Thursday, January 31, 2019

Can I Sue If My Neighbor Has Bees, Livestock?

Urban farming has given way to urban livestock ownership, and now every hippie and hipster in your neighborhood has chickens, bees, and maybe a goat or two. Which is all well and good for the decrease in their food bill every month, but what about the increase in noise and odor coming from their backyards?

The good news is that you may be able to file a nuisance lawsuit to address the problem. The bad news is that such claims are not always easy.

A Neighbor's Nuisance

As a general matter, you have a right to the enjoyment and use of your property. If another party interferes with that right, you may be able to sue. If that interference involves a physical intrusion onto your property, you would sue under trespass. If, however, the interference includes sound, light, or even odors, you may have a claim under private nuisance law. There are three main elements to a successful nuisance lawsuit:

  1. You own the land or have the right to possess it;
  2. The neighbor actually acted in a way that interferes with your enjoyment and use of your property; and
  3. Their interference was substantial and unreasonable.

The third element is often the hardest to prove, as it is intended to prevent people from suing for minor annoyances. Courts will ask whether the interference would be substantial to an ordinary person and weigh the harm caused by the conduct against the burden of preventing the harm and the usefulness of the act. This can be particularly tricky when neighbors are cultivating their property or housing livestock.

Other Options

If the farm next door is truly annoying, you may also check local laws and municipal zoning ordinances to ensure whether such activity is even allowed, and whether your neighbor is in compliance with those statutes. These laws can apply to both farming and livestock. And any homeowners associations may prohibit growing crops, keeping livestock, or selling the spoils of either.

You may be better off trying to solve the dispute privately with your neighbor before taking the matter to court. If not, you can find a local attorney in our directory below.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/can-i-sue-if-my-neighbor-has-bees-livestock.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Will Trump Sue Over Latest Tell-All Book?

Another former staffer has dirt to spill on President Donald Trump. And the president again promises legal action, claiming the staffer violated a confidentiality agreement. While Trump is notorious for threatening lawsuits that never materialize, and his administration's non-disclosure agreements have been deemed potentially unenforceable and illegal, could this be the time that Trump actually sues, and the alleged NDA is enforced?

Here's a look.

Vipers' Nest

"Team of Vipers: My 500 Extraordinary Days in the Trump White House" was written by former Trump administration communications aide Cliff Sims, and released this week. Trump responded, as his is wont to do, on Twitter:

Despite the dissonance between claiming that a book is both "based on made up stories and fiction" and violates an non-disclosure agreement, Michael Glassner, chief operating officer of Trump's re-election campaign, confirmed the campaign was "preparing to file suit against Cliff Sims for violating" an NDA. (Sims, or his part, does not recall whether he signed an NDA, and responded to Trump's tweet in real-time while promoting the book, "Nice. There it is."

Free Speech Test

So what of Sims's potential legal liability? National security attorney Brad Moss believes that, while the non-disclosure agreement could apply to information Sims gleaned before Trump's inauguration, it would likely be unenforceable when it comes to his time working in the White House. "If the campaign is trying to impose their NDA upon Sims for disclosures tied to his time in the White House, they're going to run into the brick wall of established precedent on the subject," Moss told Law & Crime. "They would in effect be arguing that the court should allow a president's campaign to censor a former federal employee in a way that the government is barred from doing. Good luck with that argument."

As a general rule, government employees (and former employees) who speak out about matters of public concern, government corruption, or gross misconduct are protected from retaliation by the First Amendment, so long as the speech was not pursuant to their job duties and did not cause disruption in the workplace.

So, if Trump in fact follows through on his threat to sue Sims, he could be facing an uphill legal battle.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/will-trump-sue-over-latest-tell-all-book.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Sacramento Family Sues Police for Stephon Clark Killing

Shot 20 times by police officers right in front of his grandparents, the family of Stephon Clark has filed a $20 million federal lawsuit against the city of Sacramento for wrongful death, excessive force, and false arrest. They are seeking punitive damages. Clark, an unarmed black father of two, was shot to death in his grandparents' backyard in March of 2018, all while the grandparents "watched in horror."

Officer Involved Fatal Shooting of Stephon Clark

Police officers Terrence Mercadel and Jared Robinet responded to a call of a man vandalizing vehicles in the neighborhood. Police helicopters were used to locate the suspect. As as result, Mercadel and Robinet started chasing Clark, and eventually gunned him down, with 20 shots hitting Clark, up to six in his back.

Officers claimed they thought Clark was armed, but it turned out the only thing on him was a cell phone. Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert is still deciding whether or not to press criminal charges against the two officers, thus leaving the plaintiffs with civil action as the only currently possible venue of vindication for Clark and his family.

Wrongful Death Suit

Proving wrongful death may not be too difficult for the plaintiffs. By a preponderance of the evidence, they must prove:

  • The death of a human being;
  • Caused by another's negligence, or with intent to cause harm;
  • The survival of family members who are suffering monetary injury as a result of the death, and;
  • The appointment of a personal representative for the decedent's estate.

Clark is dead. It appears the officers were trying to cause harm when they dislodged their weapons 20 times. As a young father of two, he had many years of earning potential ahead of him, which his sons were relying upon. However, wrongful deaths at the hands of police officers rarely result in $20 million verdicts. A 2015 study by the Washington Post found settlements ranged from $7,500 to $8.5 million, which a median amount of $1.2 million. Also, settlements were more lucrative than jury awards.

Laws Created as a Result Of Clark's Death

One issue plaintiffs will face in dealing with this lawsuit is evidence. The officers muted their body cameras right after shooting Clark, sparking outrage among the community, and raising issues about when it is appropriate for police officers to do so. As a result, then-Governor Brown signed two bills loosening confidentiality rules regarding records of police misconduct, based in part on the shooting of Stephon Clark. Senate Bill 1421 makes investigations and reports related to an officer's deadly use of force subject to California's Public Records Act Assembly Bill 748 makes it easier to obtain body cam footage taken by police officers when they use deadly force.

If you believe that a police officer used excessive force in apprehending you or someone you love, contact a local personal injury attorney.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/sacramento-family-sues-police-for-stephon-clark-killing.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

Professor Sues State, University for Not Covering Transgender Surgery

Dr. Russell Toomey is an Associate Professor of Family Studies and Human Development at the University of Arizona, researching issues of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) adolescents and Latinx youth. Dr. Toomey is also a transgender man, who transitioned to live consistently with his male identity in 2003 and sought a hysterectomy in 2018.

His healthcare plan, provided by the state to state university employees, refused to cover the surgery, and, in fact, denies all coverage or "[g]ender reassignment surgery." Dr. Toomey has since filed a class action lawsuit against the state, and the University of Arizona, claiming the healthcare plan discriminates against transgender employees "because of ... sex" in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act deprives transgender employees of equal treatment under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here's a look.

Medically Necessary, but Not Necessarily Covered

Dr. Toomey's treating physicians recommended that he receive a hysterectomy as a medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria, as provided by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health's standards of care. Arizona's healthcare plan provides coverage for the same surgery when prescribed as medically necessary treatment for other medical conditions. And, all four of the plan's medical providers adopted internal policies and guidelines that authorize hysterectomies as medically necessary for gender dysphoria. Still, the plan does not cover hysterectomies when performed as part of transition-related care.

According to Dr. Toomey's lawsuit:

The Plan generally provides coverage for medically necessary care, but singles out transgender employees for unequal treatment by categorically denying all coverage for "[g]ender reassignment surgery" regardless of whether the surgery qualifies as medically necessary treatment. As a result, transgender individuals enrolled in the Plan have no opportunity to demonstrate that their transition-related care is medically necessary, and they have no opportunity to appeal any adverse determination to an independent reviewer.

"Arizona provides the same discriminatory health plan to nearly all state employees and their dependents," Dr. Toomey wrote on the ACLU's "Speak Feely" blog. "That means hundreds, if not thousands, of transgender state employees or transgender dependents of state employees cannot receive medically necessary care."

State of Coverage

Coverage for transgender surgery can vary from insurance plan to insurance plan, and from state to state. Federal judges have ruled that Wisconsin can't block insurance companies from covering transgender healthcare costs, and that Massachusetts was required to provide gender reassignment surgery for prison inmates.

Dr. Toomey's lawsuit, which could include hundreds or thousands of state employees, is asking the state to remove the exclusion for gender reassignment surgery, and adopt a standard policy for assessing medical necessity of surgeries associated with transgender healthcare.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/professor-sues-state-university-for-not-covering-transgender-surgery.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, January 28, 2019

Fertility Clinic Sued for Cryo Tank Malfunctions

Over 70 lawsuits have now been filed against University Hospitals Fertility Center in Beachwood, Ohio, as well as CAS DataLoggers. These two parties are at the center of a series of unfortunate events that led to the destruction of approximately 4,000 eggs and embryos after the cryo-facility inadvertently warmed-up to unsafe temperatures for an unknown period of time back on March 4, 2018.

The statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims is one year. Thus, expect to see more fillings as we head closer to the one year anniversary of this disastrous event that led to heartbreak for many families seeking fertility treatment.

Fertility Freezer Meltdown

According to University Hospitals officials, the temperature in the storage tanks warmed up to unsafe levels for an unknown period of time. Though it is unclear why the tanks warmed, the alarm system on the tanks should have alerted employees about the temperature swing. But for some reason, the system had been turned off.

According to the letter immediately informing the nearly 1,000 clients affected by this tragedy, "We don't know who turned off the remote alarm nor do we know how long it was off," the letter stated. "We are still seeking those answers." Since that time, University Hospitals has apologized and offered free fertility services to those affected.

Malpractice Lawsuits Allege Negligence, but Could Rise to Wrongful Death

Those individuals and families that have suffered from this meltdown have filed lawsuits and claims against the University Hospitals and CAS DataLoggers, the company responsible for monitoring the remote alarm. For many, apologies and free services aren't enough. "The loss suffered by our clients is devastating," said Adam Wolf, attorney with the law firm Peiffer Wolf Carr and Kane, representing about 100 of the nearly 1,000 families affected. "Those eggs and embryos represented the hopes of having children for hundreds of American families."

Some families have already settled breach of contract and negligence lawsuits with the defendants. According to a statement issued by University Hospitals, "UH has worked with Fertility Center patients and their lawyers over the past year to negotiate a significant number of settlements and will continue offering resolution alternatives to our patients who want to avoid the time, expense, and anxiety of litigation." However, one family is looking to file a more unique lawsuit against University Hospitals. Rick and Wendy Penniman are seeking a legal declaration that their lost embryos should be considered living people, not property. If granted, the Pennimans could file a different lawsuit, potentially wrongful death.

If you or someone you love has lost eggs or embryos due to equipment malfunction or human error, contact a local personal injury attorney. This sort of loss can be very devastating, especially for those that may have a compounded situation. A lawyer can listen to the facts of your case, and offer you good advice on your opportunity to recover for your losses.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/fertility-clinic-sued-for-cryo-tank-malfunctions.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, January 25, 2019

Disability Rights Activities Sue Bird, Lime Scooters

Electric scooter rental companies have been hit with numerous suits over the last few years, but few will be as hard for the companies to handle as the new crop of disability suits. Recently, a class action was filed against the City of San Diego, Lime, Bird, and Razor for violating the rights of disabled people through the public's use of their e-scooters. Can the courts come up with a better solutions than the defendants have? Or have the lines in the sand finally been drawn?

Plaintiffs Claim Scooter Companies Violate Their ADA Rights

The plaintiff in this lawsuit is the non-profit group Disabilities Rights California (DCA), on behalf of Alex Montoya, Rex Shirley, Philip Pressel, Aaron Gresson and other people with disabilities. DCA claims its members' rights, as protected by the American with Disability Act (ADA), have been violated be defendants neglecting to keep the city's sidewalks clear of dockless rental scooters. Those that are visually impaired, or use wheelchairs and walkers, are at a greater risk of harm and injury by these scooters than others, due to their disabilities, and they are asking for the courts to come up with a solution that will work for everyone, in light of their ADA protected rights.

Sidewalks Are Becoming a Safety Risk for the Disabled

According to local laws and scooter rental agreements, scooters are not be driven or parked on the sidewalks. However, scooter executives and city officials are both aware that these rules are broken daily by many scooter riders. In the lawsuit, DCA describes the challenges two of its members face on a regular basis due to the scooters. Montoya, born without arms and one leg, and Gresson, who is blind, state that because of their disability, they cannot prepare for being struck by oncoming scooters. "The dockless scooter riders often ride the Scooters on the sidewalk, turning the sidewalk into a vehicle highway rather than a space for safe pedestrian access and use," the lawsuit said.

Not only are disabled individuals feeling assaulted, but they are also feeling trapped. In another example listed in the lawsuit, dockless scooters blocked the entrance to Shirley's home, and he was therefore unable to leave his home. "People with disabilities who wish to travel in the City using the City's walkways are being forced to either put their physical safety at risk or just stay home. This is not a choice that they should have to make," the lawsuit said.

Will Cities and Scooter Companies Finally Turn on Each Other?

As the saying goes, "politics makes strange bedfellows", but so do lawsuits. Both the scooter companies and the city are named as defendants. Historically, scooter companies rarely gave cities' any notice before scattering their scooters throughout town, much to the dismay of many residents and city officials. Such lack of notice did not get the relationship between cities and scooter companies started on the right foot. But they have tried to work it out, for the promise of solving the "last mile dilemma" for public transportation takers.

Many cities kicked the scooter companies out. Now the ones that have retained the scooters are being hit by ADA lawsuits, which plaintiffs often win. Will cities continue to stick by scooter companies, even at the risk of lawsuits by their local citizens and public rights groups? Or will the cities finally turn on the scooter companies once and for all? This lawsuit will be a great test to their relationship.

If you or someone you love is hit by a motorized scooter driver, contact your local personal injury attorney. A lawyer can help you sort out the local laws, apply the facts in your case, and help get your expenses covered.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/disability-rights-activities-sue-bird-lime-scooters.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

California Sued for $90M by Widow of Murdered Malibu Camper

Tristan Beaudette took his two young daughters camping in order to give his wife some much needed quiet time to study for an upcoming exam. That fateful good deed had a tragic ending. Beaudette, a pharmaceutical executive, was fatally shot in front of his children while camping at Malibu Canyon State Park, and his family has now filed a lawsuit for failing to warn campers about the known shooter in the area that ultimately killed Beaudette.

The lawsuit names the L.A. County Sheriff's Department, California State Parks police, and the California Parks and Recreation Commission, seeking damages against each for $30 million on behalf of Beaudette's wife and their children, for a total in excess of $90 million.

Father of Two Killed by Rifle Shot In Front of Young Daughters

In June 2018, Beaudette took his two young girls, aged two and four, camping. While all three were in the tent, Beaudette was hit in the abdomen with a bullet from a rifle shot somewhere outside the tent. He died soon thereafter from the gunshot wound.

Though it all seems bizarre to the public, it may not seem so surprising to the local sheriff's department. Between November 2016 and June 2018, the named parties in the lawsuit knew that a man had been sleeping in or around the state park and opened fired seven times on cars as well as campsites. Sheriff Alex Villanueva described the gunshots as "all random, targets of opportunity." Four months later, in October 2018, police apprehended a nearby robbery suspect. The suspect had a rifle in his possession when they arrested him, and the robber ultimately turned out to be Beaudette's killer, 42-year-old Anthony Rauda, an ex-convict and survivalist.

Authorities Were Aware of the Shootings Yet Never Warned the Public

Beaudette's widow, Erica Wu, claims in her suit that there were seven other unresolved shootings near the Malibu Canyon State Park, some of which included people getting robbed or gunned down. The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and California State Parks "have confirmed they were aware" of these shootings, and yet never warned the public about it, and specifically never warned campers that the area was dangerous. Property owners do have a duty to warn invitees, such as Beaudette, of possible dangers on their property. It is clear to see why Wu and her daughters filed this claim.

If you or someone you love has been injured in a state park, and you believe the park knew or should have known of the danger, contact a local personal injury attorney. Premises liability can be extended to state parks and government officials, though issues of governmental immunity will have to be addressed. A personal injury lawyer can listen to the facts of your case and best advise you how to proceed, often at no cost to you.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/01/california-sued-for-90m-by-widow-of-murdered-malibu-camper.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)