Two-Month Fire at Texas Wood Pellet Plant Leads to Lawsuits

For more than two months, a smoldering fire in wood pellet silos engulfed the South Texas town of Port Arthur. According to a new lawsuit filed by residents of a nearby neighborhood, the conditions during those two months were dire: "The smoke filled plaintiffs' homes. The smoke saturated not only the homes, but also their cars, clothing and other personal belongings. Plaintiffs could not sleep due to smoke and its smell entering their bedrooms."

The suit claims German Pellets Texas was negligent in both preventing and putting out the fire at its plant, and that smoke from the fire has caused serious health problems for residents.

Problematic Pellet Plant

Wood pellets are biofuels, made up of industrial wood waste from logging like bark, wood chips, and sawdust, and can be burned as fuel in commercial or residential heating. As such, the pellets create an implicit fire risk. According to the lawsuit, the German Pellets facility in Port Arthur, while only being open a few years, was the focus of repeated investigations, warnings, and fines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality based on hazardous working conditions and air quality issues in and around the facility.

Additionally, a former maintenance employee claims the company's safety practices were questionable, that he was fired after filing an OSHA complaint, and that the silo fires were "bound to happen." And the family of another employee is suing after he was killed removing pellets from one of the silos just last week.

Fire Liability

Beyond the company's checkered safety record leading up to the fire, the residents' lawsuit claims the firm hired to put out the smoldering silo fires "prioritized protecting German Pellets' property over preventing harm to adjacent neighborhoods," allowing the fire to burn much longer than it should have. And that time mattered to neighbors, who have suffered from severe breathing problems, according to the suit, including asthma, sinus infections, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, causing some to be hospitalized.

The suit, filed by more than thirty Jefferson County, Texas residents is seeking over $1 million in damages for negligence, gross negligence, nuisance, and trespass.

Related Resources:

• Find Premises Liability Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Refinery Fire at Washington Tesoro Plant Kills 4 (FindLaw's Injured)
• Utah Refinery Explosion Ignites Safety Questions (FindLaw's Injured)
• Can You Get Fired for Filing a Worker's Compensation Claim? (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/10/two-month-fire-at-texas-wood-pellet-plant-leads-to-lawsuits.html

Off-Label Drug Use and the First Amendment

When we go to doctors for treatment and medication, we want to believe the medications are safe. And when we hear the phrase "FDA-approved," we generally believe the drug or medication has undergone extensive testing and that the FDA wouldn't approve a drug -- and a doctor wouldn't prescribe it -- if it weren't safe.

But what a doctor will prescribe medication for and what the FDA has tested a drug for may not always match up. Here's what you need to know about off-label drug prescription and use.

Off-Label on the Wrong Side of the Law

When a drug is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, it is generally for a specific purpose. But drug manufacturers will sometimes push doctors to prescribe the drug for other purposes, to increase sales. For instance, the FDA approved the use of a drug called Zofran to help cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy battle their nausea. But drug maker GlaxoSmithKline has been accused of marketing Zofran to pregnant women as an aid for morning sickness, without FDA approval. Zofran was never tested or approved for this purpose in human patients, and it turns out that it can cause birth defects.

The FDA calls this kind of prescription and use of a drug "off-label" drug use. And while healthcare providers are permitted to prescribe a drug for an unapproved use (in situations where there might not be an approved drug to treat a disease or medical condition or if a patient has tried all approved treatments without seeing any benefits), drug companies have been prohibited from promoting off-label uses of a drug to healthcare providers. In fact, GSK pleaded guilty to off-label promotion of Zofran and other drugs in 2012 and agreed to pay $3 billion in fines. But those days may be changing.

Is Promotional Speech Free Speech?

In a recent case, a sales rep for a pharmaceutical company had his conviction for off-label promotion overturned, after a court found that "the government prosecuted Caronia for mere off-label promotion" that, unlike what GSK was charged with, was not proven to be false or misleading. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals determined that federal law does not prohibit "the truthful off-label promotion of FDA-approved prescription drugs," so as long as drug companies do not lie to or mislead healthcare providers, such promotion is protected commercial speech under the First Amendment.

This may mean doctors will be prescribing more drugs for off-label purposes, and it may be up to patients to determine whether the benefits of off-label drug use outweigh the risks.

If you've been injured by a drug that was prescribed for an unapproved use, contact an experienced injury attorney in your area.

Related Resources:

• Find Products Liability Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Lawsuits: Morning Sickness Drug Zofran Causes Birth Defects (FindLaw's Injured)
• Risperdal Side Effects Prompt a New Wave of Lawsuits (FindLaw's Injured)
• The Pill for Acne: 2 NC Teens Die from Yasmin ,Yaz (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/10/off-label-drug-use-and-the-first-amendment.html

Scary, but Safe: Top 3 Tips to Avoid Halloween Injuries

The things that make Halloween fun are the same things that make it frightening: out at night, among scary costumes and spooky decorations. We certainly want to be a little scared on Halloween, and it can be a fine line between scary and safe.

So here are three ways to keep the frightening fun this Halloween, keep the scary stuff safe, and avoid injuries that can ruin a good All Hallows' Eve.

1. 5 Most Dangerous Halloween Costumes

The first step to safety is picking the right costume, or, at least not picking the wrong one. If you were asking me, a giant foam Chiquita banana costume is clearly the most dangerous, but the experts put together a more comprehensive list. Hint: avoid "invisibility suits" that also make you invisible to cars and leave the capes at home.

2. 3 Most Common Ways to Get Injured on Halloween

Avoid the dangerous costumes, and avoid these dangerous situations as well. With so many kids and parents on the streets, everyone, especially drivers, needs to be extra cautious on the roads. And while the prop may make the costume, make sure those wielding a sword, cane, stick, or toy gun are careful. Finally, you might to keep the costumes clear of open flames like candles and jack o' lanterns -- they're often more flammable than you think.

3. Top 10 Ways to Prevent Trick-or-Treat Injuries

Kids want to go off on their own, but need adult supervision. Darkened houses are spookier, but a trip and fall accident waiting to happen. And the scariest decorations aren't always the safest. It can be a hard balance having fun trick or treating on Halloween and having a safe night. And those staying in and hosting trick or treaters often need to be just as careful.

Related Resources:

• Find Personal Injury Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Haunted House Injury Lawsuit Settles for $125K (FindLaw's Injured)
• Freaky Halloween Storm Blamed for 11 Deaths (FindLaw's Injured)
• Candy Safety Tips for Trick-or-Treating (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/10/scary-but-safe-top-3-tips-to-avoid-halloween-injuries.html

Falsely Accused, Wrongly Jailed Mississippi Woman Can Sue County

On April 26, 2012, Jessica Jauch was pulled over in Choctaw County, Mississippi and arrested on an outstanding felony warrant for selling a controlled substance. For the next 96 days she sat in jail, without access to an attorney or a judge.

The charges underlying that warrant turned out to be false, so Jauch filed a civil rights lawsuit against Choctaw County and Sheriff Cloyd Halford. While a lower court dismissed her claims based on the grand jury's indictment, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the suit, ruling that Jauch had been denied "basic procedural due process" by the county and Sheriff Halford in being held so long.

Incontrovertible Innocence

Jauch's indictment was based on video surveillance that allegedly showed her selling Xanax to an undercover police informant. When her attorney finally got a copy of the video, it showed Jauch borrowing $40 from the informant, a friend, and the assistant district attorney decided to dismiss the drug charge.

Jauch's lawsuit involves the 96 days she was detained in the meantime, all without access to an attorney or a hearing before a judge. When Jauch asked jail officials about a bail and probable cause hearing, she was told she had to wait because Mississippi district judges often go from county to county throughout the year to hear cases, and the circuit court in Choctaw County was not in session when Jauch was arrested. And it wouldn't be for another three months.

Postponed Procedural Rights

"A procedure calling for extended pre-trial detention without any sort of hearing is alien to our law," Circuit Judge Thomas Reavley wrote, allowing Jauch's lawsuit to proceed. "Heaping these consequences on an accused and blithely waiting months before affording the defendant access to the justice system is patently unfair in a society where guilt is not presumed," Reavley added, asserting indefinite pre-trial detention without an arraignment or court appearance offended "fundamental principles of justice."

Jauch's lawsuit can now proceed to a jury.

Related Resources:

• Find Civil Rights Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• DWI Suspect 'Forgotten' in Jail for 2 Years Gets $22M (FindLaw's Injured)
• Wrongful Imprisonment: 2 Potential Ways to Sue (FindLaw's Injured)
• Suing a Private Prison for Injury or Abuse (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/10/falsely-accused-wrongly-jailed-mississippi-woman-can-sue-county.html

Lawsuit: Downed Power Lines Caused California Fires

To date, investigators have yet to determine the cause of a series of fires that destroyed over 5,000 structures and killed over 40 people in northern California's wine country. But one Santa Rosa couple thinks they know the culprit: Pacific Gas & Electric Company.

Wayne and Jennifer Harvell are suing PG&E, claiming the company failed to properly maintain the areas around some of its power lines, allowing vegetation to come into contact with electrical equipment and sparking fires that the state insurance commissioner estimates caused over $1 billion in damage.

Fire Danger

PG&E, according to the lawsuit, was "aware that fire danger was at an extraordinarily high level, particularly given the increased vegetation arising from the 2017 winter rains." That increased vegetation turned to tinder during subsequent drought-like conditions, and PG&E was allegedly "negligent in that they failed to properly repair, and inspect the subject lines, equipment and adjacent vegetation and negligently failed to properly trim, prune, remove, and/or otherwise maintain vegetation near the electrical equipment so as to secure safety to the public in general."

The Sacramento Bee reported at least ten 911 calls in Sonoma County claiming downed PG&E transformers and power lines "sparking and arcing" in the early hours of the fires. The Harvells' lawsuit claims the same high winds that contributed to the rapid devastation from the fires caused "power lines and/or other electrical equipment [to come into] contact with vegetation and caused the Wine Country Fires, which burned in excess of 220,000 acres, including property owned or occupied by these plaintiffs.

Fire Damage

Although the Harvells are just two of thousands of victims of the fires, they did not file their complaint as a class action, and are seeking damages for the replacement or repair of their home, lost wages, and past and future medical expenses along with legal fees. PG&E, which reportedly carries some $800 million in liability insurance for potential losses, told Courthouse News it was "focused on supporting firefighting efforts to contain the fires and protect life and property."

"Once it is safe to do so, restoring power and gas service safely and as quickly as possible will be our priority," PG&E spokeswoman Angela Lombardi wrote. "We aren't going to speculate about any of the causes of the fires and will cooperate with the reviews by any relevant regulator or agency."

Related Resources:

• Find Personal Injury Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Santa Rosa Couple Claims PG&E Negligence Led to Wildfire (The Mercury News)
• When to Sue for Loss or Damages From Wildfire (FindLaw's Injured)
• Top Insurance Tips After Fire Damage (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/10/lawsuit-downed-power-lines-caused-california-fires.html

$72M Verdict Against Johnson and Johnson Overturned on Appeal

While jury after jury has been awarding plaintiffs hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson for the cancer-causing risks in their talc and baby powder products, the company's attorneys have consistently defended "the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder" and asserted they believe the verdicts will be overturned on appeal. This week, J&J got one of those verdicts reversed, but not on the basis of the safety of its products.

The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District overturned a $72 million verdict in favor of the family of an Alabama woman who died from ovarian cancer, saying the case should never have been tried in St. Louis.

St. Louis and the Supreme Court

Jacqueline Fox's family was awarded $72 million in February 2016, after her death from ovarian cancer was linked to use of the company's talc-based products. Fox did not reside in Missouri, but hers was one of dozens that were joined with in-state residents to expedite litigation, although cases resulting in a verdict have all been tried individually.

Over a year later, in June 2017, the Supreme Court frowned on such out-of-state plaintiffs, ruling that courts may only exercise jurisdiction over a claim if there is an "affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State." This means that state courts may only hear claims by non-residents if they were injured in that particular state or the defendant company is based in that state.

Retroactive Ruling

Johnson & Johnson relied on that ruling to appeal Fox's verdict, a three-judge Missouri appellate panel agreed. While not addressing the underlying merits of the Fox family's claims, Judge Lisa Van Amburg applied the Supreme Court's determination: "The fact that resident plaintiffs sustained similar injuries does not support specific jurisdiction as to non-resident claims." Because Fox should've never been in court in St. Louis in the first place, trial court's judgment was reversed and vacated.

Ted Meadows, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, released a statement saying the ruling "represents a denial of justice for the Fox family," adding the family was considering an appeal.

Related Resources:

• Find Personal Injury Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Johnson & Johnson Wins Reversal of $72 Million Verdict Over Talc Cancer Risks (Reuters)
• Talcum Powder May Increase Ovarian Cancer Risk in African American Women (FindLaw's Injured)
• Can Using Talcum and Baby Powder Really Cause Cancer? (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/10/72m-verdict-against-johnson-and-johnson-overturned-on-appeal.html

Top 7 Car Accident Lawsuit Questions

When most of us think of negligence and injury, the classic example is the simple car accident. We all owe a duty to drive carefully, someone breached that duty by driving irresponsibly or ignoring a traffic sign or signal, this causes a crash, and someone else is injured. Perhaps negligence and car accidents are so closely linked because so many lawsuits follow accidents.

But as seemingly familiar as so many people are with accidents and the personal injury lawsuits that follow, we still have questions. Here are seven of the most common car accident lawsuit questions, and where to find the answers:

1. Car Accident Investigations: How Do They Work?

Investigations are the first thing that happens after a car accident, whether you realize it or not. And gathering as much information as soon as possible after the accident can have a big impact on any lawsuits that may follow.

2. How Long After a Car Accident Can You Sue?

After an accident, you may not even be sure you need to sue, much less if you want to or can. But there are statutes of limitation that can bar lawsuits if you wait too long.

3. Who Do I Sue in an Accident With Multiple Cars?

Liability in a simple fender bender can be pretty easy to figure out. But who's liable in a multi-car pileup?

4. Car Accident Claims: What Are General Damages?

Just as there are limits on when and whom you can sue after a car accident, there are limits to what compensation you might be entitled to, if you win your lawsuit.

5. How Much Can a Passenger Recover After a Car Accident?

Far too often, passengers suffer the worst injuries in car crashes. But are they entitled to the same amount in damages? What if they were in the car that was at fault?

6. Car Accident Death: What Are Your Rights?

Basic negligence lawsuits can easily become wrongful death lawsuits when the destructive power of automobiles comes into play. Find out the difference here, and how that could affect your rights.

7. Car Accident Claims: Do I Need My Own Lawyer?

The vast majority of car accident claims are handled by insurance companies. But insurers are notoriously stingy, and those settlements don't always cover the full cost of injuries or damage. And some insurance companies will look for reimbursement from liable parties. Make sure you're protected.

Related Resources:

• Find Car Accident Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Legal Directory)
• Top 7 Car Accident Liability Questions (FindLaw's Injured)
• Proving You're Not at Fault in a Car Accident (FindLaw's Injured)
• After a Car Accident: What You Need for an Insurance Claim (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/10/top-7-car-accident-lawsuit-questions.html

Lawsuit: 'Violence in Charlottesville Was No Accident'

A new lawsuit against neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and white nationalist groups in the wake of violence in Charlottesville, Virginia claims the antagonists brought "semi-automatic weapons, pistols, mace, rods, armor, shields, and torches" to the city, with "the purpose of inciting violence and instilling fear within the community of Charlottesville and beyond."

The suit, filed on behalf of 11 people injured during the August clashes, charge 26 individuals and groups with negligence, conspiracy, harassment, infliction of emotional distress, and assault along with violations of the Ku Klux Klan Act and the Civil Rights Act. Here's a look:

Charlottesville Conspiracy

"In countless posts on their own websites and on social media," the lawsuit claims, "Defendants and their co-conspirators promised that there would be violence in Charlottesville, and violence there was." That violence led to multiple claims of threats, harassment, intimidation, and physical assault from counter-protestors, leading to severe physical injuries, extreme emotional distress, and even one plaintiff suffering a trauma-induced stroke.

According to the lawsuit, these injuries were not purely accidental, nor were they the result of random acts of violence from a few bad apples. "The violence, suffering, and emotional distress that occurred in Charlottesville was a direct, intended, and foreseeable result of Defendants' unlawful conspiracy," plaintiffs claim. "It was all according to plan -- a plan they spent months working out and whose implementation they actively oversaw as events unfolded on the ground."

Acts of Violence

That alleged plan gave rise to claims that the defendants violated the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. The Act was intended to provide federal criminal and civil remedies for victims of conspiracies like those practiced by the KKK against African Americans and others. While the Supreme Court invalidated the criminal provisions of the Act in 1883, the civil remedies remain, allowing victims to sue if two or more persons "conspire or go in disguise on the highway or the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving ... any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the law."

Because they knew of the "anti-civil rights conspiracy," were in a position or had power to stop it, and either failed or refused to take any steps to stop the conspiracy, the suit also alleges violations of the Civil Rights Acts of 1866. The lawsuit includes a comprehensive list of the defendants, their roles, and their communications leading to, during, and after the Charlottesville violence, and is seeking damages for all plaintiffs as well as injunctions "enjoining Defendants from future violations of rights guaranteed by state and federal law."

Related Resources:

• Find Personal Injury Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Lawsuit Filed Against Charlottesville Protesters (CNN)
• Man Sues Seattle Over May Day Protest Injuries (FindLaw's Injured)
• Are Drivers Liable for Hitting Protesters? (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/10/lawsuit-violence-in-charlottesville-was-no-accident.html

Civil Lawsuits for Sexual Assault, Harassment: Top 10 Cases and Questions

If there is anything positive to be taken from the horrific Harvey Weinstein revelations, it's that more victims of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment -- both male and female -- are coming forward with their stories. And as more stories are told, more lawsuits will follow.

And that will leave many people wondering whether you can sue for sexual assault or harassment, and who, other than the perpetrator, might be responsible. Here's a look:

1. Can a Victim of Rape Sue for Money Damages?

Generally speaking, rapes and sexual assaults are prosecuted (hopefully) in criminal courts. And sexual harassment claims are handled by workplace policies. But civil lawsuits based on rape and assault claims are still available.

2. Can You Sue a Doctor for Molestation or Sexual Assault?

Medical professionals and personnel, as well as the hospitals, clinics, and other care providers that employ them, can be found liable for sexual assault.

3. Ex-Tinder VP Sues Over Sexual Harassment

Sadly, sexual harassment in the workplace is not confined to a single industry, and is as common in new-school tech startups as in old-school offices.

4. Woman Sues Airbnb After Host Sexually Assaults Her

And tech companies and app makers have been targeted by customers who've been the victims of assault and rape.

5. Uber Driver Sued for Sexually Assaulting Teen

And lawsuits can target both the app maker and the perpetrator.

6. When Can You Sue a Church Leader for Sexual Assault?

As with workplace harassment and assault, there has been a rise in reporting crimes by church leaders and the clergy.

7. NJ State Trooper Alleges Sexual Assault & Harassment

Even the toughest among us -- our police and first responders -- can be victims of harassment and assault. And accusations against public employees may be more complicated than private individuals.

8. Pitt. Prison Guards Sexually Abused Inmates?

Given the stereotype of the average convict, you may not think of prison inmates as being a vulnerable population. But confinement and the imbalance of power behind bars can leave many inmates susceptible to abuse.

9. Stanford Sued for 'Systematic Negligence' for Failing to Stop Sexual Predator

With the spike in on-campus sexual assault reports, schools are put in the position of investigator, judge, jury, and protector -- one that we're finding they are ill-equipped to handle.

10. Man Convicted of Sexual Assault Sued Victim for Calling Him a Rapist on Facebook

And with the increase in accusations of sexual assault, there is bound to be a backlash of lawsuits claiming defamation based on those allegations.

Related Resources:

• Find Personal Injury Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Lawsuit: Mississippi Hospital Liable for Sex Assault by Paramedic (FindLaw's Injured)
• Georgia Hospital Settles Rape Lawsuit Involving Nurse's Aide (FindLaw's Injured)
• Calif. Clinic Sued Over Alleged Sexual Assaults by Nurse (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/10/civil-lawsuits-for-sexual-assault-harassment-top-10-cases-and-questions.html

Can You Sue Airbnb If You're Filmed Without Permission?

The fact that an Indiana couple found hidden cameras in their Florida Airbnb rental, and that local law enforcement believes dozens of renters at the same location may have been illegally captured on video going back years, is distressing. But it's not new. Airbnb was sued two years ago after a German woman discovered a hidden camera in her California rental.

Clearly the owners of the rentals are violating criminal statutes and could be civilly liable for the secret surveillance, but what about Airbnb itself? Can the company be sued if guests are filmed without their permission?

Banned Cams

To be fair, Airbnb has a pretty clear electronic surveillance policy, banning any undisclosed surveillance devices and all surveillance devices from private areas like bedrooms and bathrooms, even if they've been disclosed:

If you're a host and you have any type of surveillance device in or around a listing, even if it's not turned on or hooked up, we require that you let guests know by including this information clearly in your listing description and photographs. If a host discloses the device after booking, Airbnb will allow the guest to cancel the reservation and receive a refund. Host cancellation penalties may apply.

But do Airbnb's rules absolve the company from legal liability if a host fails to abide by them?

Lodging Liability

While much of the responsibility will fall on hosts (and their insurance policies, hopefully) for injury accidents, it may be a different matter with criminal activity. Airbnb has been accused of "Superhost" badges and green check marks next to renters' names, along with the word "Verified," all without performing background checks on hosts or disclosing to guests that the company does not do background checks. Additionally, a Marriott hotel was found liable (to the tune of almost $27 million) in the Erin Andrews peephole video case for not preventing a stalker to surreptitiously record her in her hotel room.

So while it looks like Wayne Natt, who could be facing up to 30 criminal charges of video voyeurism, will be held accountable in this case, Airbnb may also be on the hook civilly for hosts' criminal activity.

Related Resources:

• Find Personal Injury Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Are 'Nanny Cams' Legal? (FindLaw Blotter)
• Woman Sues Airbnb After Host Sexually Assaults Her (FindLaw's Injured)
• Is a Surveillance Camera in the Guest Room an Invasion of Privacy? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/10/can-you-sue-airbnb-if-youre-filmed-without-permission.html

Could Mandalay Bay Be Liable in Las Vegas Mass Shooting?

Lawsuits seem to follow any tragedy. And when the person most directly responsible for the tragedy is no longer alive -- as is the case in so many mass shootings -- victims look for someone to hold legally accountable. Schools and movie theaters have been targeted with lawsuits after shootings before, so it's only natural to wonder whether the hotel from which Stephen Paddock killed 58 and wounded almost 500 more, the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, could be liable for the mass shooting in Las Vegas.

Here's a look at the hotel's potential legal liability following the shooting.

Everyone Suing Everyone

According to attorney Adam Sack, the possibilities for legal action after the Las Vegas shooting are limitless. "I'm telling you right now, this is going to be -- once the drama dies down -- it's going to be lawsuits after lawsuits," Sack told Radar Online. "Everyone will sue everyone. The hotel will sue the city because there wasn't property development of the road, they can sue the one who designed the hotel -- you can dream up all kinds of lawsuits that prove this attack could've been prevented."

While we're not convinced quite so many lawsuits will fly, there are bound to be lawsuits claiming Mandalay Bay was negligent in either preventing the shooting or its response.

Negligence in Nevada

Negligence liability will generally rest on whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care, and, in this case, whether the Mandalay Bay had a duty to protect concertgoers from a mass murderer. While the hotel certainly has a duty to protect its guests and anyone else on its property from reasonably foreseeable hazards and dangers, what would be up for debate is whether it owed the same duty to the general public and whether a guest carrying an arsenal of weapons to his room and opening fire on a crowd below was reasonably foreseeable.

If plaintiffs can establish Mandalay Bay did have that duty, the question would be whether it breached that duty. Over three days prior to the shooting, Paddock amassed 23 guns, including AR-15-style and AK-47-style rifles, in his hotel room, allegedly carrying them up in 10 suitcases. A court could look at whether hotel staff should've spotted him making so many trips, should've seen the surveillance cameras Paddock brought and installed in the hallway, or found it suspicious he had a "Do Not Disturb" sign on his room for three straight days.

And jurors could wonder whether the hotel should've installed bulletproof glass or responded to the shooting more quickly. By all accounts, Paddock only fired on the crowd for about ten minutes until a hotel security guard arrived; Paddock fired 200 rounds through his door, wounding the guard, and police breached the door and found Paddock dead an hour later after clearing other guests of the floor.

Finally, a successful suit against Mandalay Bay would need to demonstrate that it was the hotel's breach, and not some intervening act, that caused the victims' injuries or death. This can be especially difficult in mass shootings where courts and juries are more likely to find the shooter responsible.

Concert Care

Lawsuits are also expected against the concert promoters and organizers. "They put in a fence around the area so there was only one way in and one way out -- people were basically trapped in," according to Sack. "They could easily sue the promoter; it was dangerous; they didn't have an emergency exit." It will be far easier for the concertgoers to establish that organizers owed them a duty of care. Instead, the main issue will be whether the mass shooting was foreseeable and whether more exits could've saved more lives.

Las Vegas Litigation

There's no doubt lawsuits will be filed in the wake of the shooting, against the hotel and the concert organizers. Whether those suits will be successful remains to be seen.

Related Resources:

• Find Personal Injury Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Attorney Plans to Sue MGM, Freeze Shooter's Assets (KVVU Las Vegas)
• Who's Liable for Gunshot Injuries? When Can You Sue? (FindLaw's Injured)
• After a Tragic Shooting, Wrongful Death Suits Follow (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/10/could-mandalay-bay-be-liable-in-las-vegas-mass-shooting.html

Lawsuit: Mississippi Hospital Liable for Sex Assault by Paramedic

Hospitals, and the medical professionals they employ, are supposed to be the places and people we can turn to for care, cure, and comfort. Sadly, in doesn't always work out that way. Hospitals can make mistakes and their employees can abuse their power to take advantage of vulnerable patients.

That's what happened according to one woman's lawsuit against Baptist Memorial Hospital in Oxford, Mississippi. A Jane Doe claims a paramedic sexually assaulted her in the back of an ambulance while she was suffering from a drug overdose and being transported to the hospital.

Prison-Bound Paramedic

The EMT accused, Bryan Englebert, is now serving at least five years in prison after pleading guilty to the incident. Doe's lawsuit, however, claims the hospital failed to properly train and supervise its employees, and that patient safety policies were inadequate to protect her during the ambulance transport.

Following her arrival at BMH after a drug overdose, Doe was placed on an involuntary 72-hour psychiatric hold due to suicidal thoughts. The hospital then decided to transport her to another behavioral health care facility operated by BMH some 100 miles away. During that trip, according to the lawsuit, Englebert sexually battered and assaulted Doe while the driver, Matthew Austin, videotaped a portion of the assault

Duty-Bound Hospital

Doe is suing MH for negligence, claiming the hospital breached the duty of care it owed to her by failing to have proper procedures in place to protect her during transport, failing to follow the procedures it did have in place, failing to properly staff and monitor ambulance personnel, and failing to protect her during transport. Doe claims she was a "vulnerable adult" with a documented history of mental health issues and was incapacitated during transport, meaning she and the hospital had a special relationship under which the hospital had a duty to protect her.

She is also suing for negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging significant physical injury, emotional distress, and mental trauma and suffering.

Related Resources:

• Find Personal Injury Lawyers in Your Area (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• Can You Sue a Doctor for Molestation or Sexual Assault? (FindLaw's Injured)
• When Can I Sue an EMT or Paramedic? (FindLaw's Injured)
• Can I Sue for Hospital Negligence? (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/10/lawsuit-mississippi-hospital-liable-for-sex-assault-by-paramedic.html

Woman Sues Florida Dunkin' Donuts, Claims Brawl With Employee Caused Miscarriage

Aschea Austin, according to her civil complaint, visited the drive-thru South State Road Dunkin' Donuts in Margate, Florida in December 2015, four months pregnant at the time. Unhappy with her order, Austin admittedly "became a participant in a verbal, then physical altercation with Xiomara Henry," a Dunkin' employee.

One month later, Austin went to the hospital complaining of a fever, nausea, and vomiting. She later miscarried in the hospital, and is now suing the doughnut chain, claiming it and the employee are liable for the miscarriage.

But the Coffee, Tho

According to the lawsuit, this was no mere war of words. Surveillance cameras showed Austin and Henry began arguing at the drive-thru window, but the argument escalated: Henry allegedly tossed liquid filled cups at Austin and her car through the drive -thru window. "The altercation then carried on inside the business, then continued on outside in the parking lot area." Austin claims Henry "punched her in the face and kicked her in the belly at least five times, even though she pleaded with Henry to stop and told her she was pregnant.

One month later, she checked into that hospital, and had a miscarriage later that day.

Great Pain of Mind and Body

Of course the lawsuit names Henry as a defendant, but Austin is also suing Dunkin' Donuts and an unnamed manager, who not only "failed to properly supervise" Henry, but "actively participated in the escalation of the situation." Austin is suing Dunkin' Donuts for negligence, negligent hiring and retention, negligent supervision, vicarious liability, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and is also charging assault and battery against Henry.

Austin "has suffered and will continue to suffer great pain of mind and body," her lawsuit claims, "severe and permanent emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, humiliation, and psychological injuries." She is asking for at least $5,000,000 in damages.

Related Resources:

• Find Personal Injury Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory)
• When Can You Sue for Pain and Suffering? (FindLaw's Injured)
• Pregnant Woman Tased, Sues for Miscarriage (FindLaw's Injured)
• FDA Warns Pregnant Women of Miscarriage Risk Linked to Diflucan Yeast Infection Med (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/10/woman-sues-florida-dunkin-donuts-claims-brawl-with-employee-caused-miscarriage.html