Fatal Injury: Wrongful Death for Food Poisoning

via Tumblr hobbsr04.tumblr.com/post/140239479592 It is never fun to imagine our loved ones leaving us forever and there is no legal victory that can make up for the pain of a death, especially a wrongful one. That said, if a family loses a member due to food poisoning, a wrongful death claim is available to some members of the clan. Food poisoning is very common, as are injury lawsuits associated with this particular harm. Fortunately, however, fatal food poisoning is much more rare. Let’s look at wrongful death lawsuits in this context, like the recently-settled case against a California restaurant that was blamed for serving contaminated scallops that allegedly led to a death in 2014. What Is a Wrongful Death Claim? A wrongful death claim is filed by the close relatives of a person harmed by the negligence of another and now deceased. Surviving family members – usually just spouses and children – can sue for damages that would have been due the person named in the wrongful death suit, including lost wages. They can also sue for damages caused by the untimely death, like lost companionship, funeral expenses and more. The specific statutes vary from state to state. But generally speaking wrongful death statutes will all outline the important details a claimant needs to know – who may file, caps to damages, time limits, and the like. Food Poisoning Basics Most food poisoning results in some discomfort and not in death. In the majority of food poisoning cases, on the rare occasion that death is the result, the victim was particularly vulnerable. Very young children and the elderly or ill are most susceptible to extreme reactions due to food poisoning. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), nearly 50 million people suffer from food poisoning in the US each year. Of the millions, only 3,000 people annually are fatal victims reportedly. The most dangerous foods are raw or under-cooked meat and fish, infected by salmonella. Salmonella poisoning is more likely to be fatal than other types of food poisoning. But that doesn’t mean that vegetarians are off the hook. Surprisingly leafy greens, the stuff your parents forced you to clear off your plate long ago, are the most common cause of food-borne illness. Last year, spinach had many victims. Consult With Counsel If you lost a family member to fatal food poisoning, or another illness caused by someone’s negligence, talk to a lawyer. Many attorneys consult for free or a minimal fee and will be happy to provide guidance. Related Resources: Have an injury claim? Get your claim reviewed for free. (Consumer Injury) Food Poisoning: What Are Your Rights? (FindLaw’s Injured) When Can You Sue a Restaurant for Food Poisoning? (FindLaw’s Injured) Food Poisoning Basics (FindLaw’s Learn About the Law) from Injured blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/fatal-injury-wrongful-d... via Blogger hobbsr04.blogspot.com/2016/02/fatal-injury-wrongful-death...

via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/87814799@N02/25388340785

Fatal Injury: Wrongful Death for Food Poisoning

It is never fun to imagine our loved ones leaving us forever and there is no legal victory that can make up for the pain of a death, especially a wrongful one. That said, if a family loses a member due to food poisoning, a wrongful death claim is available to some members of the clan.

Food poisoning is very common, as are injury lawsuits associated with this particular harm. Fortunately, however, fatal food poisoning is much more rare. Let's look at wrongful death lawsuits in this context, like the recently-settled case against a California restaurant that was blamed for serving contaminated scallops that allegedly led to a death in 2014.

What Is a Wrongful Death Claim?

A wrongful death claim is filed by the close relatives of a person harmed by the negligence of another and now deceased. Surviving family members -- usually just spouses and children -- can sue for damages that would have been due the person named in the wrongful death suit, including lost wages. They can also sue for damages caused by the untimely death, like lost companionship, funeral expenses and more.

The specific statutes vary from state to state. But generally speaking wrongful death statutes will all outline the important details a claimant needs to know -- who may file, caps to damages, time limits, and the like.

Food Poisoning Basics

Most food poisoning results in some discomfort and not in death. In the majority of food poisoning cases, on the rare occasion that death is the result, the victim was particularly vulnerable. Very young children and the elderly or ill are most susceptible to extreme reactions due to food poisoning.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), nearly 50 million people suffer from food poisoning in the US each year. Of the millions, only 3,000 people annually are fatal victims reportedly.

The most dangerous foods are raw or under-cooked meat and fish, infected by salmonella. Salmonella poisoning is more likely to be fatal than other types of food poisoning. But that doesn't mean that vegetarians are off the hook. Surprisingly leafy greens, the stuff your parents forced you to clear off your plate long ago, are the most common cause of food-borne illness. Last year, spinach had many victims.

Consult With Counsel

If you lost a family member to fatal food poisoning, or another illness caused by someone's negligence, talk to a lawyer. Many attorneys consult for free or a minimal fee and will be happy to provide guidance.

Related Resources:

• Have an injury claim? Get your claim reviewed for free. (Consumer Injury)
• Food Poisoning: What Are Your Rights? (FindLaw's Injured)
• When Can You Sue a Restaurant for Food Poisoning? (FindLaw's Injured)
• Food Poisoning Basics (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/fatal-injury-wrongful-death-for-food-poisoning.html

5 Most Common Car Accidents

via Tumblr hobbsr04.tumblr.com/post/140039291072 Car accidents are distressingly common, to the tune of around 5.5 million crashes per year. These accidents kill nearly 30,000 people every year and injure millions more. Sadly, vehicle crashes have become a fact of life. Some car accidents are more common that others. Knowing which accidents are more likely can hopefully help you avoid them, and the costly damages and injures that occur. So which car accidents are the most common? 1. The Rear Ender Drivers tend to tailgate. They also tend to be distracted by music, conversations, directions, phones, and who knows what else. The last thing most drivers notice is the car in front of them, stopping short. They may not cause the most damage, but rear-ending another car or getting rear-ended yourself is the most common kind of car accident. And in almost all cases, it’s the car that does the rear-ending that’s at fault. 2. The Single Shot Just because there’s only one car involved doesn’t make single-car crashes any safer. Sometimes it’s as simple as backing into a sign or tree. Sometimes it’s scarier, losing control on ice or in heavy rain. Obviously maintaining a safe speed and being aware of possible dangers on the road can help you avoid single-car accidents, and you should probably avoid leaving the scene, even if another car isn’t involved. 3. The T-Bone While these may be less common, they might be the most scary. Multiple vehicles entering the same intersection can be catastrophic. Even if you know you have a green light or the right of way in an intersection, you should still slow down and pay extra attention to cross-traffic. 4. The Merge They call them blind spots for a reason. Any time we’re changing lanes, we up the chance for an accident, and sideswiping another car or getting sideswiped yourself can happen, even with all the fancy technology new cars have to warn us. Make sure all of your rearview mirrors are in the proper position, double check your blind spots, and use your signal when changing lanes. (And watch out for the fake wave, one of the most commonly staged car accidents. 5. The Act of Nature Sometimes accidents happen to your car without ever getting out on the road. Damage from snow, hail, or falling tree branches or whole trees is especially common this time of year. While there’s not a whole lot you can do to battle Mother Nature, there are better and worse ways to handle the insurance claim for damages. The best way to handle any type of car accident, especially if injuries are involved, might be to contact an experienced personal injury attorney. Related Resources: Injured in a car accident? Get your claim reviewed by an attorney for free. (Consumer Injury) 5 Things a Car Accident Lawyer Can Do (That You Probably Can’t) (FindLaw’s Injured) Car Accident Lawsuit Timeline (FindLaw’s Injured) 5 Car Accident Myths (FindLaw’s Injured) from Injured blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/5-most-common-car-accid... via Blogger hobbsr04.blogspot.com/2016/02/5-most-common-car-accidents...

via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/87814799@N02/25160550482

5 Most Common Car Accidents

Car accidents are distressingly common, to the tune of around 5.5 million crashes per year. These accidents kill nearly 30,000 people every year and injure millions more. Sadly, vehicle crashes have become a fact of life.

Some car accidents are more common that others. Knowing which accidents are more likely can hopefully help you avoid them, and the costly damages and injures that occur. So which car accidents are the most common?

1. The Rear Ender

Drivers tend to tailgate. They also tend to be distracted by music, conversations, directions, phones, and who knows what else. The last thing most drivers notice is the car in front of them, stopping short. They may not cause the most damage, but rear-ending another car or getting rear-ended yourself is the most common kind of car accident. And in almost all cases, it's the car that does the rear-ending that's at fault.

2. The Single Shot

Just because there's only one car involved doesn't make single-car crashes any safer. Sometimes it's as simple as backing into a sign or tree. Sometimes it's scarier, losing control on ice or in heavy rain. Obviously maintaining a safe speed and being aware of possible dangers on the road can help you avoid single-car accidents, and you should probably avoid leaving the scene, even if another car isn't involved.

3. The T-Bone

While these may be less common, they might be the most scary. Multiple vehicles entering the same intersection can be catastrophic. Even if you know you have a green light or the right of way in an intersection, you should still slow down and pay extra attention to cross-traffic.

4. The Merge

They call them blind spots for a reason. Any time we're changing lanes, we up the chance for an accident, and sideswiping another car or getting sideswiped yourself can happen, even with all the fancy technology new cars have to warn us. Make sure all of your rearview mirrors are in the proper position, double check your blind spots, and use your signal when changing lanes. (And watch out for the fake wave, one of the most commonly staged car accidents.

5. The Act of Nature

Sometimes accidents happen to your car without ever getting out on the road. Damage from snow, hail, or falling tree branches or whole trees is especially common this time of year. While there's not a whole lot you can do to battle Mother Nature, there are better and worse ways to handle the insurance claim for damages.

The best way to handle any type of car accident, especially if injuries are involved, might be to contact an experienced personal injury attorney.

Related Resources:

• Injured in a car accident? Get your claim reviewed by an attorney for free. (Consumer Injury)
• 5 Things a Car Accident Lawyer Can Do (That You Probably Can't) (FindLaw's Injured)
• Car Accident Lawsuit Timeline (FindLaw's Injured)
• 5 Car Accident Myths (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/5-most-common-car-accidents.html

When Are Tattoo Parlors Liabile for Injuries?

via Tumblr hobbsr04.tumblr.com/post/140029062882 Tattooing is an ancient art that spans many cultures and has experienced an amazing resurgence in recent years. The rare traditional rite has become quite commonplace, and so too have tattoo lawsuits. Tattoo parlors can be liable for anything from injury to ink that stinks, but only if the artist is somehow negligent. The ways to be negligent are many, but the one key is that you prove all four elements of the claim. Let’s look at a few examples. Possible Claims It is difficult to succeed in a lawsuit based on a distaste for the finished artistic product. But it is not impossible to imagine that a tattoo artist could do something that went beyond the boundaries of artistic difference to a breach of the duty of care, resulting in a successful negligence claim if injury and compensable damages can also be proven. A tattoo parlor is likely to be liable if you are injured due to negligent maintenance of tools, because the ink quality was poor, or because an artist harmed you. The tools of tattooing are dangerous and there are standards of care that parlors and artists must follow. Given the intimate and dangerous nature of this practice, tattoo parlors do carry insurance and the industry is regulated. Lawsuits are relatively common, although you are often required to sign a release form before submitting to the needle. To prove negligence you must show duty, breach, causation, and harm. If a tattoo parlor or artist somehow falls below the standard of care of a reasonable person or establishment in same or similar circumstances, causing injury resulting in damages, they will be liable. But remember, only you are responsible for what you choose to have tattooed on your body. Talk to a Lawyer If you have been injured at a tattoo parlor or elsewhere, talk to a lawyer. Many attorneys consult for free or a minimal fee and will be happy to discuss your case. Related Resources: Have an injury claim? Get your claim reviewed for free. (Consumer Injury) Dog Tattoos Controversial but Are They Legal? (FindLaw’s Law and daily Life) Legal to Refuse Service Over Tattoos? (FindLaw’s Free Enterprise) Dog Tattoos Are Controversial, but Are They Legal? (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life) from Injured blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/when-are-tattoo-parlors... via Blogger hobbsr04.blogspot.com/2016/02/when-are-tattoo-parlors-lia...

via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/87814799@N02/24644457724

When Are Tattoo Parlors Liabile for Injuries?

Tattooing is an ancient art that spans many cultures and has experienced an amazing resurgence in recent years. The rare traditional rite has become quite commonplace, and so too have tattoo lawsuits.

Tattoo parlors can be liable for anything from injury to ink that stinks, but only if the artist is somehow negligent. The ways to be negligent are many, but the one key is that you prove all four elements of the claim. Let’s look at a few examples.

Possible Claims

It is difficult to succeed in a lawsuit based on a distaste for the finished artistic product. But it is not impossible to imagine that a tattoo artist could do something that went beyond the boundaries of artistic difference to a breach of the duty of care, resulting in a successful negligence claim if injury and compensable damages can also be proven.

A tattoo parlor is likely to be liable if you are injured due to negligent maintenance of tools, because the ink quality was poor, or because an artist harmed you. The tools of tattooing are dangerous and there are standards of care that parlors and artists must follow.

Given the intimate and dangerous nature of this practice, tattoo parlors do carry insurance and the industry is regulated. Lawsuits are relatively common, although you are often required to sign a release form before submitting to the needle.

To prove negligence you must show duty, breach, causation, and harm. If a tattoo parlor or artist somehow falls below the standard of care of a reasonable person or establishment in same or similar circumstances, causing injury resulting in damages, they will be liable. But remember, only you are responsible for what you choose to have tattooed on your body.

Talk to a Lawyer

If you have been injured at a tattoo parlor or elsewhere, talk to a lawyer. Many attorneys consult for free or a minimal fee and will be happy to discuss your case.

Related Resources:

• Have an injury claim? Get your claim reviewed for free. (Consumer Injury)
• Dog Tattoos Controversial but Are They Legal? (FindLaw’s Law and daily Life)
• Legal to Refuse Service Over Tattoos? (FindLaw’s Free Enterprise)
• Dog Tattoos Are Controversial, but Are They Legal? (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/when-are-tattoo-parlors-liable-for-injuries.html

Pedestrian Relief: Suing Cyclists for Injury

via Tumblr hobbsr04.tumblr.com/post/139971827962 You were walking down the sidewalk when — whoosh! boom! — a cyclist zooms around the corner and into you. You fall, you are injured, and you want to sue. Can you? Yes, you can sue a cyclist for negligence if you are injured and sustain damages. Negligence is generally a valid claim if you are injured by another, although whether a suit will succeed depends on whether you can prove all four elements of negligence. How to Prove Negligence There are four elements of negligence that work together to make a claim. For a suit to succeed, the plaintiff must prove duty, breach causation, and compensable harm (sometimes called damages). In your case, you would have to first show that a cyclist owed you a duty of care and breached that duty. When we use public spaces, like streets or sidewalks, we all owe each other the standard of care of a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances. Arguably, the cyclist riding wildly on the sidewalk, unable to stop for a pedestrian, breaches that duty of care. Two elements of negligence are now accounted for, duty and breach. Next you must show the cyclist caused your injury and that there was no unforeseeable intervening cause. Say the cyclist claims to have been on the sidewalk because cars were driving wildly — fast cars on the streets are foreseeable and probably would not break the chain of causation. Next up, Damages But there is a question about damages, the final element of negligence. Even if you can prove that your injury resulted in compensable harm — say, medical bills, time lost from work — the cyclist may not make a great defendant. Your claim may succeed and you may be awarded damages. But collecting a damages award from an individual can be much more difficult than from a business or another institution. Maybe your cyclist has deep pockets or great liability insurance. Maybe not. Consult With Counsel If you or someone you know has been injured by a cyclist, or in any other context, consult with a lawyer. Many personal injury attorneys consult for free or a minimal fee and will be happy to discuss your claim. Related Resources: Have an injury claim? Get your claim reviewed for free. (Consumer Injury) Bicycle Accidents (FindLaw) Child Bicycle Accident Liability (FindLaw) from Injured blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/pedestrian-relief-suing... via Blogger hobbsr04.blogspot.com/2016/02/pedestrian-relief-suing-cyc...

via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/87814799@N02/24888649429

Pedestrian Relief: Suing Cyclists for Injury

You were walking down the sidewalk when — whoosh! boom! — a cyclist zooms around the corner and into you. You fall, you are injured, and you want to sue. Can you?

Yes, you can sue a cyclist for negligence if you are injured and sustain damages. Negligence is generally a valid claim if you are injured by another, although whether a suit will succeed depends on whether you can prove all four elements of negligence.

How to Prove Negligence

There are four elements of negligence that work together to make a claim. For a suit to succeed, the plaintiff must prove duty, breach causation, and compensable harm (sometimes called damages).

In your case, you would have to first show that a cyclist owed you a duty of care and breached that duty. When we use public spaces, like streets or sidewalks, we all owe each other the standard of care of a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances.

Arguably, the cyclist riding wildly on the sidewalk, unable to stop for a pedestrian, breaches that duty of care. Two elements of negligence are now accounted for, duty and breach.

Next you must show the cyclist caused your injury and that there was no unforeseeable intervening cause. Say the cyclist claims to have been on the sidewalk because cars were driving wildly — fast cars on the streets are foreseeable and probably would not break the chain of causation.

Next up, Damages

But there is a question about damages, the final element of negligence. Even if you can prove that your injury resulted in compensable harm — say, medical bills, time lost from work — the cyclist may not make a great defendant.

Your claim may succeed and you may be awarded damages. But collecting a damages award from an individual can be much more difficult than from a business or another institution. Maybe your cyclist has deep pockets or great liability insurance. Maybe not.

Consult With Counsel

If you or someone you know has been injured by a cyclist, or in any other context, consult with a lawyer. Many personal injury attorneys consult for free or a minimal fee and will be happy to discuss your claim.

Related Resources:

• Have an injury claim? Get your claim reviewed for free. (Consumer Injury)
• Bicycle Accidents (FindLaw)
• Child Bicycle Accident Liability (FindLaw)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/pedestrian-relief-suing-a-cyclist-for-personal-injury.html

Johnson & Johnson to Pay $72M in Talcum Powder Cancer Case

via Tumblr hobbsr04.tumblr.com/post/139937998497 A jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $72 million to a woman’s family after her death from ovarian cancer was linked to use of the company’s talc-based products. Jacqueline Fox allegedly developed cancer after using Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower for over 30 years. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer three years ago and passed away last October. Attorneys for Fox’s family say the jury award is the first of its kind, though there are sure to many more. Feminine Care and Cancer Around 1,200 cases in Missouri and New Jersey have been filed against Johnson & Johnson, accusing the company of failing to warn consumers that some of its talc-based products could cause cancer. The AP reports that a company medical consultant was quoted in an internal memo as saying, “anybody who denies” that using hygienic talc could increase the risk of ovarian cancer is “denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary.” And the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies the genital use of talc-based body powder as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” In this case, the jury felt the correlation between Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based products and Fox’s cancer was strong enough to side in her family’s favor. The jury ordered the company to pay $10 million of actual damages and $62 million of punitive damages. Talc Liability Johnson & Johnson continues to stand by the talc used in it products. “The recent U.S. verdict goes against decades of sound science proving the safety of talc as a cosmetic ingredient in multiple products,” claimed spokesperson Carol Goodrich. “While we sympathize with the family of the plaintiff, we strongly disagree with the outcome.” A company can be held liable for inadequate instructions or warnings on products it knows to be dangerous. But it’s also up to consumer to keep themselves safe as best as they can. Eva Chalas, chief of Gynecologic Oncology and Director of Clinical Cancer Services at Winthrop-University Hospital, told USA Today, “People should be careful about what they apply to their genitals, but in terms of ovarian cancer, the majority of women who develop ovarian do so from other risk factors including - age, genetic predisposition, reproductive issues and whether they were on birth control.” If you think you’ve been injured or sickened by a defective or inadequately labeled product, you should consult with an experienced personal injury attorney about your case. Related Resources: Hurt by a product or accident? Get your claim reviewed for free. (Consumer Injury) J&J Must Pay $72 Million for Cancer Death Linked to Talcum Powder: Lawyers (Reuters) Injuries and Product Liability: Do You Have a Case? (FindLaw’s Injured) Viagra Lawsuits Over Skin Cancer Risk on the Rise (FindLaw’s Injured) from Injured blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/johnson-johnson-to-pay-... via Blogger hobbsr04.blogspot.com/2016/02/johnson-johnson-to-pay-72m-...

via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/87814799@N02/24948352890

Johnson & Johnson to Pay $72M in Talcum Powder Cancer Case

A jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $72 million to a woman’s family after her death from ovarian cancer was linked to use of the company’s talc-based products. Jacqueline Fox allegedly developed cancer after using Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower for over 30 years.

She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer three years ago and passed away last October. Attorneys for Fox’s family say the jury award is the first of its kind, though there are sure to many more.

Feminine Care and Cancer

Around 1,200 cases in Missouri and New Jersey have been filed against Johnson & Johnson, accusing the company of failing to warn consumers that some of its talc-based products could cause cancer. The AP reports that a company medical consultant was quoted in an internal memo as saying, “anybody who denies” that using hygienic talc could increase the risk of ovarian cancer is “denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary.” And the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies the genital use of talc-based body powder as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

In this case, the jury felt the correlation between Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based products and Fox’s cancer was strong enough to side in her family’s favor. The jury ordered the company to pay $10 million of actual damages and $62 million of punitive damages.

Talc Liability

Johnson & Johnson continues to stand by the talc used in it products. “The recent U.S. verdict goes against decades of sound science proving the safety of talc as a cosmetic ingredient in multiple products,” claimed spokesperson Carol Goodrich. “While we sympathize with the family of the plaintiff, we strongly disagree with the outcome.”

A company can be held liable for inadequate instructions or warnings on products it knows to be dangerous. But it’s also up to consumer to keep themselves safe as best as they can. Eva Chalas, chief of Gynecologic Oncology and Director of Clinical Cancer Services at Winthrop-University Hospital, told USA Today, “People should be careful about what they apply to their genitals, but in terms of ovarian cancer, the majority of women who develop ovarian do so from other risk factors including - age, genetic predisposition, reproductive issues and whether they were on birth control.”

If you think you’ve been injured or sickened by a defective or inadequately labeled product, you should consult with an experienced personal injury attorney about your case.

Related Resources:

• Hurt by a product or accident? Get your claim reviewed for free. (Consumer Injury)
• J&J Must Pay $72 Million for Cancer Death Linked to Talcum Powder: Lawyers (Reuters)
• Injuries and Product Liability: Do You Have a Case? (FindLaw’s Injured)
• Viagra Lawsuits Over Skin Cancer Risk on the Rise (FindLaw’s Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/johnson-johnson-to-pay-72-million-in-talcum-powder-cancer-case.html

There Are No Safe Hoverboards, CPSC Says

via Tumblr hobbsr04.tumblr.com/post/139913378237 The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is warning all hoverboard, smart board, and balance board manufacturers that their products could soon be recalled for being too hazardous. Now the CPSC is asking stores and manufacturers to voluntarily recall hoverboards themselves, Mashable reports. At this juncture, says the agency, there is not a single one of these types of boards for sale that can be considered safe. The CPSC wants manufacturers to take hoverboards off the market until they can be certified safe by an independent testing firm. Not Certified Safe Last week, the consumer protection agency sent out an official notice to retailers, manufacturers, and importers with new hoverboard safety standards. Along with the new standards came a warning that failure to follow these could result in enforcement actions, including civil and criminal penalties. There is cause for concern. According to a statement issued by the CPSC, there have been dozens of hoverboard fires already, but the root causes for them are not known. Luckily the fires occurred outdoors and injuries have not been as severe as they could have been otherwise. The Hoverboard Story Some lawyers have already declared this the year that of the hoverboard in anticipation of the many lawsuits expected to stem from the controversial products. There are already two product liability suits filed and many more expected. Bases for product liability cases are design defects, manufacturing defects, and warning defects. Manufacturers or retailers have been warned by CPSC and they are aware of the risks and dangers involved with continuing to sell hoverboards that are not yet certified safe. In light of last week’s announcement of new standards, it seems likely that many will pull products from the shelves rather than face potentially massive damage claims. Talk to a Lawyer If you or someone you know was injured on a hoverboard or any other product, consult with an attorney. Many personal injury attorneys consult for free or a minimal fee and will be happy to hear your case. Related Resources: Have an injury claim? Get your claim reviewed for free. (Consumer Injury) What Is Product Liability? (FindLaw) Legal Basis for Liability in Product Cases (FindLaw) from Injured blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/there-are-no-safe-hover... via Blogger hobbsr04.blogspot.com/2016/02/there-are-no-safe-hoverboar...

via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/87814799@N02/25236392455

There Are No Safe Hoverboards, CPSC Says

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is warning all hoverboard, smart board, and balance board manufacturers that their products could soon be recalled for being too hazardous. Now the CPSC is asking stores and manufacturers to voluntarily recall hoverboards themselves, Mashable reports.

At this juncture, says the agency, there is not a single one of these types of boards for sale that can be considered safe. The CPSC wants manufacturers to take hoverboards off the market until they can be certified safe by an independent testing firm.

Not Certified Safe

Last week, the consumer protection agency sent out an official notice to retailers, manufacturers, and importers with new hoverboard safety standards. Along with the new standards came a warning that failure to follow these could result in enforcement actions, including civil and criminal penalties.

There is cause for concern. According to a statement issued by the CPSC, there have been dozens of hoverboard fires already, but the root causes for them are not known. Luckily the fires occurred outdoors and injuries have not been as severe as they could have been otherwise.

The Hoverboard Story

Some lawyers have already declared this the year that of the hoverboard in anticipation of the many lawsuits expected to stem from the controversial products. There are already two product liability suits filed and many more expected. Bases for product liability cases are design defects, manufacturing defects, and warning defects.

Manufacturers or retailers have been warned by CPSC and they are aware of the risks and dangers involved with continuing to sell hoverboards that are not yet certified safe. In light of last week's announcement of new standards, it seems likely that many will pull products from the shelves rather than face potentially massive damage claims.

Talk to a Lawyer

If you or someone you know was injured on a hoverboard or any other product, consult with an attorney. Many personal injury attorneys consult for free or a minimal fee and will be happy to hear your case.

Related Resources:

• Have an injury claim? Get your claim reviewed for free. (Consumer Injury)
• What Is Product Liability? (FindLaw)
• Legal Basis for Liability in Product Cases (FindLaw)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/there-are-no-safe-hoverboards-cpsc-says.html

Lawsuits for SoCal Gas Leak?

via Tumblr hobbsr04.tumblr.com/post/139873709002 Los Angeles prosecutors have already filed criminal charges against the Southern California Gas company, alleging they failed to report a huge methane leak near the city that spilled some 80,000 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere over the course of the past three months. And the California Attorney General joined a slew of city and county agencies suing SoCalGas in civil court. But what about the thousands of residents of the area that were sickened and forced from their homes during the gas leak? Could more lawsuits be on the way? Leak Liability The existing lawsuits accuse SoCalGas of violating state health and safety laws by failing to promptly report the leak, and creating a public nuisance. And criminal charges allege SoCalGas failed to report the leak for three days, when the leak was reported to be spewing 97,000 pounds of methane per hour. Southern California Gas Company spokesman Mike Mizrahi disagreed, asserting, “When we discovered the leak, we made prompt notification to multiple agencies. We do not believe a criminal prosecution is warranted here.” The company announced last week that a relief well had “intercepted the base of the leaking well” and temporarily halted the gas from leaking, and will continue to seal the leaking gas well. Legal Liability SoCalGas also said that it has at least $1 billion worth of insurance policies that it believes will cover damages and litigation relating to the leak, but experts are skeptical that amount will be enough. In comparison, the 2010 gas explosion in San Bruno, California has cost PG&E upwards of $2 billion, with some claims still outstanding. Residents of the area could have personal injury claims based on adverse health conditions due to methane exposure, as well as real estate damages claims based on the loss of property values because of the leak. It may take years for residents and the gas company to sort out potential claims, insurance coverage, and other litigation, especially considering the leak itself has yet to be permanently capped. If you have questions regarding liability for gas companies, you can contact an experienced personal injury attorney near you. Related Resources: Hurt by a product or accident? Get your claim reviewed for free. (Consumer Injury) Gas Company to Be Arraigned over Los Angeles Area Methane Leak (Reuters) Parents of Lead-Poisoned Girl in Flint, Michigan File Lawsuit (FindLaw’s Injured) Health Hazards (FindLaw’s Injured) from Injured blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/lawsuits-for-socal-gas-... via Blogger hobbsr04.blogspot.com/2016/02/lawsuits-for-socal-gas-leak...

via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/87814799@N02/24855010229

Lawsuits for SoCal Gas Leak?

Los Angeles prosecutors have already filed criminal charges against the Southern California Gas company, alleging they failed to report a huge methane leak near the city that spilled some 80,000 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere over the course of the past three months. And the California Attorney General joined a slew of city and county agencies suing SoCalGas in civil court.

But what about the thousands of residents of the area that were sickened and forced from their homes during the gas leak? Could more lawsuits be on the way?

Leak Liability

The existing lawsuits accuse SoCalGas of violating state health and safety laws by failing to promptly report the leak, and creating a public nuisance. And criminal charges allege SoCalGas failed to report the leak for three days, when the leak was reported to be spewing 97,000 pounds of methane per hour.

Southern California Gas Company spokesman Mike Mizrahi disagreed, asserting, “When we discovered the leak, we made prompt notification to multiple agencies. We do not believe a criminal prosecution is warranted here.” The company announced last week that a relief well had “intercepted the base of the leaking well” and temporarily halted the gas from leaking, and will continue to seal the leaking gas well.

Legal Liability

SoCalGas also said that it has at least $1 billion worth of insurance policies that it believes will cover damages and litigation relating to the leak, but experts are skeptical that amount will be enough. In comparison, the 2010 gas explosion in San Bruno, California has cost PG&E upwards of $2 billion, with some claims still outstanding.

Residents of the area could have personal injury claims based on adverse health conditions due to methane exposure, as well as real estate damages claims based on the loss of property values because of the leak. It may take years for residents and the gas company to sort out potential claims, insurance coverage, and other litigation, especially considering the leak itself has yet to be permanently capped.

If you have questions regarding liability for gas companies, you can contact an experienced personal injury attorney near you.

Related Resources:

• Hurt by a product or accident? Get your claim reviewed for free. (Consumer Injury)
• Gas Company to Be Arraigned over Los Angeles Area Methane Leak (Reuters)
• Parents of Lead-Poisoned Girl in Flint, Michigan File Lawsuit (FindLaw’s Injured)
• Health Hazards (FindLaw’s Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/lawsuits-for-socal-gas-leak.html

Heartburn Medication Tied to Increased Dementia Risk

via Tumblr hobbsr04.tumblr.com/post/139854804907 New research has found that taking heartburn drugs could increase your risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease or dementia by up to 52 percent. The study looked at drugs like Prevacid, Prilosec, or Nexium, which are known as proton pump inhibitors and are widely available over the counter or with a prescription. Researchers stopped short of saying PPI’s cause dementia, and but concluded that “the avoidance of PPI medication may contribute to the prevention of dementia.” But with an estimated 15 million Americans using PPIs regularly, avoiding the medication may be harder than it seems. Sobering Upset Stomach Stats From 2004 to 2011, German researchers tracked 73,769 people age 75 and older. None of the patients had been diagnosed with dementia before taking PPIs. Five years later, around 29,000 of them developed Alzheimer’s disease or some other form of dementia. Controlling for factors like age, sex, diabetes, stroke, and heart disease, researchers found that regular PPI use increased the risk of developing dementia by 52 percent in men and 42 percent in women. This is compared to subjects that did not take PPIs. Dangerous Drugs and Dementia If a more causal link between heartburn drugs and dementia is established, it’s possible that PPI users that develop dementia could file lawsuits against drug manufacturers. Manufacturers could be held liable if they fail to warn users of potentially harmful side effects. Dangerous drugs and medicines are governed by product liability, which can be proven in three ways: A design defect that rendered the drug unreasonably dangerous to consumers; A manufacturing defect that dangerously departed from the intended design of the drug; or A warning defect, whereby the drug lacked adequate instructions or warnings. Drug manufacturers could also be liable for deceptive marketing of drugs or the failure to warn of potentially life-threatening side effects. To find out if you have a claim for developing dementia after taking heartburn medication, contact an experienced personal injury attorney near you. Related Resources: Hurt by a product or accident? Get your claim reviewed for free. (Consumer Injury) Popular Heartburn Pills Can Be Hard To Stop, And May Be Risky (NPR) Are Drug Companies Liable for Side Effects? (FindLaw’s Injured) 5 Most Dangerous Prescription Drugs (FindLaw’s Injured) from Injured blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/heartburn-medication-ti... via Blogger hobbsr04.blogspot.com/2016/02/heartburn-medication-tied-t...

via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/87814799@N02/25190339136

Heartburn Medication Tied to Increased Dementia Risk

New research has found that taking heartburn drugs could increase your risk of developing Alzheimer's disease or dementia by up to 52 percent. The study looked at drugs like Prevacid, Prilosec, or Nexium, which are known as proton pump inhibitors and are widely available over the counter or with a prescription.

Researchers stopped short of saying PPI's cause dementia, and but concluded that "the avoidance of PPI medication may contribute to the prevention of dementia." But with an estimated 15 million Americans using PPIs regularly, avoiding the medication may be harder than it seems.

Sobering Upset Stomach Stats

From 2004 to 2011, German researchers tracked 73,769 people age 75 and older. None of the patients had been diagnosed with dementia before taking PPIs. Five years later, around 29,000 of them developed Alzheimer's disease or some other form of dementia.

Controlling for factors like age, sex, diabetes, stroke, and heart disease, researchers found that regular PPI use increased the risk of developing dementia by 52 percent in men and 42 percent in women. This is compared to subjects that did not take PPIs.

Dangerous Drugs and Dementia

If a more causal link between heartburn drugs and dementia is established, it's possible that PPI users that develop dementia could file lawsuits against drug manufacturers. Manufacturers could be held liable if they fail to warn users of potentially harmful side effects.

Dangerous drugs and medicines are governed by product liability, which can be proven in three ways:

1. A design defect that rendered the drug unreasonably dangerous to consumers;
2. A manufacturing defect that dangerously departed from the intended design of the drug; or
3. A warning defect, whereby the drug lacked adequate instructions or warnings.

Drug manufacturers could also be liable for deceptive marketing of drugs or the failure to warn of potentially life-threatening side effects. To find out if you have a claim for developing dementia after taking heartburn medication, contact an experienced personal injury attorney near you.

Related Resources:

• Hurt by a product or accident? Get your claim reviewed for free. (Consumer Injury)
• Popular Heartburn Pills Can Be Hard To Stop, And May Be Risky (NPR)
• Are Drug Companies Liable for Side Effects? (FindLaw's Injured)
• 5 Most Dangerous Prescription Drugs (FindLaw's Injured)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/heartburn-medication-tied-to-increased-dementia-risk.html

Diseased Kidney Transplant Not Negligence, Jury Finds

via Tumblr hobbsr04.tumblr.com/post/139810749302 You need an organ. Doctors warn that it will take a while unless you are willing to risk taking an organ from a less than ideal donor. What do you do? And if something goes wrong, who will you successfully sue? A Massachusetts case decided last week provides a scary but interesting perspective. Doctors and an organ bank that transferred a diseased kidney from an alcoholic homeless man to a patient in need of a transplant, giving him a rare rodent virus, were found not guilty of negligence in a medical context by a jury last week. The transplant patient died. Let’s look at the details, according to ABC News, and why no negligence was found here. You Were Warned In 2008, Pierre Dimanche, a patient awaiting a kidney transplant, was told about a possible donor. The donor was homeless and an alcoholic, so not necessarily a great candidate for passing on body parts. But the patient was desperate and, although warned, decided to risk the kidney transfer. Unfortunately, the donor turned out to be more problematic than imagined. He had a rare rodent disease that infected the transplant patient, who did not survive. The patient’s daughter sued the doctors and organ donor agency for negligence, arguing that they breached their duty of care to her father and caused his death. But the jury – after 7 hours of deliberations, which is an indication that this was not an easy decision – found the defendants not guilty of negligence. The decision was based on the fact that the transplant patient was warned of the risks of accepting an organ from a questionable donor. Attorneys for the doctors and organ bank say the man was classified as a high-risk donor and Dimanche was told this. As such, he assumed the risks, including contracting a disease that doesn’t normally afflict humans. Consult With Counsel As this case shows, negligence cases can be difficult to prove. Sometimes even shocking situations prove not to be negligence. However, if you or someone you know has been injured, do speak to a lawyer. Many attorneys consult for free or a minimal fee and will be happy to assess your case. Related Resources: Browse Medical Malpractice Lawyers by Location (FindLaw Directory) What Is Medical Malpractice Law? (FindLaw) Get Legal Help With a Medical Malpractice Issue (FindLaw) from Injured blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/diseased-kidney-transpl... via Blogger hobbsr04.blogspot.com/2016/02/diseased-kidney-transplant-...

via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/87814799@N02/24905872790

Diseased Kidney Transplant Not Negligence, Jury Finds

You need an organ. Doctors warn that it will take a while unless you are willing to risk taking an organ from a less than ideal donor. What do you do? And if something goes wrong, who will you successfully sue?

A Massachusetts case decided last week provides a scary but interesting perspective. Doctors and an organ bank that transferred a diseased kidney from an alcoholic homeless man to a patient in need of a transplant, giving him a rare rodent virus, were found not guilty of negligence in a medical context by a jury last week. The transplant patient died. Let's look at the details, according to ABC News, and why no negligence was found here.

You Were Warned

In 2008, Pierre Dimanche, a patient awaiting a kidney transplant, was told about a possible donor. The donor was homeless and an alcoholic, so not necessarily a great candidate for passing on body parts. But the patient was desperate and, although warned, decided to risk the kidney transfer.

Unfortunately, the donor turned out to be more problematic than imagined. He had a rare rodent disease that infected the transplant patient, who did not survive.

The patient's daughter sued the doctors and organ donor agency for negligence, arguing that they breached their duty of care to her father and caused his death. But the jury -- after 7 hours of deliberations, which is an indication that this was not an easy decision -- found the defendants not guilty of negligence.

The decision was based on the fact that the transplant patient was warned of the risks of accepting an organ from a questionable donor. Attorneys for the doctors and organ bank say the man was classified as a high-risk donor and Dimanche was told this. As such, he assumed the risks, including contracting a disease that doesn't normally afflict humans.

Consult With Counsel

As this case shows, negligence cases can be difficult to prove. Sometimes even shocking situations prove not to be negligence. However, if you or someone you know has been injured, do speak to a lawyer. Many attorneys consult for free or a minimal fee and will be happy to assess your case.

Related Resources:

• Browse Medical Malpractice Lawyers by Location (FindLaw Directory)
• What Is Medical Malpractice Law? (FindLaw)
• Get Legal Help With a Medical Malpractice Issue (FindLaw)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/diseased-kidney-transplant-not-negligence-jury-finds.html

Are Babysitters Liable for a Child's Injuries?

via Tumblr hobbsr04.tumblr.com/post/139628117657 You entrust your child to the care of another and hope the person will treat your kid well. Usually everything works out, but sometimes kids get hurt. It happens, and sometimes an accident is not anyone’s fault. So you want to know what will happen if your kid is hurt when with a babysitter. Can you sue the sitter? The answer as it so often is in the law is yes, but it depends on the circumstances. What Is Negligence? Personal injury cases are based on negligence claims. The plaintiff argues that the defendant breached a duty of care, failing to act as a reasonable person would in same or similar circumstances. This breach, if proven, must be the cause of the plaintiff’s injury, meaning that no unforeseeable or intervening forces were to blame. If causation can be shown, the plaintiff goes on to prove an amount of damages due to compensate for the injury. In a babysitting situation there is no doubt that a duty of care is owed. Your babysitter must behave like a reasonable person would behave in the same or similar circumstances. So whether a babysitter is liable will depend on their age, the circumstances, and the details of what happened. Theoretically, you can sue for negligence if your child is injured by a babysitter. But whether a judge or jury will allow your claim to succeed depends. Was it reasonable to leave the child in the circumstances you did? Was the babysitter old enough to handle the situation? Babysitting Insurance People who babysit professionally often do get insurance so that they are covered in case of an emergency. But of course that applies to an adult doing this kind of work. Teens trying to make a little extra cash obviously don’t have insurance, which may be a factor in deciding who you choose to watch your child. Ideally nothing will go wrong when you leave your kids with someone. But it’s worth your while to inquire into insurance coverage, and even to weigh whether to go with a pricier caregiver based on such a factor. Regardless of what you choose, you will only be able to successfully sue a babysitter if the person behaved negligently and you can prove all the elements of negligence. Talk to a Lawyer If your child has been hurt in the care of a babysitter or elsewhere, speak to a lawyer. Many injury attorneys consult for free or a minimal fee and will be happy to assess your case. Related Resources: Injured in an accident? Get your claim reviewed by an attorney for free. (Consumer Injury) Is It Legal to Leave Kids Home Alone? (FindLaw) Standard of Care and the Reasonable Person (FindLaw) from Injured blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/are-babysitters-liable-... via Blogger hobbsr04.blogspot.com/2016/02/are-babysitters-liable-for-...

via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/87814799@N02/24841658290

Are Babysitters Liable for a Child's Injuries?

You entrust your child to the care of another and hope the person will treat your kid well. Usually everything works out, but sometimes kids get hurt. It happens, and sometimes an accident is not anyone’s fault.

So you want to know what will happen if your kid is hurt when with a babysitter. Can you sue the sitter? The answer as it so often is in the law is yes, but it depends on the circumstances.

What Is Negligence?

Personal injury cases are based on negligence claims. The plaintiff argues that the defendant breached a duty of care, failing to act as a reasonable person would in same or similar circumstances. This breach, if proven, must be the cause of the plaintiff’s injury, meaning that no unforeseeable or intervening forces were to blame. If causation can be shown, the plaintiff goes on to prove an amount of damages due to compensate for the injury.

In a babysitting situation there is no doubt that a duty of care is owed. Your babysitter must behave like a reasonable person would behave in the same or similar circumstances. So whether a babysitter is liable will depend on their age, the circumstances, and the details of what happened.

Theoretically, you can sue for negligence if your child is injured by a babysitter. But whether a judge or jury will allow your claim to succeed depends. Was it reasonable to leave the child in the circumstances you did? Was the babysitter old enough to handle the situation?

Babysitting Insurance

People who babysit professionally often do get insurance so that they are covered in case of an emergency. But of course that applies to an adult doing this kind of work. Teens trying to make a little extra cash obviously don’t have insurance, which may be a factor in deciding who you choose to watch your child.

Ideally nothing will go wrong when you leave your kids with someone. But it’s worth your while to inquire into insurance coverage, and even to weigh whether to go with a pricier caregiver based on such a factor. Regardless of what you choose, you will only be able to successfully sue a babysitter if the person behaved negligently and you can prove all the elements of negligence.

Talk to a Lawyer

If your child has been hurt in the care of a babysitter or elsewhere, speak to a lawyer. Many injury attorneys consult for free or a minimal fee and will be happy to assess your case.

Related Resources:

• Injured in an accident? Get your claim reviewed by an attorney for free. (Consumer Injury)
• Is It Legal to Leave Kids Home Alone? (FindLaw)
• Standard of Care and the Reasonable Person (FindLaw)

from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2016/02/are-babysitters-liable-for-a-childs-injuries.html