Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Top 5 Tips for 'Revenge Porn' Cases

With such easy access to technology, more of our relationships are being recorded, giving more people access to our relationships, even the most private aspects of them. And sometimes, the people we trust the most cannot be trusted with those private details. Over the past five to ten years, cases of revenge porn -- where one partner or ex publicly posts sexually explicit images of another -- have skyrocketed, leaving victims, law enforcement, and the courts scrambling for legal solutions.

Here's what's being done so far, and what you can do if you're the victim of revenge porn.

1. Facebook Revenge Porn and 'Sextortion' -- Too Many Cases to Handle

Sadly, social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are flooded with claims of revenge porn and sextortion (threatening to reveal sexually explicit material on the internet). A leaked document showed Facebook moderators had to look at almost 54,000 cases of revenge porn and sextortion on the site in a single month. That means the sites themselves may not be too helpful in having material removed.

2. 'Revenge Porn' Website Sued Over Privacy Violations

However, filing a civil suit against the website that published the material, and even the website's host, are allowed. Websites may be violating state right-to-privacy statutes, and lawsuits may be available under general invasion of privacy tort principles.

3. YouGotPosted 'Revenge Porn' Operators Must Pay $900K Judgment

And those lawsuits have been successful. One plaintiff was awarded almost one million dollars after the proprietors of one revenge porn site failed to answer claims that the knew she was a minor, used her photo without permission, and profited from advertising associated with her photo.

4. 'Revenge Porn' Law Now in Effect in California

California criminalized revenge porn in 2013, making it illegal for "any person who photographs or records by any means the image of the intimate body part or parts of another identifiable person, under circumstances where the parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private, [to] subsequently [distribute] the image taken, with the intent to cause serious emotional distress, and the depicted person suffers serious emotional distress."

5. Nevada and FTC Sue Revenge-Porn Website

Other states, and even the Federal Trade Commission have targeted revenge porn sites accused of charging countless individuals hundreds or thousands of dollars to take down pictures and information that should never have been posted in the first place.

If you've been the victim of revenge porn, contact an experienced attorney to discuss your options.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/10/top-5-tips-for-revenge-porn-cases.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, October 29, 2018

Lawsuits Against Cardiologists Have Increased: Here's Why

Medical malpractice suits are on the rise, and leading the pack is cardiology. According to a recent insurance study, between 2006 and 2015, the number of cardiology claims against medical malpractice insurance increased 91 percent, and total liability paid grew 142 percent. A host of issues are at play, most notably improper treatment and diagnostic errors, and to a lesser extent miscommunication, safety and monitoring, and equipment malfunction.

Improper Diagnosis and Treatment Leading the Way

Cardiologist admit that diagnostic errors aren't a rarity in their practice. Myocardial Infarction (MI) is on the rise, can be difficult to diagnosis, and is the leading cause of action in improper diagnosis lawsuits. Sometimes it doesn't show up on tests, and sometimes the symptoms mimic other conditions. If your doctor misdiagnosed you, or did not manage your expectations about MI treatment and risks, you may have a claim against your cardiologist.

In other cardiology cases, even with experienced cardiologists, complications arise. You may have a claim if the complication wasn't handled properly. How did your doctor act? Or maybe didn't act? If your doctor's reaction to the complication was not reasonable, you would have a viable malpractice claim.

Lastly, with regard to improper treatment, sometimes patient care while in the hospital recovering is improper. Check to see that the hospital took excellent record-keeping of all medications and top-notch care in the hand-off between shifts. Request a copy of your file, which should be incredibly detailed. 

Is Your Cardiologist Practicing Defensive Medicine?

Defensive medicine is the term coined for diagnosing and treating patients with an eye towards avoiding malpractice suits rather than doing what is best for the patient. In fact, the medical community speaks openly about its concern with the rising levels of medical liability, and how best to mitigate risk. But mitigating risk is not a physicians job. In fact, it may fly in the face of a physician's duty, which is to give a reasonable level of care to the patient. If defensive medicine falls short of optimal care, as it often does, there may be a claim for medical malpractice.

If you believe your cardiologist, or any doctor for that matter, has committed malpractice, call a medical malpractice attorney today. Patients have been trained by doctors to expect some mistakes and shortcomings in their medical care, but you may be surprised to learn that in your case, that expectation is unreasonable, and actionable.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/10/lawsuits-against-cardiologists-have-increased-heres-why.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, October 26, 2018

Are Police Liable for Not Stopping a Murder When They're Warned About It?

Crime happens. The police can't be everywhere at once, and some criminal activity is either unpredictable or unavoidable.

But not all of it. When a woman claims she's being harassed by a sex offender, and officers determine his actions violate his probation, and he is being investigated for new and ongoing criminal activity, and both the woman and her mother have contacted law enforcement seeking help, that seems like a time when criminal activity is both predictable and avoidable. And yet, University of Utah student-athlete Lauren McCluskey is dead, murdered by a man who campus police and local officers knew or should have known was a danger. So, are those departments liable for her death?

Last Moments

"Rowland, like I said, was a manipulator," University Police Chief Dale Brophy said during a news conference after McCluskey's killing. "If his lips were moving, he was lying. I don't think he told the truth to anybody based on our investigation and based on everybody we've talked to." The 37-year-old Melvin Rowland certainly lied about his age to the 21-year-old McCluskey, as well as his sex offender status. When McCluskey discovered the lies upon their month-long relationship was built, she broke things off.

But Rowland didn't take that too well. He apparently had friends contact McCluskey, saying he was dead and it was all her fault. She reported the messages to University of Utah Police, as well as Rowland's social media posts to the contrary and her belief that his friends were trying to lure her out of her dorm room. (As it turns out, this social media activity violated his sex offender probation.) McCluskey again contacted university police to reports messages extorting $1,000 from her in exchange for a promise not to post explicit photos of her online.

According to a brutal timeline of the last weeks, days, and hours of McCluskey's life, campus police did not begin a formal investigation of sextortion charges against Rowland until a week after McCluskey made the allegations. Officers also didn't find her body in the campus parking lot where Rowland shot her to death until an hour and a half after her father reported her mother overheard her assault on the phone.

Campus police then sent out a secure-in-place alert for the school, warning that an active shooter was on campus, over an hour after Rowland had already left campus, having called a woman he met on a dating site for a ride, accompanying her to dinner, visiting the state capitol, and showering in her apartment. By the time campus police realized Rowland had left campus, Salt Lake City officers were only 60 minutes from following him into a church where he fatally shot himself.

Murder Liability

While it is easy to see campus and local police were little or no help to McCluskey in the final days of her life, finding them liable for her death may prove more difficult. As a general rule, police do not have a legal duty to investigate all suspected or even all reported crimes. Sadly, courts have recognized a "fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."

And while McCluskey's parents could file a wrongful death claim against either agency, claiming their negligence in investigating their daughter's claims or Rowland's ongoing criminal behavior caused Lauren's death, government officials (including police officers) are often granted qualified immunity from civil liability for actions taken while on duty unless they were on notice that their conduct violated established law.

Federal law can hold state, local, and campus officers liable if they subject any citizen to "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." But even these claims are generally based on the use of excessive force or denial of care while in custody -- not the failure to investigate or prosecute crimes, or detail specific individuals.

Tragically, it's hard to hold police agencies or officers accountable for injuries or deaths, even when it appears obvious that they failed to act when warned of a potential danger. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. Contact an experienced injury attorney for help.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/10/are-police-liable-for-not-stopping-a-murder-when-theyre-warned-about-it.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

USC Settles Claims Against School's Gynecologist for $215 Million

The University of Southern California (USC) has agreed to settle a federal class-action lawsuit for $215 million. The suit was brought by current and former students after one of USC's campus gynecologists, Dr. George Tyndall, was accused of sexual misconduct and inappropriate language. There could be as many as 17,000 members of this federal class-action; Tyndall practiced gynecology at USC for 27 years.

The settlement applies only to the federal lawsuits, and provides at least $2,500 to "all class members." However, interim President Wanda Austin said "Patients who are willing to provide further details about their experience could be eligible for additional compensation up to $250,000."

Legal Battles Just Beginning

Notwithstanding this class-action, Tyndall and USC still have many legal obstacles to face before this is over. Tyndall is being investigated by police, though charges have not been filed. Famed attorney Gloria Allred is representing numerous plaintiffs in state action cases. Earlier this month, attorney John Manly said that 93 former USC students have filed two new lawsuits alleging sexual misconduct. All totaled, there are more than 400 patient suits filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. This will likely be the first of many pay-outs USC will endure before this case is over.

Many Plaintiffs Have Issues With This Settlement

Many plaintiffs are not ready to close the door on this case just yet. Questions still remain as to why USC continued to let Tyndall practice at the university clinic after numerous complaints were received by the university as far back as the early 1990's. Others criticize how this settlement was used as a discovery roadblock, delaying the taking of sworn testimony and exchange of records, which may have revealed even more damaging evidence. It is believed that many plaintiffs will opt out of this settlement and pursue their own case; the settlement's $250,000 cap irritated many plaintiffs' attorneys. Mike Arias, who represents about 80 women in state court cases, said he had a number of "very prominent" clients who suffered damages far in excess of that amount, and are interested in forging their own case, outside of the settlement. As a frame of reference the Michigan State settlement reached over the Larry Nassar sexual assaults was for $500 million to be divided among 332 women; there is a basis for plaintiffs' attorneys to be irate.

If you or someone you love has been the victim of George Tyndall, or any doctor, contact a local sexual abuse lawyer today. The statute of limitations has been extended in many sexual assault cases. A legal adviser can tell you if you can still bring a claim, and best ways to proceed with your case.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/10/usc-settles-claims-against-schools-gynecologist-for-215-million.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, October 22, 2018

Class Action Lawsuit: E-Scooters Are a 'Public Nuisance'

Electric scooters are all the rage -- some people really like them, and the rest of us are mad as hell. Some e-scooter companies have been banned from cities like San Francisco and Santa Cruz after their products have littered sidewalks, caused injuries, and been driven drunk.

And a new class action lawsuit against two of the largest e-scooter companies, Bird and Live, showed "a wanton disregard for the safety of others" by "dumping" scooters on public streets without an appropriate warnings or training. The damage, according to the suit, is tantamount to
"aiding and abetting assault."

Gross Negligence

Three plaintiffs claim they were walking when they were struck by e-scooter riders, causing serious injuries. Their lawsuit -- which could include many more plaintiffs -- alleges the e-scooter companies knew their riders were injuring pedestrians and the companies committed "gross negligence" by failing to stop the collisions from occurring. "While acting under the guise of the commendable goals of furthering personal freedom and mobility and protecting the environment," the suit claims, "the Defendants, and each of them, are endangering the health, safety and welfare of riders, pedestrians and the general public."

"[S]cores (if not hundreds) of riders and pedestrians and members of the public have suffered, are continuing to suffer and will to continue to suffer egregious and avoidable injuries and damage to their person and property," according to the lawsuit.

Safety and Suffering

The suit also accuses the e-scooter fleets of containing defective electronics and mechanical parts, being poorly maintained, and being prone to dangerous mechanical failures. Along with compensatory damages, the plaintiffs are seeking "adequate warnings and/or instructions" to the e-scooter companies' apps and vehicles, if not an outright ban in California.

Both Lime and Bird asserted their products are safe. "[S]afety has always been at the very core of everything we do at Lime," according to a spokesperson, "as is our mission of reducing cars from city streets and making them safer and greener for pedestrians, bike and scooter riders alike." A statement from Bird claimed, "There is no evidence that riding an e-scooter presents a greater level of danger to riders than riding a bike."

But the "scores (if not hundreds) of riders and pedestrians and members of the public have suffered, are continuing to suffer and will to continue to suffer egregious and avoidable injuries and damage to their person and property," according to the class action suit, may beg to differ.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/10/class-action-lawsuit-e-scooters-are-a-public-nuisance.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Costco Shopper Hit by Falling Steel, Sues for Brain Damage

A Costco customer was hit by a steel rod while reaching for a package of paper towels, prompting a host of medical interventions. The 62-year-old North Salem, New York resident suffered irreversible brain damage at a Brookfield Costco in 2016, and has filed a federal lawsuit against the wholesale chain for monetary damages claiming unsafe, dangerous, or defective conditions.

Shopper Struck by Steel Rod Resulting in Irreversible Brain Damage

According to the lawsuit, Peter Aurigemma Jr. was reaching for a package of paper towels, which was stacked over seven feet high, when a 40 inch long steel pipe, three inches in diameter, fell and struck him above the left eye. Aurigemma contends that the impact left him with a concussion, nerve and muscle damage to his face and around his left eye, neurological dexterity losses in his left hand, migraines, sensitivities to noise and light, mood and behavior changes, and short-term memory lapses. The plaintiff is seeking over $75,000 in monetary damages to cover medical bills, loss of work, and pain and suffering.

Another Costco Premises Liability Suit

Costco, as a matter of policy, does not comment on pending litigation. The company will have to face whether it failed to meet its duty of care to Aurigemma as an invited customer in a self-service environment. Specifically, Costco will have to prove that it exercised reasonable care in keeping its customer areas free of unsafe, dangerous or defective conditions. The case may turn on whether stacking paper towels over seven feet high for patrons to retrieve is reasonably safe. And, of course, it remains to be seen how that steel rod ended up presumably stacked on top of the paper towel display that Aurigemma fatefully visited.

Costco is no stranger to premises liability lawsuits. In 2017, a customer fractured an ankle in a slip-and-fall case, and was awarded over $400,000 by a Nevada jury. In a 2014 case in New York, a jury awarded one plaintiff almost $10 million after being hit by her shopping cart on an escalator, which an employee had improperly placed there for her.

If you or someone you love has been injured while shopping at Costco, or any retailer, contact a local personal injury attorney. An experienced legal adviser can listen to the facts of your case, and determine if you have a good case for recovering monetary damages to recover your costs. Often, these attorneys will give you a free consultation, and you may even be able to avoid paying legal fees at all if you don't prevail. You may not have much time remaining to file your lawsuit, depending on when the injury happened, so don't hesitate. Contact an attorney today.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/10/costco-shopper-hit-by-falling-steel-sues-for-brain-damage.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, October 19, 2018

If I Get an Infection From the Nail Salon, Can I Sue?

Any time there is an issue of negligence, a claim can be brought in court.

If a nail technician fails to abide by their duty of care, and an infection results, a suit can definitely be filed. But the pain may not be worth the price.

Suing Nail Salons for Negligence in State Court

Nail salons owe patrons a duty of care to keep them safe from injury. Let's assume that this duty was breached, due to either use of non-sterile tools or maybe the nail technician used the tools incorrectly.

If you can prove that the negligent actions of the nail technician caused your injury, and you can prove how much money is needed to make you whole again, you can file a suit. But keep in mind that filing suits are not cheap. Attorney fees are high, especially when expert witnesses are involved.

Note that plaintiff personal injury attorneys will only take cases on a contingency basis if the estimated verdict amount is high. If you lost a finger, they're in! If you got an infection that healed in a week, not so much. For these lesser injuries, you may need to pay the attorney out of your pocket, in advance, and the fees may be higher than the award.

Small Claims

If your claim is too minor for you to pursue in state court, small claims court may be a great option. This is a place where people can have their legal disputes heard in front of a judge on a more informal basis, without the expensive and time-consuming process of a full trial. Small claims court allows lawsuits to be filed if the monetary remedy sought is lower than a certain amount, generally $10,000 or less, depending on local laws. Both parties represent themselves and present their own case, similar to Judge Judy. The judge then renders a verdict after hearing both sides of the case.

If you or someone you care for has gotten an infection from a nail salon, the first thing you should do is seek medical help. Small infections can lead to big problems, so please protect yourself first. Keep all medical bills and document any hardships faced from the infection. Then contact a personal injury lawyer. Most will provide free initial consultations. A licensed attorney can best assess your legal situation, and offer you sound advice, based on the facts of your case, for recovering any monetary damages to which you may be entitled.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/10/if-i-get-an-infection-from-the-nail-salon-can-i-sue.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Can You Sue Your OBGYN for an Unnecessary C-Section?

Cesarean births, or C-sections, as they are commonly knows, are increasing at an alarming rate in the United States, up from 23 percent of all births in 2000 to 32 percent in 2015. To put these percentages in perspective, in 1985 the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that there was "no justification for any region to have a caesarean section rate higher than 10-15 percent."

Though necessary C-sections are always welcomed, unnecessary ones are of concern because the procedure can pose risks, such as infection or postpartum heavy bleeding. If your obstetrician performs an unnecessary C-section on you, can you sue?

Planned C-Sections Require Informed Consent

Let's assume that all emergency C-sections are necessary, since considering anything else requires too many factual discussions about the birth and the doctor. Therefore the issue turns to informed consent. Did you give your informed consent to have the C-section prior to the operation? Meaning, did you give consent? And was it informed?

Did You Provide Consent?

Prior to having any surgery, including a C-section, patients need to give their consent to having the specific operation in question. If there is no consent, or if the consent was given for a different surgery, then the patient could sue the doctor for battery, which is technically having contact with a person without their consent. Assuming, though, that consent was given, the question becomes, was it informed?

Was Your Consent Truly Informed?

Was the consent that you gave informed? Specifically, before signing the Informed Consent document, were you given:

  • A description of your specific situation that is leading to the need for a C-section, and
  • The nature and purpose of the C-section, and
  • The benefits to you of having the C-section, and what would happen if you had a vaginal birth instead, and
  • The risks, complications, and post-operative issues of the C-section

Upon being given all of this information, you should be able to determine if the C-section is necessary or not, specifically in regards to "what would happen if you had a vaginal birth instead". If it is unnecessary, talk with your doctor, since it may very well be that the benefits do not outweigh the risks. If you were not given all of the above information, your consent couldn't truly be informed, and therefore the C-section would be considered battery, and a basis for a suit.

Like most personal injury lawsuits, there needs to be some damages. In order to successfully bring a suit, there would need to be damages to either you or your baby. If you or someone you love has had a C-section, and you feel that you gave consent based on misinformation and indeed the operation wasn't necessary, and there were damages, contact a medical malpractice attorney. Upon hearing the facts of your case, a trained legal advisor can help you determine if you have a viable case, and best ways to move forward.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/10/can-you-sue-your-obgyn-for-an-unnecessary-c-section.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Federal Judge: Wisconsin Can't Block Insurance From Covering Transgender Health Care Costs

Under Wisconsin's administration of health insurance benefits,"[p]rocedures, services, and supplies related to surgery and sex hormones associated with gender reassignment" were excluded from coverage. But a federal judge recently ruled the exclusion violated antidiscrimination measures in the Affordable Care Act, and a jury just awarded two transgender women $780,000 after they were denied coverage for hormone therapy and surgery relating to their gender transitions.

On top of that, Wisconsin's insurance board voted to allow the coverage beginning January 1, 2019.

Differential Treatment

Shannon Andrews, a cancer researcher at the UW School of Medicine and Public Health, and Alina Boyden, a graduate student, filed the lawsuit against the state with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union last year. Andrews was forced to drain her retirement savings to pay for treatment after her claims were denied, and Boyden was unable to afford gender confirming surgery without insurance coverage. Both claimed Wisconsin's ban on transgender coverage violated sex discrimination protections in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the ACA.

"Whether because of differential treatment based on natal sex, or because of a form of sex stereotyping where an individual is required effectively to maintain his or her natal sex characteristics," wrote U.S. District Judge William Conley, "the Exclusion on its face treats transgender individuals differently on the basis of sex, thus triggering the protections of Title VII and the ACA's antidiscrimination provision."

Transgender Discrimination

Once Judge Conley found liability in favor of Andrews and Boyden on their Title VII and ACA claims, it was just a matter of damages. "Discrimination comes with a cost," said legal director for the ACLU of Wisconsin Larry Dupuis, "and for the state of Wisconsin the bill has come." The jury awarded Andrews $479,500 and Boyden $301,000, most of the awards being for emotional pain and suffering. Andrews had paid about $79,000 for two surgeries due to the lack of insurance coverage, according to Dupuis, while Boyden paid about $1,000 for hormones.

While the present case applies to state employees, Conley also ruled in a separate case that Wisconsin couldn't bar the use of Medicaid funds to pay for transgender surgery.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/10/federal-judge-wisconsin-cant-block-insurance-from-covering-transgender-health-care-costs.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Women Sue L.A. Hospital for Gynecologist Sexual Misconduct

When a hospital announces that one of its longest-serving obstetricians will require a chaperone when treating women in the maternity ward and has been removed from both hospital leadership and the list of doctors on call to deliver babies, you know something serious is going on.

A week after the Los Angeles Times reported Dr. Patrick Sutton had been accused of sexual misconduct by five former patients, three other women filed a lawsuit against Sutton and Huntington Memorial Hospital, claiming he subjected them to unwanted sexual remarks and touching during exams in the 1990s.

Maternity and #MeToo

The women were only identified by their initials in the latest legal filing. K.G. claims Sutton made lewd comments to her and groped her breasts during a 1999 postpartum checkup. And when T.F. sought advice for migraines during her pregnancy, Sutton allegedly instructed her to "masturbate in order to make the blood rush to her head." He also asked that she let him know by phone whether she had been able to achieve orgasm.

As for those five other alleged victims, Sutton settled four of those accusations without admitting any sexual wrongdoing, and asserts he will contest the fifth pending complaint.

Repeat Obstetric Offender?

Sadly, these are far from the only allegations of sexual misconduct made against Dr. Sutton. The Medical Board of California has twice sought to revoke or suspend Sutton's medical license based on similar charges, although he was able to avoid suspension by agreeing to probation, professional boundaries courses, and even psychotherapy.

In 2005, two former patients filed a lawsuit accusing Sutton of inappropriate touching and graphic, sexually charged remarks during medical exams. Sutton also settled that case for an undisclosed sum.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/10/women-sue-la-hospital-for-gynecologist-sexual-misconduct.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Three Girls Settle $4M for Molestation in Police Explorer Program

Three Southern California girls molested by a police officer while in a police explorer program have settled their civil suit against the Irwindale Police Department and Learning for Life, the company that runs the program, for a record $4 million. The settlement comes on the heels of another settlement against the same defendants last year for $2.75 million. All four victims were sexually assaulted by the same former police officer, Daniel Camerano, either in police cars during ride alongs or in police stations.

Assaulting Officer and Complicit Police Department

According to plaintiffs' claims, Officer Camerano was using his position of power and authority to victimize young woman who had a strong respect for police. In fact, these victims had joined the explorer program in hopes of one day becoming police officers. Not only was the officer's position abused, but other officers allegedly knew of the crime, and were complicit. This combination allowed the assaults to continue, with repeat assaults on each victim. These cases are indicative of systematic problems other departments are experiencing throughout California.

Officer Sexual Assault on Teenage Explorer Girls -- a Repeated Offense

In September 2018, a Northern California police sergeant was arrested for allegedly molesting a teenage girl in the Porterville Police Department explorer program of the Porterville Police Department. In August 2018, a Los Angeles police officer, Robert Cain was sentenced to two years in prison for sexually assaulting a teenage girl in their version of an explorer program. Given the length of the charges against Cain, he faced up to eight years in prison. The victim and her family were very "unhappy" about the light sentence ultimately handed out.

According to attorney Andrea Ritchie, sexual assaults by police officers against teen girls are not as uncommon as one might think. "Sexual assault by police officers against women is extremely prevalent," Ritchie states. "It's been reported that it's the second most frequently reported form of police misconduct, after excessive force." Ritchie claims one study found that a police officer is caught in an act of sexual misconduct every five days, and that almost a quarter of these involve minor victims. Ritchie believes the numbers are probably far worse, since these numbers only reflect the officers actually caught.

If you or someone you know has been sexually assaulted, contact a personal injury attorney. A seasoned legal veteran will be able to listen to the facts or your case, and help decide best next steps for you, including possible outcomes and processes. Though a lawyer can't help erase the past, there may be some help for the future.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/10/three-girls-settle-4m-for-molestation-in-police-explorer-program.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Widower Hopes Supreme Court Will Overturn Ban on Military Injury Lawsuits

While the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives the sovereign immunity of the federal government under certain circumstances, but those circumstances don't include injury claims by members of the armed forces and their families for injuries arising out of or in the course of activity related to military service. That might make sense for combat injuries sustained on the field of battle -- after all, can you imagine if the government got sued every time a soldier was injured or killed?

But what about when a healthy 33-year-old woman, who happens to be a Navy lieutenant and giving birth in a military hospital, mysteriously bleeds to death within hours of childbirth?

Navy Lt. Rebekah Daniel 's widower, Walter Daniel (a former Coast Guard officer himself), is suing in a search for answers as to his wife's death. And he is now taking his wrongful death case to the Supreme Court to try and get around decades of precedent preventing injury lawsuits against the federal government involving active-duty military members.

Answers and Causes

"I've had no answers," Walter Daniel claims, regarding the Navy's handling of his wife's death, that occurred in the same maternity ward where she worked as a labor and delivery nurse. "It was utter chaos," he recalled of that day. "I remember multiple towels and sponges like they were trying to soak up the blood ... but it kept coming."

A Navy autopsy allegedly concluded Rebekah Daniel died of "natural" causes possibly linked to an amniotic fluid embolism. But her husband suspects she died from botched medical care that failed to stop her from hemorrhaging. "There was no timeline, no records of what steps were taken," Daniel claims. "I don't want this to happen to any other family."

Stars, Bars, and Barred Lawsuits

The legal principle blocking Daniel's lawsuit is known as the Feres Doctrine, stemming from a 1950 case in which the Supreme Court declared that the federal government could not be held liable under the FTCA for injuries to members of the armed forces arising from activities incident to military service. Late Justice Antonin Scalia railed against the idea in a dissent from another 1987 case upholding the doctrine. "Feres was wrongly decided," Scalia wrote, "and heartily deserves the widespread, almost universal criticism it has received."

Unfortunately, Feres persists despite that criticism. But Daniel's lawyer, Andrew Hoyal hope this case will warrant another look from the Supreme Court. "We thought if we're ever going to take a shot at the Feres doctrine, this is the case to do it," Hoyal said, after Daniel's case has been dismissed from lower courts. "It was clear negligence. It was an awful situation. And every civilian in the country would be able to bring a lawsuit to get accountability, except for members of the service.

"She was treated differently because she had lieutenant's bars."

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/10/widower-hopes-supreme-court-will-overturn-ban-on-military-injury-lawsuits.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, October 15, 2018

Harry Potter Amusement Park Ride Lawsuit Settles

Tommy Fry was stuck on the Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey ride at Universal Studios Orlando for about an hour back in 2015, when the ride he and his two sons were on malfunctioned. Fry claimed to have been suspended upside down for this time, though the facts are unclear, since the ride technically does not invert passengers, but rather, tilts them. Fry sued in 2017, claiming injury and mental anguish among other things. Last week, an amicable settlement was reached between the two parties for undisclosed terms.

This brings up an interesting question: can you sue an amusement park for being injured on a ride? Apparently yes, and the cases often settle, with payouts running into the millions of dollars.

Did the Amusement Park Negligently Operate the Ride?

Amusement parks are responsible for the acts of its employees. All employees must operate rides safely and carefully. Sometimes this doesn't happen based on actions, or inactions, by the employees. In this instance, Universal could be help liable if the operators, or maintenance workers, were negligent in their care and operation of the ride. Specifically had:

  • Proper maintenance schedules been followed?
  • Operators been properly trained?
  • Employees properly operated the ride?

If the amusement park employees failed to perform any of these duties, and this failure led to the ride stopping, which led to the injury occurring, it is possible that the rider could have a negligence claim against the park.

Did The Rider Assume the Risk?

Even if the amusement park failed to provide the proper duty of care to riders, and it caused injury, the park may be able to offer an affirmative defense in the form of assumption of risk. Negligence is a state law claim, and not all states will allow an assumption of risk defense, but some do. The concept behind this defense is that if someone knows that participating in an act is inherently dangers, but chooses to partake nonetheless, they have "assumed the risk" of that activity.

For instance, a roller coaster is meant to be frightening. It's impossible to have one without inflicting some level of terror. But it is possible to have a roller coaster that has all of its parts in working order. The issue becomes do you reasonably assume the risk that a ride will break down and you will be stuck for an hour inverted or tilted? This will be an issue for jurors to discuss, since it may be reasonable to assume being stuck on a ride, but the reasonableness of the duration and position could easily be debated.

If you or someone you love has been injured in an amusement park ride, contact a personal injury attorney. A seasoned lawyer can review your case, often for free, and determine if you have a viable claim against the park owner.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/10/harry-potter-amusement-park-ride-lawsuit-settles.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)