Wednesday, April 3, 2019

California Women's Hospital Sued for Allegedly Filming 1,800 Patients

Sharp Grossmont Hospital in El Cajon, California claims it was investigating employee theft of anesthesia drugs. So it installed motion-activated cameras on drug carts in three operating rooms at the facility. The only problem? Those three rooms were part of the women's health center, and the secret cameras recorded some 1,800 patients in various stages of undress, undergoing Cesarean births, hysterectomies, and sterilization and miscarriage procedures.

"At times, Defendants' patients had their most sensitive genital areas visible," according to a lawsuit filed against the hospital, and "patients' faces were recorded, and the patients were identifiable." And this isn't the first suit involving the video surveillance at Sharp Grossmont.

Patient Safety or Patient Surveillance?

Eighty-one women filed the potential class action lawsuit, and hundreds more could join. "It's universal shock from the patients, and disgust," according to their attorney, Allison Goddard. "They don't know how their videos might be used or who may have seen them because Sharp didn't make sure that that would be taken care of." The hospital is allegedly still in possession of thousands of videos.

Representatives from Sharp HealthCare and Sharp Grossmont Hospital released a statement asserting the surveillance was set up "to ensure patient safety by determining the cause of drugs missing from the carts":

Between July 2012 and June 2013, Sharp Grossmont Hospital installed and operated one hidden camera on the anesthesia cart located in each of three operating rooms in the Women's Center. The purpose of the three cameras was to ensure patient safety by determining the cause of drugs missing from the carts. An initial lawsuit alleging privacy violations and other claims stemming from the video recording was filed against Sharp HealthCare and Sharp Grossmont Hospital in 2016. The case remains active and Sharp is not in a position to comment further about the matter. Sharp HealthCare and Sharp Grossmont Hospital continue to take extensive measures to protect the privacy of its patients.

Privacy and Negligence

This lawsuit puts forth several invasion of privacy claims. And while Sharp spokesperson John Cihomsky told the New York Times that only a handful of authorized people in the company's security, legal and clinical departments reviewed the videos and that the "videos themselves are, and have always been, securely maintained," that lawsuit also charges the hospital with negligence for storing the videos on computers used by multiple people, some of which were not password protected.

Patient privacy, and breach, is a serious matter. If you think a medical provider has improperly recorded, used, or released your medical information, talk to an attorney immediately.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/04/california-womens-hospital-sued-for-allegedly-filming-1800-patients.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, April 1, 2019

Xarelto Settles 25,000 Cases for $775M

The makers of the blood-thinning drug Xarelto, Bayer and Johnson & Johnson, have agreed to settle the 25,000 consolidated cases against them for $775 million.

The massive mass tort settlement resolved the cases by creating a fund that the individual plaintiffs in each case can seek compensation from. Curiously, in six of the trials of individual cases, the drug makers actually won. However, facing mounting litigation costs for continuing to battle it out, the companies' statement explains that settling was an economic decision. Despite the big settlement figure, the path actually pans out.

What Are These Cases About?

The Xarelto cases involve claims that the drug maker failed to warn those patients prescribed the drug of several, potentially fatal, side effects. Complicating matters is the fact that prescribed patients cannot simply stop taking the drug without risk.

For several years when the drug was first sold, those risks were not disclosed, which basically meant anyone taking the drug prior to the disclosure in 2015 potentially had/has a claim. The value of that claim however is likely to vary based on whether there has been an impact to the person's life as a result of the failure to disclose.

Big Numbers, But Not Big Enough?

While that $775 million figure might sound impressive, even assuming no attorney fees or costs come out of that number, which is unlikely, each of the 25,000 cases would have $31,000 each (hypothetically if everyone got the same amount, which isn't likely to be the case as many suffered more injury than others).

As Forbes explains, the drug makers are basically getting off easy here. Given the sheer number of cases that $775 million settles out, it's clear the drug makers have gotten the benefit of the bargain in this settlement.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/04/xarelto-settles-25000-cases-for-775m.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, March 29, 2019

Jury Orders Monsanto to Pay $80M in Roundup Cancer Case

Last week, a California jury determined Monsanto's popular Roundup weed killer was a "substantial factor" in causing a longtime customer's non-Hodgkin lymphoma. What was left to figure out was how culpable the company was in creating a dangerous product and failing to warn consumers. We now have our answer.

In phase two of Edwin Hardeman's trial, the same jury ordered Monsanto to pay him more than $80 million for failing to include Roundup's cancer-causing risk on the label.

A Dangerous Product?

"The evidence is overwhelming that Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma," Hardeman's lawyer, Jennifer Moore, told The New York Times. "And despite that, Monsanto continues to deny that." Moore claimed Monsanto ignored scientific evidence regarding Roundup's harmful health effects, leading the jury to hold the company accountable.

The science on Roundup, it seems, is split. The World Health Organization deemed glyphosate, a main weed-killing ingredient, "probably carcinogenic" in 2015. But the EPA in 2017 claimed glyphosate it was "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans." Now, a newer study relied upon by expert witnesses in Hardeman's trial linked large doses of the chemical to a heightened risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

In the end, the jury was convinced enough to award Hardeman more than $200,000 for medical bills (he underwent chemotherapy treatments and his attorneys claim his cancer is in remission), and another $5 million for his past and future suffering. The remaining $75 million of the award is punitive damages, based on Roundup's negligence and failure to warn.

Product Liability

Proving fault in a product liability case is no easy task, and generally require proof that the manufacturer knew its product was dangerous. Claims against chemical manufacturers can be based on:

  • Defects in Design: The chemical is inherently unreasonably dangerous to consumers;
  • Defects in Manufacturing: The chemical was improperly manufactured, dangerously departing from the intended composition; or
  • Defects in Warnings: The chemical product lacks adequate instructions or warnings, rendering it unreasonably dangerous.

In this case, the jury was sufficiently swayed that Monsanto knew Roundup was dangerous and failed to place adequate warning labels on the glyphosate-based product.

If you have more specific questions about product liability cases or feel you've been injured by a dangerous product, contact a local personal injury attorney.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/jury-orders-monsanto-to-pay-80m-in-roundup-cancer-case.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, March 22, 2019

Jury Rules Roundup a Substantial Factor in Man's Cancer

Scientists can't seem to agree on glyphosate. The popular weed-killer ingredient was deemed "probably carcinogenic" by the World Health Organization in 2015, but the EPA in 2017 said it was "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans." And then a new study suggests people exposed to large doses of the chemical have a heightened risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

But while scientists may not be able to say that glyphosate causes cancer, a jury can. Jurors in a federal lawsuit in California ruled that Roundup -- which contains glyphosate -- was a substantial factor in causing Edwin Hardeman's non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Science Roundup

Hardeman underwent chemotherapy treatments in 2015. This was after the 70-year-old used Roundup to kill poison oak on his 56-acre property for 26 years. Two of the expert witnesses who testified in Hardeman's case cited the latest study linking glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. According to the study's author, Rachel Shaffer, people who are highly exposed to glyphosate are 41% more likely to contract NHL than the overall population.

But this is just the first phase of Hardeman's trial. Now that jurors had determined the chemical to blame for his cancer, they must now decide how liable the manufacturer will be. Bayer AG acquired Roundup maker Monsanto last year, and continues to claim "glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer." Hardeman's lawyers, on the other hand, claim they have evidence that Monsanto attempted to manipulate public opinion and science to minimize Roundup's health risks.

Legal Steps

Hardeman's is far from the only lawsuit claiming Roundup causes cancer. Some 11,000 Roundup suits are pending in American courtrooms, around 760 of which are in front of the same judge as Hardeman's. His is considered a "bellwether" trial which could impact how those other cases proceed, although Bayer contends the jury finding "has no impact on future cases and trials because each one has its own factual and legal circumstances." Last year, a different California jury awarded $289 million to a groundskeeper who contracted lymphoma after using Roundup, although a judge later reduced the verdict to about $78 million.

Product liability cases can be complex, especially those that attempt to link products to cancer diagnoses. If you think a particular product is responsible for your cancer, talk to an experienced personal injury attorney about your legal options.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/jury-rules-roundup-a-substantial-factor-in-mans-cancer.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Theme Park Injuries: Brazilian Boy's Foot, Leg Allegedly Crushed on E.T. Ride

A lawsuit filed against Universal Studios is seeking $15,000 in damages after a mother says her son was injured on the E.T. ride at the theme park in January. According to the suit, Tiago Perez's left foot got stuck between the ride and a cement offloading area near the end, crushing his foot and breaking multiple bones in his toes, foot, and leg.

Here's a look at his mother's lawsuit, and similar injury claims against theme parks.

A Normal Kid

According to his family who witnessed the incident and his attorney, Thiago was doing nothing wrong as he enjoyed the ride. "He was just being a normal kid," Edmund Normand said, "a normal rider." Another boy injured his right foot on the same ride in 2002.

"Prior to this incident," the lawsuit alleges, "[Universal] had knowledge that the design, manufacture, testing, construction, and/or operation of the E.T. Adventure ride, created an unreasonably dangerous ride resulting in injuries to guests, but [Universal] continued to market the ride as safe to the unsuspecting public." The suit also claims that Universal updated its safety measures following the incident, pausing the ride near the exit so an employee could ensure riders' arms and legs were inside the vehicle.

A Frequent Injury

Universal declined to comment on the lawsuit to the Orlando Sentinel, but injuries at theme parks do happen. And here's what you should know if they do:

  • Top 5 Theme Park Injury Concerns: First, you should be aware of the potential dangers lurking inside any theme park. While we are all there for fun and games, there are still injury risks involved.
  • 5 Ways to Sue Over Theme Park Injuries: Not all injuries are the same. For instance, did you slip in a spill that a park employee failed to clean up? Or did a ride malfunction? Or maybe you were assaulted by another park guest. How and whom you sue will be different, depending on your personal circumstances.
  • 5 Personal Injury Lessons From Disney Lawsuits: The "Happiest Place on Earth" once faced 140 injury lawsuits over a 5-year span. So, what did the company learn from those suits, and what can you?

If you or a loved one has been injured at a theme park, contact a local personal injury attorney for help.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/theme-park-injuries-brazilian-boys-foot-leg-allegedly-crushed-on-et-ride.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, March 15, 2019

Can You Get Workers' Comp for Being Mauled by a Rhino?

Working alongside 4,000-lb wild animals may seem like an inherently dangerous job. And wildlife lovers may not have a whole lot of sympathy for a zoo employee injured by an animal that has already tried to escape twice and should be roaming free in the grasslands of Central Africa.

But a female zookeeper struck by "Archie's" horn at the Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens is probably just wondering if she can get paid for the time she'll miss work.

Archie Nemesis

Most employers are required to carry workers' compensation insurance, which reimburses employees for lost wages due to a work-related injury. A "work-related injury" is generally defined as one suffered while doing something on behalf of your employer or otherwise in the course of employment. While most of the injuries classified as work-related occur at the workplace, some covered accidents may occur at other locations or in company-owned vehicles -- as long as the employee was doing something connected to their job.

In this instance, zoo spokesperson J.J. Vitale said the zookeeper was injured when she came into contact with Archie during a routine training session. The zoo's executive director, Tony Vecchio, said zookeepers conduct the sessions with the animals to prepare them for medical exams, and the training generally involves teaching them how to open their mouth and lift their feet on command, as well as submit to blood tests.

While Vecchio also said there is always a safety barrier between the zookeeper and the animal -- and that there were vertical and horizontal bars in between the zookeeper and Archie -- Jacksonville Fire and Rescue confirmed she was transported to the hospital with serious injuries.

Zoo Workers' Comp

Workers' comp covers injuries which can be connected in some way to an employment requirement or condition, so it's likely the zookeeper will be covered in this case. If you're wondering if your work injury falls under workers comp, need help filing a claim, or you've had a workers' comp claim rejected, contact a local attorney for help.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/can-you-get-workers-comp-for-being-mauled-by-a-rhino.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, March 14, 2019

Court: Sandy Hook Lawsuit Against Remington Can Proceed

In 2016, a Connecticut judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre against Remington, the manufacturer of the weapon used in the killings. But this week, the Connecticut Supreme Court revived part of the lawsuit, ruling that federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing tactics, and claims based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices could move forward.

Here's a look at the ruling, and what it could mean for future lawsuits against gun makers.

Laws, Lies, and Liability

The suit was initially dismissed pursuant to the Protection of Lawful Commerce of Arms Act (PLCAA), signed into law by George W. Bush in 2005. In the 4-3 ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court largely agreed with that decision, finding that most of the claims raised by the families were precluded under the PLCAA and a gun manufacturer or dealer cannot be held liable for how a gun is used if the gun was sold legally.

But the parents' lawsuit also attacked Remington's marketing campaign, including ads for the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack that invoked combat violence and told would-be buyers, "Consider your man card reissued." And the court said the suit could go forward under Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act.

That statute is aimed at harmful marketing and prohibits advertising the use of a weapon as a potential tool for "offensive military style combat" by civilians. Other Bushmaster ads featured soldiers on patrol in jungles along with the phrase: "When you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers." Remington allegedly promoted the rifle to civilians as "the ultimate combat weapons system," and the Connecticut Supreme Court decided that "it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet."

The End of the Road and the End of Immunity?

Appeals are assured and a jury may still find in Remington's favor, so the suit is far from over. But attacking a gun maker's ads through state consumer protection laws may provide gun violence victims a path to compensation that didn't exist before.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/court-sandy-hook-lawsuit-against-remington-can-proceed.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, March 4, 2019

Suitcases Keep Falling on Airline Passengers' Heads

When airlines started charging extra for checked baggage, wallet-conscious travelers started stuffing everything they could into their carry-ons. Anyone whose flown in the past few years can tell you the turf war for territory in overhead compartments is real, and flight attendants, too, can attest to the increased injury risk caused by the "carry-on crunch."

That risk has been borne out by lawsuits against airlines. Most recently, a Colorado man sued Southwest Airlines, claiming flight staff should've spotted an "infirm" passenger trying to load a suitcase in an overhead bin and intervened before the suitcase fell on his head.

Overstuffed Overhead Compartments

Charles E. Giebel II claimed he was waiting in his seat at Denver International Airport on his way to Newark, New Jersey in 2017, when another passenger struggled trying to put a suitcase in an overhead bin. Giebel's lawsuit alleges that flight attendants should've noticed the passenger was having trouble and helped him. Instead, the suitcase fell onto Giebel's head, striking his shoulder, right forearm, and elbow, causing shoulder and head pain, a bleeding abrasion, and other permanent injuries.

Southwest has thus far not issued a comment on the lawsuit.

Airline Liability

Overhead compartment injuries are becoming more common, and those "baggage may have shifted during flight" warnings don't quite apply in cases like this one. Giebel likely has a pair of claims against Southwest, for general negligence and a failure to properly train its employees.

Negligence require a person to prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care in a specific situation and that the defendant's failure to uphold this duty led to their injuries. In addition to generally being liable for the on-the-job negligence of employees, employers may also be liable if employees were not trained properly and that failure leads to an injury.

If you've been injured -- by falling luggage or otherwise -- talk to an experienced personal injury attorney about your legal options.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/suitcases-keep-falling-on-airline-passengers-heads.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, March 1, 2019

Pedestrian Traffic Deaths Highest in Nearly Three Decades

Even with all the new safety technology available -- from motion sensors and backup cameras to self-driving cars -- 2018 produced the most pedestrian fatalities since 1990; that's almost three decades.

What accounted for this continued rise in pedestrian deaths, and what can you do if you're hit by a car? Here's a look.

Why?

According to a preliminary report from the Governors Highway Safety Association, 6,227 pedestrians were killed on U.S. roads last year -- a four percent increase over last year, and up 35 percent over the last decade. While the number of fatalities decreased in 23 states, 25 other states (and the District of Columbia) saw an increase in fatalities, while two states remained constant. And over a third of all fatalities occurred on local roads.

One reason for the increase is that Americans are driving bigger, heavier, and more powerful vehicles like pickup trucks, SUVs, and crossovers. The GHSA report indicates pedestrian fatalities involving SUVs jumped by 50 percent between 2013 and 2017, while deaths involving passenger cars only rose 30 percent over the same period.

And while some technology can keep us out of accidents, other innovations are getting us into trouble. "Another possible factor contributing to the recent rise in the overall number of pedestrian fatalities," the report states, "could be the large growth in smartphone use over the past decade, which can be a significant source of distraction for all road users."

The report also indicated that about half of traffic crashes that ended in pedestrian fatalities involved a driver and/or pedestrian impaired by alcohol.

What Now?

When pedestrians are struck by cars, they may recover damages for their injuries based on the driver's (or someone else's) negligence. To establish negligence, legally, in a pedestrian accident, the injured person must prove that the person at fault:

In addition, survivors may file wrongful death claims in the event of a pedestrian fatality, and will also need to prove that the injured person's death was caused by the accident.

If you or someone you know has been hit by a car, contact an experienced car accident attorney today.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/pedestrian-traffic-deaths-highest-in-nearly-three-decades.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Girl Gets $75K for Mechanical Dinosaur Injuries

Witnessing a dinosaur egg hatching must be a magical moment. Until, that is, you're punched on the chin by a mechanical arm.

That's what happened to a young girl visiting Universal Orlando in 2013, and she and her family finally settled a lawsuit against the theme park, for $75,000.

Jurassic Lawsuit

According to Orlando Weekly, the child was struck on the chin by a mechanical arm on the Dinosaur Egg Scanner attraction at Universal's Jurassic Park land: "The device was part of a display that offered display of fake dinosaur eggs 'hatching,' and visitors could pull a level to scan some of the eggs, which would result in a simulated scan image of a baby dinosaur on a screen." Universal claimed the scanner machinery was manufactured by a third party, but ultimately agreed to settle the case.

The settlement payments will be made into an annuity fund for the girl, referred to only as "L.M." in court filings. Only she (not her parents) will be able to access the funds, and not until 2027, when the fund will be worth an estimated $98,000.

Legal Themes

Suing theme parks for injuries can be tricky. Many require guests to sign liability waivers that assert the park will not be legally responsible for any injuries. They may also argue that patrons have come for a little bit of danger, and have assumed the risk of any injuries they sustain. Still, as a public attraction theme parks are legally required to take reasonable steps to assure the safety of the premises for guests. And most parks prefer to avoid the bad publicity of an on-site injury lawsuit, so they are often more likely to settle out-of-court.

If you have questions about injuries sustained at a theme park, or park liability in general, contact a local personal injury attorney.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/02/girl-gets-75k-for-mechanical-dinosaur-injuries.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, February 21, 2019

Were Grand Canyon Visitors Exposed to Radiation?

"If you were in the Museum Collections Building (bldg 2C) between the year 2000 and June 18, 2018, you were 'exposed' to uranium by OSHA's definition." Not exactly something you want to hear after your vacation to the Grand Canyon, but that's what the park's health and safety manager is claiming.

Elston "Swede" Stephenson says radioactivity readings gathered by Park Service officials on three buckets of stones believed to be uranium specimens appeared to be hundreds of times higher than federal exposure thresholds.

A Box of Rocks or a Load of Radiation?

Apparently not everyone is on board with Stephenson's evaluation of radiation risk at the park. "It's just a bucket of rocks," Craig Little, a health physicist who spent 25 years at the Oakridge National Laboratory told the Arizona Republic. "I wouldn't line my baby's crib with it, but ..." The central disagreement appears to center on whether uranium ore, which was discovered in three 5-gallon buckets that had been stored next to a taxidermy exhibit could emit dangerous radiation levels.

"Uranium naturally occurs in the rocks of Grand Canyon National Park," the Department of Interior told CNN. "A recent survey of the Grand Canyon National Park's museum collection facility found radiation levels at 'background' levels -- the amount always present in the environment -- and below levels of concern for public health and safety. There is no current risk to the public or Park employees."

Stephenson stood by his calculations, however, and noted that OSHA technicians wore full protective gear when they visited the building. "Please understand, this doesn't mean that you're somehow contaminated, or that you are going to have health issues," he said in a warning email. "It merely means essentially that there was uranium on the site and you were in its presence ... And by law we are supposed to tell you."

Suing the Grand Canyon

So, could lawsuits from park visitors be forthcoming? If the park in fact violated environmental laws on the storage or disposal of radioactive materials, it could be held liable. Additionally, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) allows individuals to recover against the federal government for personal injury caused by the negligence of a federal employee. However, claims under the FTCA must be made following a specific procedure, in writing, and within two years after it becomes apparent a cause of action exists.

If you're wondering if you have a claim for radiation exposure, talk to an experienced personal injury attorney.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/02/were-grand-canyon-visitors-exposed-to-radiation.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

When to Sue for a Chemical Burn

Dozens of workers every year suffer chemical burns on the job. And the products we use and businesses we frequent often contain or use dangerous chemicals. So, if you're one of the people who suffers a chemical burn, when (and who) can you sue?

That will largely depend on the circumstances of your case. Here's a look:

Product Liability

In 2017, almost 300,000 iPhone cases were recalled after leaking glitter from cracked cases caused chemical burns. Two dozen customers claimed they suffered skin irritation or chemical burns from leaking cases, and one person "reported chemical burns and swelling to her leg, face, neck, chest, upper body and hands." Product liability claims hold a manufacturer or seller liable if their product causes injuries.

There are generally three types of product liability lawsuits, depending on the cause of the malfunction or injury:

  1. Defects in Design: A defect in the design of the product that poses an unreasonable risk to consumers, even if it is manufactured and used as intended;
  2. Defects in Manufacturing: A mistake in the production of a well-designed product that introduces a new danger to consumers; or
  3. Defects in Warnings: A company's failure to properly warn consumers of known risks in using the product, if they are inadequate warnings, inaccurate warnings, or no warnings at all.

Premises Liability

Maybe you suffered a burn on someone else's property. At a restaurant, perhaps, or a car wash that uses chemicals to clean. In that case, the property owner might be held responsible under premises liability. The level of responsibility will often hinge on your relationship with the property owner.

Invitee (those who are invited onto the property of another, like customers in a store) and licensees (those who are guests or present at the consent of the owner) are owed a reasonable duty of care from the property owner, meaning they have taken reasonable steps to assure the safety of the premises. If that's not the case, you may have a premises liability claim.

Workers' Compensation

If you are injured on the job, you'll most likely need to file a workers' compensation claim before you can file a lawsuit. Make sure you seek and receive any necessary medical treatment as soon as possible, and report the accident to your employer. If your workers' comp claim is denied, or the benefits don't fully cover your medical costs, lost wages, or expenses, you may have other legal options.

To know how to proceed with any injury claim, contact an experienced personal injury attorney in your area.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/02/when-to-sue-for-a-chemical-burn.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, February 14, 2019

Scarred on the Slopes: Our Top 5 Legal Tips for Skiing Accidents and Injuries

With all the winter weather most of the country has been getting blasted with, chances are you've hit the slopes already. And with no snow letup in sight, you might be headed back. So, be careful out there.

But, accidents happen. Most of us are aware of the risks that come with skiing, but every now and then an accident isn't just an accident, and someone else is at fault. When that happens on the ski slopes, who's responsible and what can you do about it? Here's what you need to know about skiing injuries and legal liability.

1. Ski Accidents: Top 3 Ways Not to Get Injured

Hopefully, you're well aware of how to stay safe on the slopes. If not, an experienced skier or guide can help. And if you're determined to do it all on your own, make sure to avoid skiing alone, be careful around trees and rocks, and don't treat ski lifts and equipment like toys.

2. When Is a Ski Resort Liable for Injuries?

As a business open to the public, ski resorts are generally responsible for preventing foreseeable injuries in and around the resort. But on the mountain? That could be a different story. And while many (if not all) resorts require you to sign a liability waiver or include one with the sale of a ski pass, not all those waivers are enforceable in court.

3. Ski Injuries: 3 Factors Affecting Lawsuits

Perhaps the biggest factor in determining liability for ski injuries is the behavior of the skiers involved. Did you hop on a double black diamond your first time out? Did you purposely ski outside the resort's boundaries? Or did someone else recklessly plow into you?

4. Who Pays for Rescue Costs?

Speaking of boundaries, for some veteran, adventurous skiers, only the backcountry will do. But what happens if you get in trouble out there? Search parties and rescue efforts don't come cheap, and some counties and states are charging rescuees with those costs.

5. Ski Accidents: When to Sue, When Not to Sue

Your best bet for legal advice regarding your specific ski injuries is going to be an experienced injury attorney. You can find one in your area below.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/02/scarred-on-the-slopes-our-top-5-legal-tips-for-skiing-injuries.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)