Jury Awards Woman $100K in Starbucks Hot Coffee Lawsuit

A Florida woman was awarded $100,000 by a jury in her case against Starbucks stemming from a 2014 hot coffee spill injury. Joanne Mogavero, a 43-year-old mother of three, filed suit after the lid to her coffee popped off while it was being handed to her from the Starbucks drive-thru window. The 20-oz.190 degree coffee spilled in her lap, resulting in first and second degree burns.

Of the $100,000 jury verdict, a little over $15,000 was awarded for the actual medical expenses, while the remainder was awarded for pain and suffering. Starbucks has stated that the company is considering appealing the verdict.

Hot Coffee Hubbub

Over the years, there have been numerous hot coffee spill and burn lawsuits. One of the more common claims in these cases involves the lids popping off to-go coffee cups. Quite often there is public backlash against these cases, with commentators calling these cases frivolous before understanding the facts. The famous 1994 McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit that resulted in $2.8 million dollar verdict is the perfect example of a case often cited as a frivolous by those that don't know the facts. The plaintiff in the McDonald's case suffered severe burns not just to her legs, but also to her genitalia.

Not all coffee spill and burn incidents result in legal liability, and frequently, these cases do lose. However, severe burns can take several weeks, or longer, to heal and cause immense amounts of pain. When a company is negligent, and that negligence is what causes the spill and burn, it is only right for a company to be held liable for their negligence in court.

In Mogavero's case, it was revealed that Starbucks receives approximately 80 complaints per month that coffee cup lids popped off. Shockingly, the company's attorney argued that despite that statistic, the number of complaints was not significant enough to warrant employees providing warnings to consumers. It would seem that with all the complaints per month, a reasonable company would implement policies to not only warn consumers, but also require employees to test a lid's security before handing it through a drive-thru window.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/05/florida-jury-awards-woman-100k-in-starbucks-hot-coffee-lawsuit.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, May 19, 2017

Do You Need to Be Married to File a Wrongful Death Claim If Your Partner Dies?

Wrongful death lawsuits allow surviving spouses and family to recover financially when a spouse or family members dies due to the negligence or intentional act of another. Wrongful death laws will vary from state to state, but will typically only allow immediate family members, or next of kin, to file the claim. This often results in unmarried individuals being unable to recover for wrongful death claims.

The common exception to this involves states that allow registered domestic partners, which used to be common for same-sex couples prior the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage. However, frequently, older couples will register as domestic partners rather than re-marry after a divorce, or a prior spouse died, for a wide variety of social and economic reasons.

Being Married Before Death Matters

While wrongful death laws may feel harsh for an unmarried surviving partner, lawmakers and courts have recognized that marriage, or domestic partnership, is a significant step in a couple's relationship. Until a couple takes that step, legally, they are not considered family members. Since wrongful death statutes are meant to compensate family members of the deceased, only legally recognized family will be able to recover. This means that the child of an unmarried couple would have the right to recover for wrongful death, while the unmarried surviving parent would not.

However, some jurisdictions will make exceptions for individuals that believed they were married, such as California's putative spouse exception, or if there was a valid common law marriage. These are relatively rare circumstances, but some states will allow an unmarried person who held a good faith belief that they were in fact married to the deceased to bring a wrongful death action.

The Deceased's Estate and Will

In many states, in addition to the wrongful death claim, a deceased individual's estate may still be able to pursue a claim for the underlying injury that led up to the death as well as pain and suffering. When this occurs, the estate can recover for the personal injury, and add those funds to those that will be distributed by the estate. If the deceased provided for an unmarried partner in their will, then the unmarried partner may end up with a larger share of the estate as a result of the posthumus personal injury action.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/05/do-you-need-to-be-married-to-file-a-wrongful-death-claim-if-your-partner-dies.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Can My Criminal Record Impact My Civil Injury Case?

Criminal convictions can make nearly every facet of a person's life miserable. Even minor criminal convictions that people don't ordinarily even consider criminal, like traffic tickets, can upend a person's life.

Sadly, when it comes to a civil injury case, criminal convictions can matter significantly. While not all convictions will have a significant impact, more recent and more serious convictions are likely to pose more of a challenge. It is important to note, however, that state laws will vary regarding what kinds of convictions can be used in both civil and criminal courts and when.

Is the Conviction Relevant?

Typically, a criminal conviction will not be admissible in any court unless it helps to prove or disprove something of consequence to the matter before the court. While civil courts generally provide quite a bit of latitude when it comes to what evidence is relevant, criminal convictions are generally reviewed carefully before being admitted to ensure that a party won't be unfairly prejudiced by the evidence. Even if a piece of evidence is relevant, it can still potentially be excluded, if a judge determines that the bias the evidence would cause outweighs the benefit it would provide to a jury's determination.

Credibility in Question

When a plaintiff takes a civil lawsuit to trial, unlike in a criminal case, testifying on your own behalf is less of a risk. However, when a plaintiff (or anyone for that matter) takes the stand, their credibility or trustworthiness can be called into question.

If that plaintiff, or witness, has been previously convicted of a crime involving dishonesty, like fraud or even just passing a bad check, evidence of that conviction, and potentially the details surrounding the charges, can be raised during the case, just like at a criminal trial.

Impeachment

Another way criminal convictions can get used in an injury case involves another way to discredit a plaintiff (or defendant or any witness) called impeachment. Impeachment is basically the legal term for catching a witness in a lie. For example, if a person is testifying about their safe driving habits and claims to not be a speeder, evidence that the person has received speeding tickets could be admitted to prove the individual was lying about their safe driving habits. However, some states, like Georgia, will only allow traffic convictions into evidence if a person contested the charge and lost.

Regardless of a person's criminal history, an experienced injury attorney may still be able to obtain a favorable settlement, or verdict, depending on the facts of your case. Additionally, seeking an expungement or the sealing of criminal records could also help keep old convictions from derailing an injury case.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/05/can-my-criminal-record-impact-my-civil-injury-case.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Victims of Philadelphia Brick Wall Collapse to Split $227M

In 2013, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an unsecured brick wall on a demolition site collapsed onto the adjacent Salvation Army store. The three to four story brick wall crushed the store, killed seven individuals, and injured 12 others, affecting a total of 19 families. A mass injury, wrongful death lawsuit filed in response concluded earlier this year.

The victims were awarded $227 million by a settlement in February, after a 17-week long trial, while the jury was still deliberating. The jury found the Salvation Army, as well as the demolition site's owner, and the architect and contractor doing the demolition, liable for the collapse, deaths, and injuries. Of the $227 million, $200 million will be paid by the Salvation Army, while the remainder will be paid by the demolition site's owner. However, none of the victims or families have been paid yet as the damages were not apportioned.

Dividing the Damages

Generally, juries will divide large awards and decide how much to award each plaintiff. However, parties can also agree to handle the division of the award separately, outside of court. In the Philadelphia wall collapse case, the multi-million dollar settlement award was not divided amongst the victims during the trial, nor as part of settlement. As such, the survivors and families of the deceased will be going to arbitration to divide the proceeds.

Unlike a class action verdict, when there are multiple plaintiffs that must divide a jury's award, every plaintiff must agree on how the money will be distributed. Sometimes, this can be done via a conversation and mutual agreement. But, when there are nearly 20 different parties, as in the Philadelphia wall collapse, parties will frequently agree to allow an arbitrator or other neutral third party to divide the proceeds.

Arbitrating Damages

When parties go before an arbitrator to divide monetary awards secured via a verdict or settlement, before the process gets started, each individual will be required to sign an agreement to be bound by the decision that gets made. This means that individuals will not be able to appeal the decision in court, absent rather limited, extraordinary circumstances.

After agreeing to be bound, each party that wants to be awarded a portion of the verdict will submit evidence and testimony to the arbitrator about their individual damages. After the arbitrator has heard from all the parties seeking compensation, they will divide the damages based upon the evidence received. Fortunately for the victims and families, this type of arbitration is unlikely to drag on as long as the trial, and could be concluded within the next few months. 

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/05/victims-of-philadelphia-brick-wall-collapse-to-split-227m.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

When Should Veterans Sue the VA for Malpractice?

The hospitals in VA health system are just as susceptible to the same type of medical malpractice claims as any other hospital. However, due to the fact that the VA system is both overburdened and underfunded, those hospitals may also face claims for injuries related to delays in treatment.

Regardless of whether the injury is the result of hospital negligence, medical malpractice, or just ordinary negligence, veterans can sue the VA in court. A recent medical malpractice settlement against a VA hospital neared seven figures. In that case, a veteran underwent an unneeded surgery that caused him further, and life changing, injuries.

First Steps in Suing a VA Hospital

While most states have strict requirements when it comes to suing doctors and hospitals, pursuing a claim against a VA hospital requires an additional step. Because VA hospitals are run by the federal government, in order to file a lawsuit against one of the hospitals, an individual must first file a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

A federal tort claim is usually filed directly with the federal agency or entity that oversees the location of your injury. If the claim is rejected, or no response is provided within six months, then you can file a civil lawsuit.

Medical Malpractice Requirements

Generally, medical malpractice claims are governed by state law. Most states require that a claimant notify the involved doctors and hospitals before filing a lawsuit. Claims against VA hospitals and other federally run hospitals can often be complex due to the fact that some doctors and employees, as independent contractors, may be individually liable under state laws, while the hospital and other employees are liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act. This requires a plaintiff to provide notice pursuant to state laws, as well as submit a FTCA complaint form.

When Should You Sue for Medical Malpractice?

Deciding to file a lawsuit for medical malpractice is a difficult decision. Medical injury cases can be rather complex and require a significant amount of money just to get started, let alone to take a case through trial. If you believe you have a medical malpractice case, seeking a consultation with an experienced injury or medical malpractice attorney can prove helpful.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/05/when-should-veterans-sue-the-va-for-malpractice.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, May 15, 2017

$23.1M Malpractice Verdict for Brain Damage Birth Injury

This week, in a Chicago courtroom, a judge handed down a massive, record setting, $23.1 million malpractice verdict against a neonatologist. The verdict, according to the plaintiff's attorney, is believe to be the largest birth injury verdict handed down by a judge (as compared to a jury verdict).

The verdict was awarded to the parents of a five year old girl that will suffer from a lifetime of health issues as a result of the medical malpractice. Although the hospital was not found to be negligent, it will be footing the bill for $21 million, while the doctor, who was found negligent, pays the remaining $2 million himself.

Details of the Case

The lawsuit, which was filed in 2014, alleged that the young girl's brain damage was the result of the neonatologist's tardiness, and a failure to timely provide a blood transfusion. Now, the young girl suffers from epilepsy and cerebral palsy, among other health problems as well.

The infant doctor asserted that he accidentally left both his pager and cell phone behind at work when he left that day. During the mother's delivery, complications arose, which necessitated a c-section delivery. According to one source, when born, the infant showed no signs of life, required resuscitation and a blood transfusion. What's worse is that the neonatologist on-call was not present. This led to delays in the transfusion, which led to the brain damage, and other health issues.

Stipulating to Avoid Appeal

One of the more fascinating aspects of this case was a stipulation the parties entered into before the judge reached her verdict. Generally, during a lawsuit, parties may make agreements affecting the case called stipulations. Oftentimes, stipulations will require judicial approval, however, sometimes they do not. They can cover a wide range from topics ranging from when documents will be exchanged to agreements dismissing a party from a case.

In this case, the parties agreed that neither side would file an appeal based on the judge's ruling. This means that the judge's ruling becomes a final ruling immediately and the defendants cannot object to the amount awarded, nor the decree finding the doctor liable.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/05/231m-malpractice-verdict-for-brain-damage-birth-injury.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, May 12, 2017

Driveway Accidents: Who's Liable When Kids Get Injured?

We tend not to think of driveways as unsafe spaces. After all, our cars are generally already parked at home, or pulling in or backing out slowly (hopefully), so our driveways rarely feel like danger zones.

But recent studies have shown that driveway accidents are sadly all-too-common, often targeting younger children and can be fatal. And in a tragic twist, the vast majority of children are injured with their parent or a close relative behind the wheel. So what do these accidents look like? And who might be liable for children's injuries sustained in driveway accidents?

Driveway Dangers for Children

Driveway accidents involving injuries to children often take one of two forms, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information:

  1. Injuries resulting from a vehicle driven by an adult driver striking a child, like backovers; and
  2. Injuries resulting from a child shifting an idle vehicle out of or into gear.

An NCBI study found that younger children are more severely injured in driveway accidents, and that most accidents involve a truck or sport-utility vehicle going in reverse.

Other research has shown that at least fifty American children are backed over by vehicles every week, and that predominant age of those victims is less than 24 months old.

Driveway Liability

While someone involved in a driveway accident might be opening themselves up for a lawsuit, the person behind the wheel might not be the only person responsible, and he or she might not just be facing a personal injury lawsuit.

Drivers are generally held liable for backover accidents, but the automobile owner or the home owner can also be found liable. If a vehicle is equipped with a backup technology like a camera or sensors, and that technology failed to detect the child, the auto maker or component manufacturer could face a product liability suit, and homeowners that fail to address dangerous conditions could be looking at a premises liability lawsuit.

And given the circumstances of the case, a driver or other party involved in a driveway accident might be criminally liable as well. Criminal charges for reckless endangerment, vehicular assault, and, god forbid, involuntary manslaughter could follow a driveway accident.

If a loved one has been injured in a driveway accident, or you're worried about litigation stemming from a driveway accident on your property, contact an experienced personal injury attorney near you.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/05/driveway-accidents-whos-liable-when-kids-get-injured.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)