Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Texas Bar Sued for Overserving Man Who Shot, Killed 8 People

On September 10, 2017, Spencer Hight walked into his estranged wife's home and opened fire on the football watch party she was hosting with an AR-15, killing her and seven of her guests. Before the shooting, Hight had been drinking at a bar down the street and was allegedly visibly intoxicated while he was being served.

Now parents of three of Hight's victims are suing the Local Public House in Plano, Texas, as well as the bartender who served him, claiming the bar was grossly negligent in failing to monitor Hight's alcohol consumption and continuing to serve Hight alcohol, and also that his intoxication was "a proximate cause" of the shooting.

The Bar Before the Bloodshed

Hight's behavior in the bar before he left was allegedly so alarming -- including spinning a knife on the bar and placing a gun on his table -- that bar employees called 911, but not in time to prevent the shooting. Dallas's WFAA has the details of the evening, according to the lawsuit:

The suit alleges Lindsey Megan Glass, a bartender at the Local Public House, knowingly over served a visibly intoxicated Hight before the fatal shooting spree. Glass allegedly continued to serve Hight alcohol despite seeing him walk with an "unsteady gait" and bump into patio furniture while "extremely intoxicated."
The suit then claims Glass texted another bartender, Timothy Brandt Banks, to tell him Hight was "drunk and being weird" and displayed a knife. Hight then allegedly displayed a gun and was later escorted out of the bar by Banks to his car, where the bartender asked him to leave his weapons before he reentered the business.

"Hight told Banks he was having problems with his estranged wife and had something to do 'tonight'," the lawsuit claims. "Banks told Hight he should do them when he is sober to which Hight responded that he 'couldn't do the things he needs to do tonight without being this intoxicated.'"

Ultimately, Banks was concerned "something bad was going to happen" and called the bar's owner, Jerry Owen, to ask whether he should call police, but Owen allegedly told him not to. Banks also asked whether he should tackle Hight as he watched him leave, and Owen once again said no.

Overserving Lawsuits

So-called "dram shop laws" can hold sellers of intoxicating liquors liable if a third party is injured as a result of a customer's intoxication. Texas's Dram Shop Act holds establishments liable for selling alcohol to obviously intoxicated persons if:

  1. at the time the provision occurred it was apparent to the provider that the individual being sold, served, or provided with an alcoholic beverage was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others; and
  2. the intoxication of the recipient of the alcoholic beverage was a proximate cause of the damages suffered.

Given Hight's behavior in the bar and statements about what he was going to do, the victims' parents appear to have a pretty good case against the bar. If you have more questions about bar liability in injury cases where someone was overserved, contact an experienced injury attorney.

Related Resources:



from Injured https://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/06/texas-bar-sued-for-overserving-man-who-shot-killed-8-people.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, June 11, 2018

When Should Parents Sue for Birth Asphyxia?

It sounds odd, but most of us parents love our kids so much, we've imagined all sorts of terrible and tragic ways they could get hurt. It's actually a sort of built-in function that allows us to anticipate danger and find ways to prevent it. Unfortunately, some danger and injuries are out of our hands.

One very early and potentially devastating injury a child can experience is birth asphyxia. However, there are a number of factors which can cause the condition, and not all of them are the result of someone's negligence. Therefore, it's not always clear when parents should sue for birth asphyxia.

What Is Birth Asphyxia?

Birth asphyxia occurs when the baby doesn't receive enough oxygen before, during, or right after birth. The extent of the damage depends on factors like how long the baby went without enough oxygen, and how quickly the appropriate treatment is administered.

There are a number of ways birth asphyxia can happen, such as problems with the umbilical cord or a defect in the baby's airway. But it can also be caused or significantly exacerbated by the negligence of medical professionals. This is when you might want to sue for birth asphyxia.

Who Can You Sue for Birth Asphyxia?

All hospitals and medical professionals have a duty to care for their patients in a competent, professional manner. To prove they failed in that duty you generally have to show that their conduct fell below a generally accepted standard of medical care, and that their failure caused harm to the baby.

Some examples of medical negligence include:

  • When staff fail to provide oxygen to the baby in a timely manner;
  • When a doctor prescribes unsafe medication during a patient's pregnancy (a pharmaceutical company may also be at fault for providing inadequate warnings in these situations);
  • Failure to perform a necessary cesarean section;
  • When a hospital allows a doctor or other staff member to provide care despite knowledge of their incompetence.

While the exact details vary from case to case, the bottom line is that birth asphyxia can have long-lasting, difficult, and expensive effects on a child and family. If your child suffered an injury at birth or during pregnancy, consult an attorney who can assess the facts of your case and whether or not you're entitled to compensation.

Related Resources:



from Injured https://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/06/when-should-parents-sue-for-birth-asphyxia.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, June 5, 2018

California Won't Regulate Elon Musk's Flamethrower

Summer's almost here, and that means BBQs, pool parties, and camping. And as fun as all that is, how many times have you thought, "You know what this party needs? A flamethrower"? Well, you're in luck. Not only are flamethrowers already available, but a recent effort to regulate Elon Musk's flamethrower has failed. So, you're relatively free to light it up. What could possibly go wrong?

Wildfire Fear

After a year that saw the worst wildfires in the state's recorded history, a number of California lawmakers were understandably nervous about a flame-throwing citizenry. When Assemblyman Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) saw the news about Elon Musk's new product, Not a Flamethrower, he thought it was a joke. He said that in light of California's devastating wildfires, the product is "incredibly insensitive, dangerous, and most definitely not funny."

Current California law requires a $425 permit for flamethrowers that shoot farther than 10 feet. Other than that, there is little federal or state regulation when it comes to flamethrowers. Santiago's bill, in its original form, would have expanded the permitting requirements. However, even after it was reduced to mere requirements for warning labels, it still couldn't make its way into law. So, since Musk's flamethrowers are designed to stay within that 10-foot range, they'll remain lightly regulated.

Fire and Injury Liability

Despite the relative availability of recreational flamethrowers, pyros beware. There are some very real consequences for damage and injuries caused by fire follies, whether intentional or accidental. For example, a teen who unintentionally started the enormous Eagle Creek wildfire in Oregon last year was just hit with a $36 million restitution fine. Others have faced jail time and massive civil lawsuits for their fire accidents.

So, while a flamethrower may seem like a really effective way to kill spiders or wow your party guests, use extreme caution to avoid serious consequences. And if you've been injured by someone else's pyrotechnics, or you're worried about your own liability, consult with an attorney who can help protect your interests.

Related Resources:



from Injured https://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/06/california-wont-regulate-elon-musks-flamethrower.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)