Friday, July 28, 2017

Man Tased by Colorado Police Receives $110K Settlement

Tasers are often viewed as a non-lethal alternative to subdue criminal suspects, but they are far from perfectly safe. Victims have suffered miscarriages, brain damage, and even death. Therefore, tasers should be used rarely and only with good reason.

It turns out that a man asking "What for?" while his hands are above his head and his back is facing police is not a good enough reason. Darsean Kelley got a $110,000 settlement from the city of Aurora, Colorado, without even having to file a lawsuit, after body camera footage showed officer an officer tasing him in the back.

I Know My Rights

The footage of Kelley's tasing is not easy to watch, as his body stiffens, he falls backward onto the sidewalk, and can be heard crying afterward. The ACLU, who took up Kelley's case, described the scene:

Police in Aurora, Colorado, got a call about a man pulling a gun on a kid. They had no description of the suspect. On their way to the scene, they stopped two Black men walking down the sidewalk.
Darsean Kelley, one of the men, followed the officers' orders to hold his hands above his head and turn around. His repeated requests for an explanation as to why they had been detained went unanswered. Even though it was clear he had no weapons and he was no threat to the officers, Darsean was tased in the back just as he said, "I know my rights." Darsean fell backwards and hit his head on the pavement.

Kelley was arrested for disorderly conduct, or failure to obey a lawful order, after he was tased. That charge was dropped, but not before he spent three days in jail, unable to post his bond.

Within Policy

Suing the police can be tricky, but a lawsuit wasn't even necessary in this case. While Aurora City Attorney Mike Hyman stood behind the officers' actions, he said the settlement was a financial decision. "We disagree with the ACLU's characterization of the events in this case and their unwarranted attack against the Aurora Police Department," Hyman said in a statement. "This case was settled for the reason that many cases are settled -- to avoid the cost of prolonged litigation. That cost would have far exceeded the value of the settlement."

There was no punishment for the police officers involved, after an internal review board determined the use of force "was reasonable, appropriate, and within policy."

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/07/man-tased-by-colorado-police-receives-110k-settlement.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Parents Sue Amazon and a Teenager for Sword Related Head Injury

Earlier this year, the parents of a teen that suffered a severe head injury sued the makers of a novelty samurai sword. Now, the parents of the injured teen have filed a second lawsuit, this time against Amazon, and, curiously, one of the three teens present at the accident.

In addition to the many claims against Amazon, a negligence claim was included against the teen who was directing and encouraging the two other teens to be playing with the sword in order to film them. The claim against Amazon is rather straightforward. In short, it's a product liability claim, similar to the one made against the manufacturer, and these claims hold each entity or person who had a part in the sale and distribution of a product liable when injuries result due to the product's faulty design or some defect.

What Did Amazon Do, Allegedly?

Product liability claims can extend well beyond the manufacturer of a product. The parties that can be held liable for injuries caused by defective products or failures to warn include the:

  • Manufacturer
  • Manufacturer of a component, or single piece of the product
  • Assembler, or installer
  • Wholesaler
  • Retail store that sold the product

The lawsuit against Amazon alleges that the retail giant actually processed the entire sale, from accepting payment for the item on their platform, to boxing up the item without any warnings, and shipping it, as well as profiting from the sale. The sword itself is alleged to be defectively designed for failing to warn consumers that it should not be used for anything other than decoration. Since Amazon was prominently involved in the sale, the lawsuit against them asserts that it should have, minimally, provided warnings inside the shipping box.

What Did the Other Teen Do, Allegedly?

The teen that is being sued for negligence is alleged to have encouraged the two other teens to play with the sword so that she could film it for social media. The lawsuit claims she choreographed the stunt, and induced the boys to act by the lure of "Instagram or Snapchat notoriety."

Under a negligence theory, when a person induces or encourages others to act, they can be held liable for injuries if that encouragement was malicious, reckless, or otherwise ill-advised. Additionally, if the end result is fatal, or rises to the level of criminality, criminal charges can be pursued.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/07/parents-sue-amazon-and-a-teenager-for-sword-related-head-injury.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

3 Bars Sued for Overserving Former Prosecutor Before Drunken Car Crash

Joshua Kuiper should've known the dangers of drunk driving, including the liability for causing an accident. Kuiper is a former Kent County, Michigan prosecutor, who was fired after crashing his truck into a parked car while traveling the wrong direction on a one way street, seriously injuring Daniel Empson, who was getting a coat out of his car parked on the street.

Kuiper, who was charged with a felony charge of reckless driving, should also be aware of dram shop laws, which hold bars and restaurants liable for injuries caused by overserved patrons. If not, he knows now -- the injury lawsuit Empson filed against Kuiper has been expanded to include three establishments that served him before the crash, alleging they should've known he was drunk.

Liquor Liability

Most states have liquor laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol to anyone who is already intoxicated. In addition, dram shop laws hold establishments civilly liable for personal injuries and property damages that result from the actions of the intoxicated individual. While the person who was overserved can't sue the bar, those, like Empson, who were injured by that person can.

Empson claims he was thrown 60 feet from his car and sustained injuries to his right shoulder, back, left hip, legs, and head. He was allegedly in a sling for six weeks and his injuries may still take six months to a year to completely heal. On top of his suit against Kuiper, Empson is now suing three Grand Rapids establishments -- McFadden's Restaurant & Saloon, Luna, and J. Gardella's -- in a separate lawsuit, claiming Kuiper was visibly intoxicated at all three, yet was still served at least one alcoholic beverage. Kuiper was allegedly out celebrating the retirement of another prosecutor.

Nasty Accident

The crash also had ramifications in the Grand Rapids police department. As reported by MLive:

The investigation of the crash led to the firing of Lt. Matt Janiskee, who was in the watch command office.
Officer Adam Ickes, the first officer on the scene, was suspended. Former Sgt. Thomas Warwick, in the command office before he drove to the scene, and ultimately took Kuiper home, was demoted and suspended.
Police at the scene did not ask Kuiper to take a breath test for alcohol.
When Ickes told Janiskee that Kuiper was "hammered," Janiskee told him to stop talking and call back on telephone line designated "non-recorded," Grand Rapids officials say in court records.

Those calls were in fact recorded, and are now the subject of separate litigation. That's at least three lawsuits and a criminal trial stemming from one prosecutor's bad choices.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/07/3-bars-sued-for-overserving-former-prosecutor-before-drunken-car-crash.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Climbing Wall Injuries: Who's Liable, When to Sue

It seems like everyone has taken up rock climbing in the past few years, and gyms, recreational supply stores, and even college campuses nationwide are adding climbing walls to their facilities. While climbing wall injuries may be rare, they can have severe consequences.

So who's liable if you're injured on an indoor climbing wall? And can you sue?

Premises Liability

Property owners can be held liable for injuries that occur on their property, and business owners like gyms and climbing facilities must take reasonable steps to assure the safety of the premises. If the property owner or their staff should have known about a potential injury risk from a climbing wall and failed to take action or advice you of the risk, you may have a valid premises liability claim.

Product Liability

While climbing facility owners should make regular inspections of the facility for defects and potential dangers, sometimes defects with equipment can cause injury. Climbing equipment manufacturers have a duty to ensure their products, including climbing walls, are safe, and may be strictly liable if a person is injured using their product. Product liability claims against gym equipment manufacturers can be based on defects in design, defects in manufacturing, or defects in warnings.

Waiving Liability

One aspect about injury lawsuits that may be unique to climbing facilities is a waiver. Many gyms and indoor walls will ask participants to sign liability waivers which ostensibly prohibit you from suing if you get hurt while climbing. However, while courts will generally enforce negligence waivers that cover injuries caused by the facility or its employees' own negligence, other waivers that cover total liability or intentional acts have been found unenforceable. So even if you've signed a liability waiver for a climbing wall, you may still be able to sue if your injury is not your fault.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/07/climbing-wall-injuries-whos-liable-when-to-sue.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, July 24, 2017

Woman Sues Harrah's for Injuries From Casino Doors, Then Dies

In most cases, we might refer to a door hitting someone on the way out of a casino after losing money as adding insult to injury. But it was the other way around for 87-year-old Elaine Catuara, who was hit by a malfunctioning front door at Harrah's Casino Hotel in downtown Joliet, Illinois, "violently catapulting her to the floor."

Catuara suffered fractures to her hip and to two vertebrae in her lower back, and was hospitalized for almost three weeks. She filed a negligence lawsuit against the casino in late May, but passed away soon after. "We will be amending the lawsuit," Catuara's attorney asserted, "alleging a wrongful death count."

Negligence Injuries

According to her original lawsuit, Catuara was in the "vestibule area" leaving Harrah's "when the previously opened door quickly closed on her." She was thrown to the ground and "sustained severe injuries and has incurred substantial medical bills and other economic damages along with pain, suffering and loss of a normal life, disfigurement and other non-economic damages."

As a business open to the public, Harrah's has the legal responsibility to take reasonable steps to assure the safety of the premises. Instead, according to Catuara's attorney James McKay, Jr., the hydraulic door-closer at the casino "was broken, creating an unsafe condition for patrons exiting the premises."

Wrongful Death

McKay told the Joliet Patch that the injuries Catuara sustained at Harrah's "absolutely played a significant role in causing her death":

"It's just so sad for everyone related to her and connected to her," McKay said. "We're talking about a significant decline in her health from the moment that door struck and knocked Elaine to the floor. Elaine's survivors are entitled to be compensated due to the negligence of Harrah's Joliet Casino."

In order to win a wrongful death lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove:

  1. The death of a human being;
  2. That the death was caused by another's negligence; and
  3. That family members who survived the deceased are suffering monetary injury as a result of the death.

Catuara's original lawsuit sought an unspecified amount of damages to cover medical bills along with pain and suffering. An amended suit including a wrongful death claim may ask for more.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/07/woman-sues-harrahs-for-injuries-from-casino-doors-then-dies.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, July 21, 2017

Ferris Wheel Accident Leads to Lawsuits

"We treat it like a crime scene until we determine there's no foul play," Greeneville Police Detective Captain Tim Davis told the Times Free Press in August 2016. "We don't know at this time what caused the accident." There were no criminal charges filed after three people fell 30 to 45 feet from a Ferris wheel at the Greene County Fair in Tennessee last summer.

But two federal lawsuits have been filed against the ride's operators, Family Attractions Amusement Company, as well as the manufacturer, High-Lite Rides Inc.

Reynolds vs. the Ride

According to one lawsuit, filed by the family of 10-year-old Kayla Reynolds and her 6-year-old sister, Briley, claims the girls' gondola became stuck at around the one o'clock position and began to tilt. Ride operator Jesus Herrera-Cabanas failed to stop the Ferris wheel and the ride continued to move, the Greenville Sun reports:

As onlookers described hearing a "thump" or "click" and metal "scraping," "breaking" and "screeching," Kimberly fell from the gondola, hitting the roof of the gondola below before hitting the railing platform and falling onto the ground. Briley followed, hitting the gondola roof below and then falling straight to the ground.

The suit claims Briley remained unconscious for about 10 minutes after the accident, suffering seizure activity, and was put into an induced coma at Niswonger Children's Hospital due to swelling on the brain and ventilation for respiratory failure. Briley received extended treatments for traumatic brain injury, including physical, neurological, and speech therapy, and continues to suffer neurophysiological injuries, including frequent nightmares and short-term memory loss. Kayla's injures were less severe, but she did break her arm.

Beware Falling Passengers

The other lawsuit was filed by Lorena Cowhy, who was injured when the falling girls struck her gondola, causing her to fall onto the floor where her left shoulder and bicep hit the gondola's center pole as the ride continued to tip and sway. Her lawsuit claims her injuries required "extensive physical therapy, steroid injections and possible surgeries."

Both suits are seeking unspecified damages from the Ferris wheel manufacturer, operators, and anyone who may have performed any maintenance on the ride.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/07/ferris-wheel-accident-leads-to-lawsuits.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Wrongly Diagnosed With Hypothyroidism: When to Sue

Any misdiagnosis, whether falsely identifying an issue that doesn't exist or failing to discover one that does, can be harmful. This can be especially true for hyperthyroidism, which affects millions of people per year. If not accurately diagnosed, those people may go untreated, or undergo potentially harmful treatments based on a doctor's misreading of their symptoms.

Misdiagnosis is a form of medical malpractice, and doctors that fail to properly diagnose and treat hyperthyroidism can be held liable. Here's what you need to know.

Malpractice, Misdiagnosis, and Negligence

If you think a doctor failed to diagnose your hyperthyroidism or gave you an erroneous diagnosis, you may have a valid medical malpractice claim. In essence, most medical malpractice claims are alleging a form of negligence by a doctor or other medical professional. Medical malpractice claims based on a theory of negligence require four essential elements:

  1. Duty: A doctor owed you a duty of care, generally the basis of any doctor-patient relationship;
  2. Breach: A doctor breached his or her duty by misdiagnosing or failing to diagnose your hyperthyroidism when a reasonably competent doctor in his her same position would not have;
  3. Causation: The doctor's misdiagnosis -- and not some other factor -- caused you harm, a likely event if hyperthyroidism goes untreated or mistreated;
  4. Damages: That harm you suffered is quantifiable and compensable, to some degree.

Doctors, Diagnosis, and Complications

Courts will judge doctors and their decisions based on what a reasonably prudent doctor would have done under similar circumstances. So it may be difficult to prove malpractice if your doctor did exactly what any other competent doctor would've done in treating your hyperthyroidism (or lack thereof).

In addition, medical malpractice claims can be especially complicated, often requiring the disclosure of detailed medical records and patient information, along with experts to testify regarding your injuries and your doctor's alleged misdiagnosis. Talk to an experienced injury attorney if you're considering a medical malpractice claim based on a hyperthyroidism misdiagnosis.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/07/wrongly-diagnosed-with-hypothyroidism-when-to-sue.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Water Slide Injuries: Legal Liability Facts You Should Know

Nothing says summer like a water slide. Whether you're rocketing down a chute at a water park or zipping into a backyard swimming pool, there's just something about the sun and spray that spells freedom and fun.

Unfortunately, water slides can also spell danger, and water slide injuries are far too common to ignore. So what happens if you or a loved one is injured on a water slide? That could depend on where that slide is. Here's what you need to know.

Park Liability

Theme parks, amusement parks, and water parks are responsible for operating safe rides and amusements and maintaining safe areas around them. A park could be held liable for injuries on a water slide if the slide is defective or a park's negligence caused a ride to be improperly operated or maintained, or the slide's manufacturer could also be liable if the slide has a defect in design, manufacturing, or warnings.

The park could also be held liable for the actions its employees -- including lifeguards, slide operators, and even maintenance personnel -- if they fail to operate the slide safely, monitor guests' use of the slide, or repair the slide when needed. Accidents and injuries caused by a water park employee will be the liability of the park if the employee's actions fell within his or her scope of employment.

Home Liability

Not all water slides are at public parks. If you or a neighbor has a slide attached to a pool, or if you've got a nifty slip 'n slide setup in the backyard, the homeowner could be liable for any injuries sustained from the slide. Even if a pool or backyard isn't open to the public, homeowners are still responsible for maintaining a hazard-free environment for guests. And pool owners especially must take care that friends and strangers alike are not injured in what the law considers an "attractive nuisance."

Whether you've been injured on a water slide, or someone else has been injured on your water slide, you should contact an experienced injury attorney today.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/07/water-slide-injuries-legal-liability-facts-you-should-know.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

When to Sue for Theme Park Injuries

Going to a theme park can be the highlight of any person's summer. For the most part, rides and attractions are safe, but things can go wrong. When a guest is injured at a theme park, that guest might be left wondering what rights they have to recover for their injuries.

Although theme parks frequently try to limit their liability by requiring guests to agree to liability waivers as a condition of entry, these will not always protect the parks. Surprisingly, theme park injuries tend to have a high settlement rate.

Can Theme Parks Require Liability Waivers

Technically, yes, a theme park can require all attendees sign liability waivers. Yes, a theme park can deny entry to someone that refuses to sign a waiver. However, how enforceable any liability waiver will be depends on the circumstances, and the extent of the liability disclaimed. Generally, waivers that go too far can often be entirely, or partially, voided. Often times, waivers will only be valid as to general negligence, and not gross negligence.

Even smaller theme parks, such as water parks, laser tag arenas, trampoline parks, and even mini golf, can require liability waivers be signed. Additionally, parks can disclaim liability for injuries caused due to a person's own negligence, as well as the assumption of risk.

Making a Claim Against a Theme Park

For most large theme parks, a person may be able to file a claim directly with the park to resolve their injury claim without ever filing a lawsuit. However, if an individual opts to go this route, they need to be cautious not to let their statute of limitations expire. Basically, if you do not settle your case or file a lawsuit within the state's statute of limitations, a theme park will not be willing to negotiate with you any more because you won't be able to file a lawsuit.

Often, even if you do not want to file a lawsuit, contacting an experienced personal injury attorney to handle your informal claim is a good idea. Even if you are partly to blame for the injury, a good attorney might be able to help you recover. Injury attorneys generally do not charge upfront costs and are experienced in negotiating claims. Most importantly, an injury attorney will know what is an appropriate settlement amount, and can ensure that your share of the settlement isn't eaten up paying back medical bills or insurance providers.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/07/when-to-sue-for-theme-park-injuries.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, July 17, 2017

River Rafting Waiver May Preclude Widow's Lawsuit

Whitewater river rafting can be dangerous -- that's part of the allure for most rafters and a risk that most guides will repeat early and often to their guests. In addition, many, if not all rafting companies will have rafters sign liability waivers, acknowledging these dangers and agreeing to indemnify the companies in the case of injury or death.

One waiver in particular may stand in the way of a Colorado widow's negligence lawsuit after her husband was ejected from a raft in Hell's Half Mile rapids on the Green River, and died of accidental drowning and asphyxia.

Whitewater Waiver

According to the Aspen Daily News, the waiver attorney Paul Sizemore signed with Blazing Adventures rafting company acknowledges that "[r]afts/kayaks could turn over or I could be 'washed' overboard ... Exposure to the natural elements can be uncomfortable and/or harmful ... Prolonged exposure to cold water can result in hypothermia and in extreme cases death and accidental drowning are also possibilities." A person signing the waiver agrees to "accept and assume all of the risks existing in the activity," and "release, indemnify and discharge Blazing ... to the fullest extent permitted by law, on behalf of myself, my children, my heirs, assigns, personal representatives and estate."

The extent permitted by Colorado law may be tested after Sizemore's widow, Jennifer Lenze, who is also an attorney, sued the company for negligence. While some states, like Oregon, are more hostile to blanket liability waivers, Colorado generally enforces unambiguous waivers that are entered into fairly and involve non-essential services. While waivers will generally protect a company and its employees from lawsuits based on negligence, they don't cover willful or wanton conduct.

Rivers and Risks

After Sizemore was washed overboard, he was "was unable to reach for or grab the T-grip of a paddle extended to him, nor a throw bag tossed to him," according to Blazing's attorney. The Aspen Daily News reported on the efforts of Dallas Blaney, the trip's safety kayaker, to save Sizemore:

Blaney reached him twice, but the victim was unable to hold onto the kayak initially. Blaney was able to bring him to Lewis' raft, where he was lifted in by others on the boat. Sizemore said he could not breathe and became unresponsive. CPR and other life-saving measures were employed, but he was pronounced dead at the scene.

A subsequent Colorado Parks and Wildlife investigation concluded Blazing conducted the trip and responded to the tragedy within industry standards, and a coroner's report ruled that Sizemore's death may have been related to coronary artery disease. Lenze is accusing Blazing of negligence in Sizemore's death, and Blazing has filed a motion to dismiss the suit. A judge will now decide if the case will move forward.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/07/river-rafting-waiver-may-preclude-widows-lawsuit.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, July 14, 2017

Chlorine Gas Causes Employee Injury, Prompts Lawsuit

While chlorine can be considered a household product, and is frequently used in swimming pools and cleaning products, it's dangerous stuff. In fact, chlorine gas is so dangerous, it was used as a chemical weapon during WWI.

Chlorine is responsible for countless injuries every year, some of which are fatal. Though most of the injuries only amount to skin irritations or burns, chlorine gas can result in fatal explosions, and severe respiratory injuries.

Beware of Unmarked Drums of Gas

In 2015, eight employees of Pacific Steel and Recycling in Spokane, Washington, were injured when an unlabeled 2,000 lbs. drum of chlorine gas was crushed at the recycling facility. Sadly, one of the eight workers died. However, one of the workers that survived, Felix Shuck, filed a lawsuit in 2017 due to the injury to his lungs caused by the chlorine gas. Shuck's lung capacity was reduced by half, and he suffered other injuries, that left him unable to continue working.

Shuck's lawsuit seeks to hold the company that dropped off the ton of chlorine gas liable for his injuries, rather than his employer. Shuck alleges that Ibex Construction, who allegedly hired a subcontractor to drop off the gas, was negligent in failing to label the drum of gas. However, a government agency fined Pacific Steel and Recycling for failing to follow proper procedure in handling the drum of gas, including stripping off pressure gauges and requiring a certificate stating the gas drum was empty before accepting for recycling.

Liability for Exposure to Toxic Substances

Individuals can generally recover damages for injuries suffered as a result of being exposed to toxic substances due to another's negligence. In many cases, such as in asbestosis, mesothelioma, and other toxic torts, several parties, including the original manufacturer of the toxic substance can be found liable.

Typically, when a person is exposed to, and injured by, a toxic substance at work, workers compensation coverage should be available. However, even when an injury occurs at an employer's worksite, if the injury was the result of another employee, customer, or third party's actions, there may be additional liability for damages not covered by workers compensation.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/07/chlorine-gas-causes-employee-injury-prompts-lawsuit.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Can Parents Sue Police for Not Arresting Drunk Driving Kid?

When the police let someone off with a warning, and that person ends up causing harm, are the police liable for not doing their jobs? This question is often the center of much heated debate.

For example, the parents of Toni Anderson, a deceased 20-year-old college sophomore, are reportedly contemplating a lawsuit over an officer's failure to arrest their daughter for DUI in early 2017. Toni was pulled over while clearly intoxicated. Rather than being arrested for DUI, she was told to go get some rest. Unfortunately, Toni crashed her car into a river and drowned. It took authorities nearly two months to find her.

Failure to Protect Claims

Under the law, officers are given quite a bit of discretion, and they must often make judgment calls. When a discretionary call is wrong, and a person causes harm to others due to an officer's discretion in not making an arrest, an officer can potentially face civil liability. However, these situations are rather limited and require actual action by an officer.

Generally, when individuals sue police for failure to protect, courts routinely side with police. This is because the government does not have a duty to protect individuals. Even if officers fail to show up when called, there will usually not be any liability (unless the failure to show up was due to an illegal motive, such as discrimination). However, If an officer intervenes and makes things worse, there may be liability for due process violations, or simply based upon negligence.

Failure to Arrest Leading to Death

Toni's parents are expected to claim that their daughter would not have died had the officer arrested her rather than let her off with a warning. This claim, while seemingly valid, has some legal hoops to jump through as it is an unusual wrongful death claim. Since Toni only injured herself, it also begs the question of whether officers are required to protect individuals from themselves (when obvious self harm warnings are present).

It is alleged that the dash cam footage from the night Toni went missing showed her clearly inebriated, though she denied drinking that night. The toxicology report showed that she was on illegal drugs at the time of her death. It's puzzling why the officer chose not to arrest her or even administer a field sobriety test, but whether it forms the basis of legal liability is a question for the courts.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/07/can-parents-sue-police-for-not-arresting-drunk-driving-kid.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Can You Sue a Hospital or Doctor for Wrongful Death?

One of the worst things a person can experience is the loss of a loved one. When that loss is due to the negligence of a medical professional or provider, a wrongful death case against them may be possible.

Although it may seem crass or disrespectful to even think about the legal consequences after the loss of a loved one or family member, the law requires individuals to act in a timely fashion. Particularly when the cause of death is related to potential medical malpractice, rather than ordinary negligence or another attributable cause, such as assault, cases must adhere to strict deadlines and filing requirements.

Who Can Sue for Wrongful Death?

Who can actually file a claim for wrongful death varies from state to state. Typically, parents, children, and spouses will have the right to sue. In many states, even more extended family, like grandparents, siblings, and domestic partners, can be allowed to file suit as well.

Additionally, to sue a hospital or medical professional for malpractice related to wrongful death, state laws often require that notice be provided to the professional before a lawsuit can be filed.

Who Can Be Sued for Wrongful Death?

When a doctor, nurse, or other health care professional is negligent and causes the death of a patient, not only can the individual medical professional be held liable, but the hospital and medical group they work for, with, or in, can also be held liable. Every case depends on the specific details of how treatment was provided, and who, or what entity, was responsible for specific duties.

For example, if an infection was caused in a post-surgical patient due to a failure to replace air filters by the hospital's maintenance crew, the hospital itself, rather than individual doctors or nurses, would likely be responsible. Conversely, if a nurse's failure to wash after treating an infection caused another one, then the nurse and employer (which may not be the hospital) could both be liable.

Wrongful Death Damages

Typical damages that are awarded in wrongful death cases include funeral expenses, pain and suffering related to the loss of companionship/relation, medical bills, as well as the loss of income provided by the deceased to the claimants.

Interestingly, medical malpractice cases are often subject to damages caps, which may limit the available award in certain circumstances. However, courts often allow attorneys to pursue multiple legal remedies at the same time, and let the jury decide which one fits better.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2017/07/can-you-sue-a-hospital-or-doctor-for-wrongful-death.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)