LegalMatch: Personal Injury

Intelligence isn’t a Legal Defense in a Personal Injury Case

Let me get this straight. A dorm room ceiling collapses on a student. The student was academically successful. In fact, she graduates from the university and attends law school. The same student files a personal injury lawsuit against the university for her injuries. The university has a brilliant defense to not paying: She didn’t sustain a serious injury because she had good grades even though she was injured.

It seems like a fictional story or realty show drama. It’s real.

Veronica Couzo, 26, was the former student who filed a personal injury lawsuit against Columbia University. While she was moving into a dorm room on campus, concrete chucks, tiles, and plaster fell onto her head in 2010. Couzo suffered a herniated disk. She sued in 2011 for unspecified damages. In her lawsuit, Couzo claimed the pain prevented her from sleeping. Also, she had to take muscle relaxants for the pain. 

In a deposition, she was asked if she had any difficulty with her schoolwork. She answered no. She never let anything affect her academics. She was also asked about her ability to pay attention, take examinations, and earn good grades. She didn’t have trouble doing any of the three things. Columbia argued that, because she received good grades, the roof collapse didn't injure Couzo as much as she claims.

This Lawsuit Isn’t About Intelligence, but Negligence

Couzo alleges the Columbia University was negligent in not maintaining the dorms. Negligence is the failure to use the amount of care a person or organization would in similar circumstances. This case focuses on the school’s failure to maintain a safe environment for students living in the dorms. To win, Couzo has to prove:

• Duty
• Breach of duty
• Cause
• Damages

Duty of care is the responsibility to avoid harming others. The duty exists when there is some kind of relationship between the parties. In this case, a school-student relationship existed because Couzo attended the university.

Duty of care requires exercising care to avoid harm. Columbia University had a responsible to Couzo and other students to make the dorms safe. This means making all needed repairs. It’s not known if the university knew about the condition. However, it’s been documented that other students have complained about moving into a dorm room in disrepair.

The failure to exercise duty occurs in two ways:

• When the party knows it’s putting someone at risk or has reason to believe so
• When a reasonable person or organization in the same or similar situation would have foreseen the risk to students

The school had a duty to maintain the dorms as mentioned. The fact that it didn’t and a student was injured is a clear breach. A breach of duty happens when a party fails to exercise care.

Cause is another personal injury element. It’s basically involves showing who was at the fault for the plaintiff’s injuries. Two types of cause exists:

• Cause-in-fact
• Proximate cause

Proximate cause means the plaintiff’s injuries was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s actions. In other words, the defendant didn’t direct cause the injuries, but did something to indirectly cause them.

For Couzo, cause-in-fact is the best way to show the school caused her injuries because of the but-for test. But for Columbia University, she wouldn’t be injured. The school directly caused her herniated disk by not repairing the ceiling.

Damages is the last element a plaintiff needs to prove in a personal injury case. Damages include lost wages, medical bills, and other expenses.

Does Columbia University have a Legal Defense?

No.

A person’s intelligence isn’t a legal defense against being negligent in a personal injury case. Legal defenses to negligence include:

• Comparative negligence
• Contributory negligence
• Proximate cause
• Assumption of the risk

Comparative negligence is a viable defense when the plaintiff negligently acts. The plaintiff’s actions contribute to the injury. Couzo didn’t contribute to her injury. She was moving into a dorm room assigned to her by her school.

Contributory negligence is similar to comparative negligence. A plaintiff negligently acts in the accident and contributes to the injury. However, contributory negligence completely bars the plaintiff from recovering any damages. This defense only allowed in a small number of states.

Proximate cause defense is used when a defendant acts negligently. The defendant is the obvious and sole cause of the plaintiff’s injury. However, the defendant claims the plaintiff’s injury is unclear. The defense causes the plaintiff to prove how the injury occurred.

Assumption of the risk is the situation was so dangerous that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury. This defense is typically used in skydiving or racing events.

Couzo was injured because her dorm’s ceiling hit her on the head. The university is in a tough situation. It must defend itself against harming a student and avoid a PR mess. It seems the university is better off settling this case out-of-court rather than going to trial. Prolonging the case and implying Couzo wasn’t injured because of her academic achievements will damage the university’s image—if it hasn’t already.

Authored by Taelonnda Sewell, LegalMatch Legal Writer

Do Sports Fans Assume the Risk Of Getting Hit By a Ball?

For many sports teams, assumption of the risk and fans go hand-in-hand. The teams want fans filling the seats in their stadiums or arenas, but if a fan is injured, the sports teams want to claim that the fan consented to the risk of getting hurt. Should sports team be able to claim this defense just because a fan wanted to see a game? The answer should be “No.”

Let’s look at an example of a baseball spectator getting injured at a game. The injury happened in 2011. Andy Zlotnick, a 50-year-old Manhattan real estate executive, attended a New York Yankees-Oakland Athletics game in August 2011. He was sitting in the third row, which was about 50 feet past the first base line. He attended the game with his then 11-year-old son. During that game, it rained. It actually rained enough to cause the game to be a cancelled. However, it was at the end of the season. So the teams decided to keep playing.

During the game, it began raining again. The New York Yankees are one of a handful of teams which allows umbrellas into a baseball park. Fans using their umbrellas while watching the rain. 

Hideki Matsui, who then played for the Oakland A’s, hit a foul ball. The ball traveled down the first-base side. Most spectators would’ve duck. Who wants to get hit by a foul ball, right? Zlotnick didn’t. He never had chance to do so. With the umbrellas blocking his vision, he couldn’t see the scorching foul ball coming towards him.

The foul ball crushed the bones around Zlotnick’s left eye socket. His upper jaw and sinus were also fractured. He suffered extensive damage to the side of his face.

According to Zlotnick, the Yankees agreed to pay his medical bills for the injury he suffered. The Yankees have denied that claim. In 2012, Zlotnick sued the Yankees and Major League Baseball for his injury. He wanted two things: $25,000 to cover his injury and the Yankees to change its umbrella policy.

Assumption of the Risk

Assumption of the risk arises when a person knowingly and voluntarily agrees to the risk of harm connected to someone’s negligence. Let’s say a fan buys a ticket to a baseball game. The fan assumes the risk of getting injured at that game. He knows a fly ball could hit him or a baseball bat could fly from a player’s hands. So he takes his chances just to see a baseball game. If his eye socket is crushed by a fly ball, tough luck.

To prove assumption of the risk defense, a defendant in a case shows:

• The Plaintiff Had Actual Knowledge of the Risk

Teams like the Yankees print on the ticket given to fans that the bearer of the ticket assumes all risk and danger connected to the game. This shows the fan knows about the risks associated with watching the game.

• The Plaintiff Implicitly or Explicitly Voluntarily Accepted the Risk

Teams always point to the assumption of the risk clause in the ticket. By presenting the ticket to get into the game, the fan is implicitly accepting the possibility of getting injured.

Last Clear Chance Doctrine Invalidates Assumption of Risk

The Last Clear Chance Doctrine is known as a defense to the defense. The doctrine allows a plaintiff who contributes to a negligent act that injuries him to recover damages. This law invalidates assumption to risk because the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid causing damage.

This is how the doctrine operates: The plaintiff negligently enters the area of danger from which he can’t extricate himself. The defendant has the last opportunity, or last clear chance, to prevent harm the plaintiff would otherwise suffer.

Let’s say a baseball fan voluntarily accepts the risk of being injured at a baseball game by attending the game. That doesn’t let the baseball team off the hook. It still has the final opportunity to avoid harming the baseball fan. A better way to show how the Last Clear Chance Doctrine invalidates assumption of risk is with the Zlotnick case. The elements that must be proven to successfully use the last clear chance doctrine are:

• The Plaintiff Placed Himself In the Zone of Danger

On Zlotnick’s Yankee ticket was the warning about accepting the risk of injury. This would be contributory negligence because of the risk to injury. He placed himself in the area of danger by sitting in the ballpark during the game and risk injury.

• The Plaintiff Couldn’t Avoid the Danger

Zlotnick sat in the third row. During the rain, other spectators opened their umbrellas to shield themselves from the rain. Zlotnick couldn’t avoid the danger of getting hit with a foul ball.

• The Defendant Recognized the Dangerous Situation and Had a Duty To Avoid It

The Yankees and MLB recognized the dangerous situation. Spectators could get hit with a foul ball or flying baseball bat being that close to the playfield. It’s obvious the defendants knew because it placed the warning about not being liable for any potential injury on the ticket.

• The Defendant Failed To Avoid The Danger Despite Having An Opportunity To Do So

Both the Yankees and MLB failed to avoid the danger despite having an opportunity to avoid it. They permitted fans to hold up umbrellas during a game which shielded other spectators from knowing about imminent danger of getting hit with a foul ball. The game continued even though it would have been stopped if the same weather conditions occurred earlier in the season. Also, they knew spectators can be injured during games, but have not done an adequate job to prevent injuries from occurring.

• As a Result of Defendant’s Behavior, the Plaintiff Is Injured

Since the Yankees and MLB did not take steps to avoid the danger, Zlotnick was injured.

The ultimate high for a sports fan is to enjoy watching a game live. That ultimate high shouldn’t result in a huge low of suffering an injury while watching the game. Sports teams like the Yankees shouldn’t rest on assumption of the risk defense. They should do something about preventing injuries to fans.

Authored by Taelonnda Sewell, LegalMatch Legal Writer

Drone Racing and It's Legal Consequences

Unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, are expanding in use from aerial footage or delivering packages. Drones are now being used for recreational sports, like racing.

Using drones for civilian recreation is a new concept in the world of drones. So the application of legal liability to drone use for injury, trespassing, and property damage are new concepts for the legal world to apply.

 Using drones for racing also invites questions of drone registration, pilot registration, and government regulation.

Drone Liability

When a drone is in flight, it may lose control and then crash into a person or property. It may cause a minor injury, but it can result in serious physical injury that leads to a viable tort action against the drone pilot.

In the case of a personal injury, a successful case needs the injured party to prove that the drone pilot had a duty to the injured party.

What Is the Duty of Care for a Drone Pilot?

 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released a statement in face of the rise of recreational drone use, stating that when “you fly your drone anywhere in the nation’s airspace, you automatically become part of the U.S. aviation system. Under [aviation] law, your drone is an aircraft…you have the responsibility to operate safely, just as a Cessna or 747 pilot does.”

The FAA maintains the stance that a drone pilot has the highest duty to the public. In the FAA’s eyes, drone pilots are closer to airplane pilots rather than regular automobile pilots. Airplane pilots must exercise ordinary care and caution when operating an airplane. Airplane pilots are regarded as trained professionals, and so owe the highest duty of safety. But, an airplane pilot is a professional who had to undergo advanced training to operate an airplane. Airplane pilots go through testing, examination, and other training to ensure they all have the same basic training and those unqualified are not allowed to fly. Due to their advance training, a pilot’s “ordinary care” is that of a licensed pilot.

 Yet, a drone pilot does not need lessons, hours of supervised flight time, or even certification by the FAA. At the moment, a recreational drone pilot may fly his/her drone without registration so long as the drone is under 55 lbs and does not fly over 400 feet. Given that drone pilots do not have the same level of training or the same licensing requirements, it is unreasonable to hold drone pilots to the same level of duty as airplane pilots.

Drone Registry

The free and public use of airspace has always been difficult for the government to regulate. There are no boundaries in the air or clear indications of when you have crossed from one county, state, or nation to another without the aid of GPS.

Now drones have introduced untrained, unlicensed, and unregistered pilots into the airspace. A FAA task force formed to decide how to regulate the influx of drones entering the airspace during the holiday season.

The Task Force advised the FAA to create a hobby/recreational drone pilot registry to control the risk of drones to the “non-flying public.” The registration would be free and drone pilots must put their registration numbers on every drone they pilot.

Drone Racing

The 2015 U.S. National Drone Racing Championship offered a grand prize of $25,000. Major news networks covered the race with live streaming of the entire event, gaining attention around the nation and the world.

 The competition requires registration with the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) to register in the race. The AMA requires a membership fee and a signed agreement to follow their code of conduct. In return, the AMA will offer insurance coverage for personal injury, property damage, and accidental death.

 Drone racing is growing with teams from all over the world coming to compete. It is here to stay, and the FAA is scrambling to control and regulate the use of recreational drones.

Drones Are Here to Stay

​ The FAA knows that drones are here to stay. While the registration of drone pilots is a step forward, the FAA will need to find a way to register the drones as well. Legal debates and lawsuits will grow as the government will need to learn how to keep up with the World of Drones.

Authored by Janice Lim, LegalMatch Legal Writer

Wal-Mart Liable as a Public Nuisance

Wal-mart’s Long History with Shoplifting

Wal-Mart, one of the largest and most successful chain retail stores, provides discount goods to consumers all across the country. The giant big box stores sell food, clothing, electronics, furniture, and even tires. Due to the vast numbers of customers entering the stores each day, Wal-Mart has long had a serious problem with shoplifting. Common schemes include taking items without paying, removing electronics from boxes that contain security sensors, and returning broken or stolen merchandise for a full refund. 

In response to widespread theft, Wal-Mart initiated a comprehensive loss prevention program. Each Wal-Mart is equipped with an extensive security camera system. In addition, multiple loss prevention officers are on staff at any given time. Some sit in a room and monitor the video feed while others patrol the store in plain clothes. In addition, some security officers are in full uniform with handcuffs and weapons.

When someone trying to steal something, the loss prevention team is permitted to stop, question, and temporarily detain the individual while they wait for the police to arrive. However, some security officers have begun taking their jobs too seriously, resulting in injuries and even deaths. In addition, many local Wal-Marts have become havens for criminal activity, placing a severe burden on the local police force, especially for smaller towns.

Mayor Declares Wal-Mart a Public Nuisance

A public nuisance is a civil violation or crime that harms the community’s safety, welfare, morals or use of public property. In the town of Beech Grove, Indiana, public nuisance is a crime that is punishable by fine. Mayor Dennis Buckley declared the local Wal-Mart as a public nuisance following a string of incidents:

• During one incident, an individual stole something from the store. The police embarked on a high speed chase that ended in a deadly car crash with two civilian cars, claiming the life of an innocent, uninvolved passenger.
• During another incident, an individual stole something, then ran to a local restaurant where he committed suicide.
• In yet another incident, a group of women were involved in a violent brawl in the shampoo aisle.

Often times, the loss prevention team is accused of excessive force when stopping shoplifting suspects. When suspects are not fully compliant, security officers are allowed to use special hand controls. These hand controls involve safe and effective take-down of a suspect. More force than is reasonably necessary is not allowed. Excessive force is a tort action for personal injuries.

Constant complaints about the Wal-Mart (over 1,200 in the past few months) and a drain on police resources led the mayor to label Wal-Mart as a public nuisance, which allows local police to fine Wal-Mart every time they have to go to the store for an incident. In addition to fines, Wal-Mart may also face tort liability for being a public nuisance when another individual or business is injured as a result.

Authored by Jessica Long, LegalMatch Legal Writer

The Defense of Assumed Risk Explained

The defendant waves a bat at a woman threatening to hit her. She cowers in fear. She sues for assault. The court will look at each element of an assault to determine liability. An intentional tort claim awards a plaintiff damages based on the defendant’s intent. The defendant placed the plaintiff in fear of an imminent battery without her consent. Thus, he’s liable for assault.

A negligence lawsuit works differently. It doesn’t place liability based on the intent of the defendant. Instead, negligence compares the defendant’s actions to an imaginary ordinary person, prudent person or one with special knowledge and skill to determine if the defendant is liable. 

If an Ordinary Person would have Acted Differently than the Defendant in the same or similar Situation, He’s Liable.

The above definition sums up negligence liability. It sounds straightforward. Let’s say the defendant and plaintiff were driving in Los Angeles. The defendant, texting while driving, rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle as she slowed to a stop light. If an ordinary driver in Los Angeles would have been driving without texting and paying attention in the same or similar situation, the defendant is liable.

To win a negligence lawsuit, a plaintiff must still establish a claim based on elements:

• Duty: The defendant owed a plaintiff a duty of care
• Breach of Duty: The defendant breached his duty of care to the plaintiff
• Cause: The defendant was the direct or indirect cause of the accident
• Damages: The defendant’s actions led to the plaintiff’s injuries

Defenses to Negligence Claims

Even though the definition and elements of a negligence claim seem straightforward, the defendant isn’t without legal defense. One defense is assumption of risk.

A spectator at a baseball game is injured by a foul ball. She suffers a broken nose and concussion. Her damages includes medical bills and lost wages. The spectator sues the baseball team who uses assumption of the risk as a legal defense. Is the team liable?

Assumed Risk Explained

Some negligence defenses compares the fault of the plaintiff and defendant to determine damages. Assumption of the risk only looks at the defendant’s actions.

A spectator at a baseball game is injured by another spectator who shoots her and others. She suffers a debilitating injury. Her damages include medical bills and lost wages. The spectator sues the baseball team who uses assumption of the risk as a legal defense. Is the team liable?

Definition of Assumption of the Risk

Assumption of risk arises when a plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumes the risk of harm connected with the defendant’s negligence.

Once a plaintiff assumes the risk of harm, the defendant is no longer liable for injuries the plaintiff suffered. It doesn’t matter if the defendant was wrong, negligent, or reckless.

To win a negligence claim, a defendant must show:

• The plaintiff actually knew of the risks involved in the activity or conduct
• The plaintiff voluntarily accepted the expressed or implied risk by words, agreement, or actions
• It may also be necessary to prove there was obvious danger or the activity was inherently dangerous.

Looking at “Assumed Risk”

What is assumed risk? The plaintiff understood there could be risk of injury involved in engaging in a specific activity. He not only understood, but agreed to take the risk too. Assumption of the risks is classified in three board categories:

1. Express Agreement

Express agreement occurs when parties enter into a written agreement where the assumed risks are defined. Express agreements are typically used in activities that involve ultra-hazardous activities, such as rock climbing, skydiving, or bungee jumping. The bungee jumping company provides the individual with a release of liability agreement which outlines the risks associated with the activity. If the customer signs the document, he’s just signed an express agreement. Therefore, the customer generally can’t sue later if injured.

1. Implied Agreement

Implied agreement occurs when the plaintiff’s conduct shows he accepts the risks associated with the dangerous activities. There’s no written agreement involved in this assumed risk. Instead, there could be an oral agreement or conduct.

There are some situations where the risks are implied, assumed, understood and voluntarily untaken, but the defense can’t be used like:

• Behavior that completely unforeseeable
• Criminal behavior against the plaintiff
• Plaintiff’s voluntary behavior which is considered involuntary based on circumstances

Assuming the Risk is about the Defendant Showing the Plaintiff Didn’t Use Common Sense

If a spectator is injured by a foul ball at a baseball game, she typically can’t sue the baseball team. If she does, the baseball team can successfully use the assumption of risk defense. The spectator in the first hypothetical assumed the risk of being injured because she knew she could be hit by a foul ball at a game.

However, a baseball team’s assumption of the risk defense in the second hypothetical wouldn’t be successful. No spectator attending a baseball game would assume there’s a risk of getting shot by a fellow spectator.

Authored by Taelonnda Sewell, LegalMatch Legal Writer

Negligence of Funeral Homes

There have been instances of negligence by funeral homes, mortuaries, cemeteries, and crematories that mishandled the decedent’s remains. Such misconduct is devastating for the family and loved ones of the decedent at a time when they are still grieving. Such negligence on the part of those who have been entrusted with handling the decedent’s remains can cause significant emotional distress for the family, who can recover damages by filing a negligence lawsuit.

Types of Negligent Acts

Among the types of negligent acts committed are the following:

• Cremation of the wrong bodies;
• Improper storage of the bodies;
• Improper burial or no burial;
• Improper embalming;
• Placement of many bodies in one coffin;
• Removal and sale of body parts; and
• Vandalization of grave sites.

Negligence on the Part of a Funeral Home and Cemetery

One example of such negligence occurred recently in Houston, Texas, where a coffin holding the remains of a Carolyn Joyce Fobbs-Lee was lifted to the surface by flood waters. The coffin was transported 50 yards by the flood prior to coming to a stop on a concrete trail for hiking and biking adjacent to a guardrail.

The decedent’s husband, Richard Lee, said that in May 2015, he received a telephone call from a deacon of the church associated with the cemetery where his wife was buried. Lee had buried his wife in 2007. The deacon said that his wife’s casket had risen to the surface, and requested that Lee go to the cemetery in order to identify her. The widower was understandably in great distress over what had happened, but he did not have to identify the body because the Harris County Institute of Forensic Services acquired the remains and identified the body. 

Lee hired an attorney, Annie McAdams, and they were planning to go to the grave site with a funeral expert, who could determine whether the vault was the correct kind for the bayou location that was prone to flooding. However, the church deacons were opposed to such a visit unless the attorney refrained from using her cell phone camera. Although the funeral expert was unable to look inside the empty vault to decide if it was the correct type, McAdams and expert think that the water filled the vault, and put pressure on the top of the vault, which was the supposed to have been sealed.

McAdams and the expert claim that the cement vault that was used to safeguard the casket was improperly sealed and may not have had the requisite number of holes in the bottom to allow water to enter and exit. Without these safeguards, the casket could not remain in the ground in case of a flood. Mr. Lee has filed an injunction requesting that all evidence be unmoved until a complete investigation of the grave site and neighboring graves is performed. He has also filed a claim of negligence against the funeral home and cemetery.

Seeking Legal Advice

If you think that a funeral home or cemetery has engaged in misconduct regarding the handling of your family member or loved one, you should consult an attorney, who will file a claim of negligence on your behalf.

Authored by Roxanne Minott, LegalMatch Legal Writer and Attorney at Law

Proving Fault in a Trip and Fall Accident

What Are Trip and Fall Accidents?

Trip and fall accidents occur when a person trips on an object on or near the floor, resulting in injury. The injury usually results from the person hitting the floor, which can cause injury to the person’s hips, back, neck, arms, and other body parts. Trip and fall cases are sometimes called slip and fall cases.

However, “slip and fall” may refer to incidents that involve a slippery or wet floor, whereas “trip and fall” often indicates a fall due to an object. In court, these are both treated similarly under local and state personal injury laws.

Issues to Consider When Proving Trip and Fall Accidents

Proving fault or liability in a trip and fall case can sometimes involve some very technical details. In most cases, trip and fall claims are based on the negligence of the shop owner or business owner. In order to prove trip and fall liability, it’s necessary to show that the defendant owed the victim a duty of care, that they breached this duty of care, and that the breach was the cause of the person’s injury.

Proof of liability can often be provided through evidence such as photos, video, witness testimony, and written statements. Other points to consider in a trip and fall claim may include:

• Length of time that the hazard was allowed to be on the floor: If the object or hazard was on the floor for a long time, it might indicate the defendant’s negligence.
• Extent of the injury: Minimal injuries or losses will often be rejected in a court filing.
• Location of the incident: Sometimes, a person might file a claim for an incident in an area that the premises owner doesn’t have any responsibility for (for instance, on a sidewalk or public walkway); this might relieve the owner of responsibility for injury.
• Whether the defendant had knowledge of the dangerous conditions, and whether or not they took steps to remedy the situation.

What Are Some Legal Remedies for Trip and Fall Claims?

Trip and fall claims often result in a monetary damages award, issued from the defendant to the plaintiff. This will often cover losses such as hospital costs, medical bills, and other expenses. These types of damage may often be subject to state laws that limit damages.

Another remedy may include an injunction, which is a court requirement that the liable party fix or correct the conditions that caused the slip and fall claims.

Lastly, many trip and fall claims may cause the victim to miss work or lose the ability to generate income in the future. The court may consider these factors and issue damages awards for these aspects if needed.

Trip and fall accidents can sometimes result in serious injury and/or losses to the plaintiff. You may wish to hire a personal injury lawyer if you need help filing a legal claim for a trip and fall incident. You lawyer can help you review and file the paperwork that is necessary to process your claim. Also, your attorney can be on hand to represent you during the actual proceedings and hearings that may be involved. 

Authored by Jose Rivera

Personal Injury Lawsuits From The Lawyer’s Perspective

I sat down recently with my friend George for lunch.  He’s a personal injury attorney and as such, I’ve come up with a multitude of nicknames for him thanks largely in part to the advent of the internet.  George hates the names I call him: ambulance chaser, waiting room attendant, and of course, Ted. 

But that day he took them especially bad.  He yelled back at me that just because he deals in personal injury, that doesn’t make him a scumbag.  Egging him on, I jokingly responded back, “But isn’t that the definition of a personal injury lawyer?”  To my surprise though, George’s response helped clarify a lot of the common misconceptions me and a lot of people, especially potential clients, have about personal injury lawsuits.  It also made me see how really freaking hard it must be to land clients as one.  Anyway, here are five of the best ones IMHO.

1.      Contingency Fee Agreements – “We Lose, You Don’t pay”

By far this is the biggest misconception most people have about personal injury lawyers.  And it makes sense.  In our modern society of identity theft, ebay shipping cost scams, and the age-old parentally driven notion of “no free lunch,” it’s hard to believe that any good deal could come without a catch.  But really, in this case it’s actually true (unless the lawyer is actually a thief, of course).  Attorneys have an ethical obligation to not only tell clients how much they’re going to charge and for what, but also a responsibility to be honest about it without any of the hidden fees stuff.  So if an attorney says there’s only going to be a fee if they win, they’re telling the truth because they have to.

2.      Employee Injury Lawsuits Will Get You Fired

I believed this one for the longest time, too - until I went to law school, that is.  Not only is it untrue, but it’s also illegal for an employer to fire an employee for bringing a lawsuit against them.  Such a dismissal could give way to a wrongful termination lawsuit.  Though chances are that you’ll probably not want to work under an employer who you’ve tried to sue or who has tried to unjustly fire you, but such is life.  However, regardless of whether you decide to pursue that type of legal action, if as an employee, you’re hurt on the job because of something that your employer did wrong or negligently, you have a right to compensation.  Which bring me to the next misconception . . .

3.      Personal Injury Lawsuits Are A Drain To The Legal System And Another Way To Blame Someone Else

A lot of George’s clients think this, either when they first seek counsel from him or later on when the litigation is taking longer than what was originally expected.  The reality is that such lawsuits do put a burden on the court system.  But that is what the system is there for; not only that, but court fees must also be paid by the parties involved in the lawsuit.  And as far as assignment of blame goes, sure there are a lot of people who misuse the civil legal system just to get money and point the finger.  But all you have to do to fix it is just don’t be one of them and bring only lawsuits that you believe are truly valid.  Furthermore, the larger injustice would be letting a wrongdoer get away with their actions.  I mean, you probably wouldn’t want to let a guy who just robbed your house at gunpoint to walk free just because it would mean he’d be placed behind bars, would you?

  4.      Ambulance Chaser 

Personal injury lawyers get this especially hard.  The name implies that these types of attorneys don’t care about their clients and only want to make money.  Well, the truth is that being a lawyer, like any business, is still a business and like any good business, it requires earning money in order to survive.  But that doesn’t mean lawyers don’t believe in or care about who they’re representing.  And even if they don’t, lawyers still have an ethical duty to do the best job they can at representing their clients.

5.      Winning Personal Injury Lawsuits Are Easy

This one is sort of the bastard stepchild in the personal injury myth family.  Everyone isn’t sure how it got there, but for some reason everyone believes it’s in the right place.  Though some attorneys’ advertisements may make you think otherwise, personal injury lawsuits aren’t necessarily always slam dunks.  Sure, if you get a hit by a car in front of a slew of cameras and police officers you’re probably in for an easy win.  But most of the time, you’re probably in for a fight, which is why you’ll need a good attorney.

Got anymore misconceptions you want to talk about?  Hit me up in the comments section below.

By: Andrew Dat

"Slip and Fall" Fakers and Fraud Artists.

Faced with an episode of “America’s Funniest Home Videos,” someone unfamiliar with the States would probably conclude that we are a nation obsessed with infants, humorless voiceover, and serious personal injury.  But intentional personal injury—that’s a strange one.

Yet we see this kind of damage (or people faking it) all the time. We’re extremely familiar with the car-accident “victim” and his convenient case of whiplash, and we laugh about the shady stranger faking a dog bite wound.  But these aren’t just popular images from a syndicated sitcom. Occasionally, the insurance fraud artist becomes a feature in the very real, very modern news.

 

This “slip and fall” faker made the news last year after security cameras caught her pouring olive oil on a store’s tile floor. Returning later to “slip” on the pre-planned slick, the Florida woman made her cunning plan a little too obvious, and the store owner’s his $30,000 surveillance system caught the entire fraud on film. Unluckily for that woman, the film caught the internet by storm too.

Despite the glut of popular images about fake victims and insurance fraud criminals, dangerous property and building laws were put in place for a good reason: to protect. For property owners who don’t conform to the safety rules, the consequences can be serious. In this recent Texas case, over $75,000 is at stake because of a puddle of wax on a WalMart floor. Even a New York inmate is taking a stab at the pie with her case against the prison system, claiming that a “slip and fall” injury resulted from her shower-cleaning duties.

 

With so many cases to thumb through, how can we tell which ones are legit?

The legal system generally uses three criteria to determine whether a property owner is at fault:

1. The property owner caused the spill, worn or torn spot, or other slippery or dangerous surface or item;
2. The property owner knew of the dangerous condition but did nothing about it; or
3. The property owner should have known of the dangerous surface because a "reasonable" person taking care of the property would have discovered and removed or repaired it.

So, owners—keep your property in good repair, keep your customers safe, read up on personal injury laws, AND—

…consider installing a surveillance system.

by Kate Beall

Disneyland or Bust.

Happiest Place on Earth?  Not for the family of a small boy who died suddenly on a popular ride at Disney World’s Epcot Center.  Their ride, known as Mission: Space is a space flight simulator which spins guests fast enough to create a feeling of weightlessness.  It is interesting to note that this ride comes equipped with motion sickness bags for those who can’t handle the g-force created.  Millions of people visit amusement parks every year, including 328 million people last year alone.  The question remains - are these rides safe for you or your children to ride?

Regarding the most recent death at a Disney Resort, Disney spokeswoman Jacquee Polak said, “We believe the ride is safe in its current configuration.”  But what is safe for most people most of the time was not safe for those injured or killed on one of these rides.  The amusement ride industry has said that riding thrill rides is safer than bowling, bobbing your head, having a pillow fight, sitting in a chair, or sneezing.  Although the official cause of death of this boy will not be known for several weeks, his death has sparked many questions and concerns about safety at amusement parks.

So how many people actually die in an amusement park ride related accidents?  According to the Consumer Product and Safety Commission, the rate of death resulting from amusement park rides is approximately one in 250 million riders.  To read comprehensive accident reports and related news visit RideAccident.  According to SaferParks, a consumer’s guide to safety at amusement parks and carnivals, “accurate nationwide data on U.S. amusement ride injuries doesn’t exist because the industry lobbyists and federal lawmakers have agreed not to collect it.”  Because there is no independent data regarding the actual number of injuries caused by rides every year one must be quite cautious when preparing, or shall I say daring, to board. 

What responsibilities do operators of these rides have?  Rides are regulated through federal, state, and local laws but presently there is a loophole in the law that prevents federal officials from participating in amusement park accident investigations. Depending on the size and mobility of the park or carnival, different laws apply.  The amusement ride industry has also developed a set of engineering standards through the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).  For information regarding Amusement Park Liability visit LegalCenter.  While these safety standards and regulations are, to say the least, important they do not create accountability or ensure compliance.   

Despite all of these concerns I know at least one individual who will be, cautiously but excitedly, sitting in the bobsleds this summer…Me.  Ride carefully.

By Lisa Zanassi