Injury

Describes motivation process for creativity with emphasis on intrinsic motivation by Corey K Katir

Last year during a snow storm in St. Louis, my client was involved in a truck accident when she was ran off the road by a MoDOT snow plow on Highway I-270 in St Louis county. She was driving her car in the far right hand lane since she was going slow due to the weather. A snow plow came up behind her, sideswiped her car, and then kept on going and left her stranded on the side of the road.

The truck accident left several large orange paint streaks down the side of the victim’s car. The pain was the same orange color as the snow plow orange. The reporting officer noted the orange paint and was unable to reach MoDOT for any response. The victim retained our St Louis accident attorneys and we were able to get MoDOt to admit that the snow plow in the area of the accident that night was reported as being damaged on the right side of the snow plow. Damage completely consistent with the auto accident our client reported.

Our client sustained injuries to her neck and back, reported to the emergency room and then followed up with her family doctor and received physical therapy for a few months. The victim fully recovered and incurred about $10,000 in total medical bills. Prior to filing a lawsuit MoDOT agreed to settle the truck injury claim for $85,000.00.

Personally, I was very pleased with the outcome of this case, we were able to get my client all the medical treatment she needed to fully and completely recover and then settle her case for over 8 times the amount of the medical bills without having to file a lawsuit. The victim int his case was a past client of ours, therefore, she knew to contact us immediately after being involved in an auto accident. Retaining an accident lawyer early on in your case is critical to successful and very favorable recoveries.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Alton Illinois cyclist Killed by Semi-Trailer Truck

Truck Accident Causation – Critical Factors

According to an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Missouri House passed two pieces of important legislation this week specifically aimed to overcome a veto by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon earlier this year pertaining to Missouri work comp.

As they have passed the House, both bills now head over to the Senate which previously approved similar measures earlier in this year’s legislative session. The House voted 86-66 for a bill that could reduce protections for employees who report wrongdoing in the workplace. The legislation limits “whistleblower” status to employees who report or refuse to carry out illegal acts. The bill goes further to gut existing protections by limiting who is allowed to receive whistleblower reports as well as capping the amount of punitive damages a whistleblower can recover if an employer retaliates.

In Missouri there is no comprehensive whistleblower statue. Instead, law has been made by court cases and whether a person can sue has been decided by judges on the basis of precedent. The sponsor of the recent bill, Rep. Kevin Elmer said it was designed to clarify rules for business owners by putting something on the books officially. Given that the bill is the result of legislative action, the statute would supersede the courts’ earlier decisions.

Democrats in the legislature have spoken at length against the bill, arguing that it doesn’t give workers enough protection to allow them to report serious problems. The Democrats also complained about the bill’s exemptions for state and local government entities, including Missouri’s public colleges and universities.

On the workers’ compensation front, the House also backed a bill that would bar employees from suing co-workers for on-the-job injuries. This was also passed earlier in the year but vetoed by Nixon. Democrats also spoke against this bill, saying that the law would prevent employees from suing co-workers even for intentionally caused injuries.

The Majority Leader, Tim Jones, says that this is an additional vehicle that will be used to help overhaul Missouri’s Second Injury Fund, an account which pays benefits to people with disabilities who sustain additional injuries on the job.

A spokesman for the governor said Nixon is negotiating with lawmakers about a workers’ compensation measure, but he declined to comment further.

As Saint Louis workers’ compensation attorneys we routinely see the devastating aftermath of accidents at the workplace and worry about protections for employees being diminished. If you’ve been the victim of such an accident and need help navigating confusing legal waters, contact our skilled Missouri injury lawyers today.

Source: “Mo. House passes whistleblower, work comp bills,” by The Associated press, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Missouri Second Injury Fund Going Broke ……..

2012 Legislative Agenda for Missouri Workers Compensation

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich got an unexpected surprise when he visited the St. Louis Zoo recently. The presidential candidate decided to take some time before his speech to the National Rifle Association to go on a paid private tour and get up close and personal with a Magellanic penguin. One of the penguins decided that it wanted to get up close and personal with Gingrich too – by biting him on the finger.

Fortunately, a Band-Aid was enough first aid to treat the very minor injury. However, many other victims of animal bites are not so lucky. Animals bite millions of people across the United States every year, with dogs being the most common culprits. As a Saint Louis injury attorney, I have represented clients who have suffered both minor and severe injuries due to animal bites.

Under Missouri law, the owner of an animal that injures another person could potentially be strictly liable. When the owner of an animal is found “strictly liable” for an attack, that means the owner is at fault just by virtue of the fact that the attack occurred. Strict liability is found when both a) the animal had vicious or dangerous propensities, and b) the defendant owner had knowledge of the animal’s vicious or dangerous propensities. One case went a step further, holding that the owner of a Doberman pincher should have known that his dog was dangerous.

Section 322.145 states that “the owner of an animal that bites … shall be liable to an injured party for all damages done by the animal.” Section 273.036(1) further elaborate with the following:

The owner or possessor of any dog that bites, without provocation, any person while such person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner or possessor of the dog, is strictly liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s or possessor’s knowledge of such viciousness. Owners and possessors of dogs shall also be strictly liable for any damage to property or livestock proximately caused by their dogs. If it is determined that the damaged party had fault in the incident, any damages owed by the owner or possessor of the biting dog shall be reduced by the same percentage that the damaged party’s fault contributed to the incident… (emphasis added)

In other words, the law does heavily favor the victims of animal attacks, so long as those victims did not provoke the attack. Thus, if you need more than a quick Band-Aid from an errant penguin’s peck, there is relief available under Missouri law.

For more information about the state of animal bite law in Missouri, please look at this page. If you, a relative, or friend have been injured by a dog bite or other animal attack, call Saint Louis injury lawyer Ben Sansone for a free consultation at (314) 863-0500.

Source: “Penguin nips Newt Gingrich at St. Louis Zoo,” by Jake Wagman, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

$250,000.00 Settlement: Hydraulic Fluid Injection Injury resulting from Negligent Hose Repair

Missouri Law on Suing a Property Owner for Negligent Security after a Criminal Attack – Assumption of the Duty

St Louis accident attorneys, Sansone / Lauber, obtained a favorable settlement in Cape Girardeau County on behalf of a Scott County high school student who was injured after a loose door divider fell and struck him on the head when he was walking through a gymnasium doorway. The lawsuit settled for a very favorable $75,000.00, plus court costs, about two weeks prior to trial. The injured Plaintiff suffered a concussion and incurred approximately $5,000 in medical bills. The claim was made against Scott County School District. See : PETITION – dangerous condition – School_Redacted.pdf.

When making an accidental injury or negligence claim against a public entity, such as a pubic school, certain issues must be considered and investigated since public entities have certain tort immunity under Missouri law. See: Government Entity Liability for Dangerous Conditions. Specifically, you must determine if the accidental injury you are making a claim for falls under one of the exceptions to sovereign immunity, additionally, you need to look for other 3rd parties that may be liable if the sovereign immunity caps apply and the damages from the injuries may exceed those caps.

In our recent Cape Girardeau premises liability case cited above, the school district was unable to dispute that the Plaintiff was injured by a loose double door divider that fell and struck the Plaintiff in the head as he walked through the doorway during gym class. The Defendant, Scott County High School, and its employees, had exclusive control over the gym doors, including the post. Additionally, we were able to show that Scott County had actual notice the center divider was loose or had fallen out the night prior to Plaintiff’s injury.

The night before the negligent head injury, a teacher had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition. The school nurse testified that she heard from school employees the center divider fell out of the doorway the night before at the basketball game. Additionally, another teacher that was at the game, testified she leaned against the center divider and it moved, then a spectator at the basketball game tightened it up with just his hands, no tools. That same teacher testified nothing else was done to that center divider and she did not notify anyone. Cursory investigation fo the doorway showed that hand tightening would not be effective, the fastener holding the center pole is a small Allen bolt that is smooth without anyway to grip other than using an Allen wrench or pliers.

The Plaintiff was sent to the emergency room and diagnosed with a concussion. One year after the head injury, medical records documented that the Plaintiff was still suffering from post concussion symptoms including headaches.

RELATED BLOG POSTS

$575,000.00 Injury Settlement – Illinois Head / Brain Injury Settlement – Illinois Drunk Driving Car Accident Lawsuit

Evidentiary Issues to Consider under Missouri Law for a Slip and Fall Personal Injury Trial

After years of practicing as a Missouri & Illinois personal injury lawyer, I frequently see cases where employees suffer tragic accidents due to dangerous jobs. Sometimes, despite the best efforts of employers, these accidents happen because certain activities can never be made one hundred percent safe. Other times, an employer is so derelict in its duties that not only are private lawsuits inevitable, but the employer can find itself afoul of the U.S. Department of Labor.

That is the case with the workplace wrongful death at Bartlett Grain Company elevator in Atchison, Kansas. Back in October, six workers were killed in an explosion. Investigators in Kansas originally determined that the explosion, caused by grain dust, was accidental. However, on April 12, the federal government intervened. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued over a dozen citations and are seeking over $400,000 in fines. Criminal charges may be in the future, but that is a decision for the Department of Labor’s Office of the Solicitor.

According to the Kansas City Star, grain elevator worker has become one of the most dangerous jobs in America, and is part of the increasingly hazardous agricultural industry. Deaths by suffocation in the elevators are “all too common.”

U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis stated in a press release, “Bartlett Grain’s disregard for the law led to a catastrophic accident and heartbreaking tragedy for the workers who were injured or killed, their families and the agricultural community.” Criminal charges may be in the future, but that is a decision for the Department of Labor’s Office of the Solicitor.

According to OSHA, grain dust is nine times more explosive than coal dust and Barlett did not perform sufficient preventative measures, nor did it have a sufficient plan in place in case of emergency. OSHA alleged that Bartlett allowed the grain dust to accumulate to dangerous levels. Further, Bartlett used compressed air to remove dust without first shutting down ignition sources, creating an incredibly volatile atmosphere. They also repeatedly started and stopped machinery and used electrical equipment inappropriate for an environment covered in grain dust.

OSHA described these acts as “willful violations.” A willful violation is an act that is “committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements or with plain indifference to worker safety and health.” Bartlett Grain has been accused of five willful violations. The company has also been accused of eight “serious” violations, which according to OSHA are “hazard[s], violation[s] or condition[s] such that there is a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result.”

Bartlett Grain president Company president Bob Knief issued a statement that the company “certainly look[s] forward to proving wrong OSHA’s unfortunate citations and characterization.”

If one of you or one your loved ones is injured in a workplace accident, you will need to an experienced St Louis county personal injury attorney on your side. Contact Ben Sansone today for a free initial consultation at (314) 863-0500.

Source: “KC grain company cited for violations in deadly Atchison elevator explosion,” by Mike McGraw, published at KansasCity.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Initial Steps to Take When Injured on the Job: Workers’ Compensation Benefits and Personal Injury Claims

Supreme Court to Decide, what is Within the Scope of Employment under Missouri Workers’ Compensation

Drunk driving injury lawyer Ben Sansone focuses on pursuing drunk drivers on behalf of injured clients and their families. We have handled dozens of drunk driving injury cases in Missouri and Illinois to successful conclusions. With the assistance of Sansone’s partner, Gary Lauber, a former prosecutor, they have the experience and skill necessary to aggressively pursue drunk drivers in personal injury cases and wrongful death actions. See 2.3 Million dollar Judgment Obtained againt St Louis County Drunk Driver. Also see Drunk Driving Injury Lawyer Articles.

The Franklin County, Missouri Sheriff’s Office wants to make sure during prom season the teenagers and other drivers on the road are safe and sober. Law enforcement agencies across the state are working with the Missouri Department of Transportation to crack down on underage drinking and driving as well as minors found to be in possession of alcohol between May 3rd and May 13th.

In Missouri it is illegal for anyone under 21 to possess or consume alcohol, yet teens make up an alarmingly large proportion of the drunk drivers arrested for having caused traffic accidents on Missouri roadways each year. Though most would not think so, many drunk drivers are under the age of 21.

From 2009-2011, there were 83 fatal crashes and 233 disabling injury crashes involving an alcohol impaired driver under the age of 21. Devastatingly, there were 94 people killed and 368 seriously injured as a result of these crashes.

Franklin County has specific reason to be concerned as it came in at number four in Missouri for traffic cashes between 2009-2011. In Franklin County alone there were 41 crashes involving drunk drivers under the age of 21. During the same two years there were four fatal crashes and four disabling injury crashes involving an impaired driver under 21.

Franklin County police officers as well as officers across the state will be stepping up enforcement of Missouri’s Zero Tolerance Law. The law says that anyone under the age of 21 caught driving with even a trace of alcohol in their system will have their license suspended. “Drinking and driving is not worth the risk,” said Leanna Depue, chair of the executive committee of the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety. “Zero tolerance means zero chances: Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over.”

The consequences for such reckless behavior includes jail time, loss of a driver license, or being sentenced to using ignition interlocks. Insurance rates will also go up as a result and the perpetrator will have to shell out money for attorney fees and court costs.

In 2011 across the state there were 217 people killed and 867 seriously injured in crashes involving an impaired driver. As Saint Louis personal injury attorneys we routinely see the devastating aftermath of collisions caused by such drunk driving accidents. If you’ve been the victim of such an accident and need help navigating confusing legal waters, contact our skilled Missouri injury lawyers today.

Source: “Officers to Crack Down on Underage Drinking,” published at eMissourian.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Bicycle Injuries – Usually Negligent but Sometimes Drunk Drivers or Road Rage

Attorney Causes DWI Death and Severely Injures Two Others, Gets 25 years Jail

With over a decade of experience handling personal injury claims, I have represented dozens of individual suffering from head injuries, including post concussion syndrome and more severe traumatic brain injuries. See Brain and Spine Injury Lawyer Articles. A head injury can be a slight as headaches and dizziness to severe as unconsciousness, visible injury to the brain, coma, or death. Brain injuries are need to be addressed medically and legally even when relatively minor.

One of the reactions to the recent awareness of how sever even perceived minor head injuries can become, the debate has begun about young children being allowed to play rough contact sports like football. Two of the world’s leading experts on concussion related injuries disagree on the subject.

Any time a person sustains a head injury, there is risk of concussion. While a concussion may not sound too scary, the problem occurs in repeated incidents of concussions which can have serious long-term consequences. One especially troubling worry is that if an athlete, or a child, receives a second concussion before the first has fully healed, it can cause permanent injury or even death.

According to the experts, children who play football throughout high school may receive as many as 2,500 sub-concussive hits throughout their careers. A recent study found that the number of catastrophic brain injuries which caused permanent disabilities among high school football players increased to 13 during 2011. This alarming trend has researchers working on ways to make youth sports safer even if they don’t agree on the best way to guarantee that safety.

The issue up for debate is whether the safety skills obtained by experiencing contact in the form of rough sports play early on in life is counterbalanced by the risk of injury caused by multiple concussions.

Boston University’s Dr. Robert Cantu thinks that sports like ice hockey, lacrosse and tackle football should be off limits to kids under the age of 14 until rules are changed to limit risks of concussions and other injuries stemming from multiple blows to the head that so often come with the territory.

On the other side of the debate is Dr. Kevin Guskiewicz from the University of North Carolina. He believes young athletes need to learn how to deal with physical contact early on when they play against opponents who are the same age and size. Dr. Guskiewicz believes that such early exposure to proper safety techniques will ultimately lead to safer playing later in life.

Guskiewicz explains that “the youth league players generally are close to the same size and are about the same age. If you wait until the kids are freshmen in high school, you might have a 130-pound player competing with a 300-pound player. The forces can be tremendous. I believe it is safer for the players to learn at younger ages.”

Cantu, who has treated a lot of youngsters with concussions, believes that it is absolutely critical to avoid repeated head injuries. “That’s where Kevin and I differ,” Cantu said. “I’m treating these children and I’ve seen them miss school for a week, a month, a semester, even a year because of post-concussion symptoms.”

St. Louis personal injury lawyer Ben Sansone is an experienced Missouri injury trial lawyer practicing in all areas of personal injury including brain injury and medical malpractice. For information on how to protect your legal rights if you or a loved one has been seriously injured, call one of our Missouri personal injury attorneys today at 1-314-863-0500.

Source: “Concussion experts differ on safety in youth sports,” by Tim Stevens, published at CharlotteObserver.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

St Louis Medical Malpractice Settlement: $900,000.00 for Spinal Cord Injury after Negligent Pain Injection

St Louis Auto Accident with Head Injury: Settlement obtained by Sansone Law

Recently, St Louis injury law firm Sansone / Lauber secured a $760,000.00 settlement for our client who was sexually assaulted in her apartment. See Defective and Poorly Maintained Security Doors.

The parties involved in the settlement are being kept confidential to protect the identity of our client, however, I can say that the defendant was a St Louis area apartment owner that we maintained had knowledge of the crime levels in the area based on crime statistics available to them and reported crimes at the apartment complex. Despite the levels of crime the property owner allowed the common area security doors to remain in disrepair despite consistent complaints by the tenants.

Unfortunately, as a result of the inoperable security doors, a criminal was able to easily and quickly obtain access to our client’s apartment making her an easy target for burglary and sexual assault. Several witnesses testified to the poor conditions and upkeep of the common area security doors as well as the apartment front doors and to the crime level in the neighborhood as well. There were constant complaints to management regarding the conditions and security concerns. Some issues were dealt with for temporary resolution and many issues were simply ignored. Several assaults and robberies took place against tenants and food delivery drivers.

In order to have a claim against a property owner, there must not only be a criminal act that causes injury, you must first establish a legal duty on the property owner to protect you from that criminal act.

ESTABLISHING A LEGAL DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY:

DUTY AS A MATTER OF LAW: Under Aaron v Havens.pdf there is a duty as a matter of law on a landlord to keep the common areas safe. In the Aaron case where a rape occurred after access by the intruder up the fire escape and through an unlocked apartment window the court stated “[i]f a private apartment can be entered through a window, injury to the occupants is foreseeable.”

The scope of admissible evidence under Aaron is broad. Therein the Court held: “it is not necessary to allege that past crimes involving entry into unauthorized places are of the same general nature as the one which gave rise to the claim. If a burglar may enter, so may a rapist. To find a duty only the incidence of harm, not necessarily the quantum need be foreseeable.”

In our case, we argued the Arron case applied as the building security doors and the apartment front doors were controlled by the owner according to the undisputed testimony of the witnesses. Thus, it is common area and according to Aaron there is a duty as a matter of law. Additionally, in our case the owner breached the duty by providing the locked doors and barely attempting to maintain them through cheap temporary fixes.

DUTY ESTABLISHED BY SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS:

If the duty is not established as a matter of law, a duty can be imposed on a land owner based on special relationships. For a detailed discussion of the special relationships duty see Legal Elements and Issues Related to 3rd Pary Criminal Act Personal Injury cases in Missouri.

RELATED BLOG POSTS:

Missouri Law on Suing a Property Owner for Negligent Security after a Criminal Attack – Assumption of the Duty

Negligent Security – is the Starbucks Tip Jar Lawsuit a Good Case?

Missouri Waiver of Personal Injury From Future Negligence Clauses in Apartment Lease Contracts – Are they Enforceable?

A federal law that aims to reduce number of truck and commercial vehicle accidents and injury caused by distracted driving has recently gone into effect. The law, which took effect at the beginning of this year, affects nearly 4 million truck and bus drivers, plus millions of other commercial drivers who work for businesses both large and small.

The recently passed law prohibits commercial vehicle drivers from using hand-held cellphones while the vehicle is in motion. The ban applies to operators of commercial vehicles, defined as those vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds which cross state lines for business purposes or any other vehicle weighing more than 26,000 pounds which includes all sorts of vehicles from tractor-trailers to large delivery trucks.

The ban imposes stiff fines for drivers who violate the law. For each offense, violators face a civil penalty of up to $2,750. If a driver is a repeat offender, he or she can lose their commercial vehicle operator’s license. Even more seriously, drivers who commit two major violations within a three-year period will lose their driving privileges for at least 60 days. If there are three or more violations within three years, the penalty is a suspended license for 120 days, something that will hit operators of commercial vehicles where it counts: their wallets.

Drivers are not the only ones who can be penalized under the new law; companies can be held responsible as well. Any company that allows or requires their employees to use hand-held cellphones while driving the company or other work-related vehicle can be fined up to $11,000. Holding the employers’ feet to the fire is another method of ensuring that all steps are taken to encourage the safe operation of commercial vehicles. To comply with the law, many companies and organizations are scrambling to draft and implement internal policies prohibiting cellphone use while on company business.

However, as many Missouri personal injury attorneys can tell you, even the best plans to rid the roads of distracted drivers won’t stop some from refusing to behave responsibly behind the wheel. The St. Louis injury lawyers at Sansone / Lauber believe that the best way to protect yourself against distracted driving by commercial vehicles is to pay special attention while driving and carefully watch the road ahead of you. For information on how to protect your legal rights if you or a loved one has been seriously injured, call one of our Missouri car accident attorneys today at 1-314-863-0500.

Source: “Companies weigh risks of distracted driving” by Larry Copeland, published at USAToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
The biggest driving distraction might just be… your car?

Missouri Takes Aim At Distracted Driving

The trend toward the use of social media has permeated every aspect of our lives. The legal system seems to be following this trend. Defense attorneys have been successful in presenting social media posts and pictures as evidence in personal injury cases. They are using social media as a source of discovery.

Insurance adjustors and defense attorneys regularly search through information on social media websites. They are hoping to find evidence that will go against the opposing party’s claim of injury. Personal injury attorneys are currently advising their clients to cancel their social media accounts. Apparently, setting their social media posts to private is not enough to keep their privacy intact. In fact, if a personal injury client posts anything to do with an accident on a social media website, it can be treated as evidence in court.

In the Pennsylvania case of Zimmerman v. Weis Markets Inc., the judge ordered the plaintiff to provide the court with the login information for his social media account. The court reasoned that since the public portions of his Facebook and MySpace accounts showed evidence of his injury, a discovery of the remaining private postings were likely to contain similar information. The court made this decision because the man had profile pictures of himself on Facebook and MySpace. In one of the pictures, he is shown wearing shorts that happened to expose a scar from his accident.

In the New York case of Romano v. Steelcase Inc., a judge entitled defense attorneys access to the private MySpace and Facebook pages of a plaintiff who claimed to be confined to her home because of her injuries. The profile picture on one of her social media accounts depicted her standing outdoors. The court decided that because the public portions of her social networking accounts contained evidence that was contradictory to her claims, the private portions of her accounts would likely yield additional contradictory evidence. The profile picture could have been months or years before the accident. The defense pushed the idea that the woman maintained an active lifestyle, and she was not seriously injured.

Personal injury lawyers are concerned about the recent court rulings. Old pictures and statements can be misunderstood as current or relevant to a court case. Even if someone were to remove a picture from their social media account, it can still be used against them in court. Clients should understand that defense attorneys will stop at nothing in order to defeat personal injury claims. Even when the pictures fail to prove a claimant has been dishonest about their injuries, they can still be used in an attempt to mar their character.

Information from social media sites can cause juries to make value judgments on plaintiffs. For instance, a picture that shows a plaintiff drinking and partying is a common tactic to sway a jury. Once the jury sees the picture, they tend to award the plaintiff less money. Due to the public profiles of many of their clients, Los Angeles personal injury attorney’s have long been cognizant of the risks of poor public exposure during trial. While this isn’t news for any personal injury attorney, the proliferation of social media information has increased the risk of accidental self-incrimination (or apparent incrimination).

Although the law is still evolving in this area, making any public communication about health or injuries is a mistake when proceeding with a personal injury claim. The information gleaned from social media websites can cause substantial harm to a claimant’s credibility; ultimately, it can cause them to lose their case. Until the laws surrounding personal injury and social media are clearly defined, victims of personal injury should remove their social media accounts before filing a claim for compensation.

Related Blog:

Social Media Can Play Important Role in Missouri Personal Injury Cases

If you are injured in a car accident or otherwise and your health insurance coverage is through a group plan with your employer (often referred to as an “ERISA” Plan), it has certain rights of recovery from your personal injury settlement for pay back of the expenses paid on your behalf for your medical care. Often these plans will try to claim 100% reimbursement (referred to as “subrogation”), however, they are usually not entitled to full reimbursement, and in some cases they are not entitled to reimbursement at all. This area of law can be very complicated, the concepts below apply generally to Illinois injury claims.

Subrogation allows the employer health insurance plan to “stand in the shoes” of the participant, in our cases the injured victim is the participant, to recover benefits paid by the plan and transfers to the plan the participant’s right to recover from the at fault party and their insurer. This right to reimbursement (subrogation) is a contractual right that must be in the plan documents. Unisys Medical Plan v. Timm, 98 F.3d 971, 973 (7th Cir. 1996).

Important Issues to Consider regarding Plan’s Ability to Recover:

The reimbursement language in the health insurance contract. Does it cover just medical expenses from the personal injury? Or does it cover any recovery arising from a personal injury action, such as lost wages, pain and suffering, etc … ? This is important because if the plan’s language is not broad enough it may only be able to recover from medical damages recovered. A broad plan provision for reimbursement from “any recovery relating to injury” or “any funds” creates a right of reimbursement from the participant’s entire recovery, not just medical expenses. McIntosh v. Pacific Holding Co., 992 F.2d 882 (8th Cir. 1993).

Is the plan attempting to recover amounts billed or actually paid? An ERISA plan may only recover may recover only the amount it actually paid to healthcare providers, not the amounts billed, since the plan administrator must uphold its fiduciary duty to act solely in the interests of its participants. McConocha v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ohio, 898 F.Supp. 545 (N.D.Ohio 1995).

COMMON FUND DOCTRINE

The most effective way to reduce the amount required to be paid back to the plan is use of the Common Fund Doctrine. “The common fund doctrine permits a party who creates, preserves, or increases the value of a fund in which others have an ownership interest to be reimbursed from this fund for litigation expenses incurred, including counsel fees.” Scholtens v. Schneider, 173 Ill.2d 375, 671 N.E.2d 657, 662, 219 Ill.Dec. 490 (1996).

In other words, the injured victim hired a lawyer, went through the cost and expense of litigation, and therefore, the plan should share in that cost and reduce it claimed lien amount to reflect that cost.

The Illinois Supreme Court, in Scholtens v. Schneider, ruled that the the common fund doctrine applies to ERISA liens except when the ERISA plan explicitly provides otherwise. The Illinois Supreme Court interpreted both ERISA and the common fund doctrine in holding that the common fund doctrine applies to ERISA subrogation liens. The common fund doctrine provides that a subrogation claim is to be reduced for the pro rata share of the attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in creating the settlement fund. Additionally, the court rejected arguments that the Common Fund Doctrine is preempted by the ERISA law.

See related Blog Articles:

Dealing with ERISA Liens When Settling Personal Injury Cases

Medical mistakes can happen for a variety of reasons: a patient could not be properly monitored while at the hospital, there could be a communication error between nurses and doctors, staff could not be up to par on training. If all those aren’t scary enough reasons, a recent study found that some surgeons may have alcohol dependency issues which impacts their ability to properly practice medicine.

According to a study that was recently published in the Archives of Surgery, out of the 7,197 surgeons who answered a survey regarding their mood, lifestyle and work, 1,112 met the criteria of a person with an alcohol dependency issue. This equates to slightly more than 15 percent of those who participated in the survey having potential alcohol abuse problems.

And while this is certainly not a huge pool of respondents to gather data from, the truth is that more than 25,000 surgeons were actually included in the survey. However, the majority chose not to answer the questions.

“Surgeons who drink more heavily are potentially less likely to respond, which might underestimate the prevalence of alcohol abuse,” according to one professor of surgery and a member of the Journal of the American Medical Association who wrote an editorial to accompany the published study.

While the lead author of the study did take time to note that it is still very rare for a person to be injured due to a surgeon being intoxicated, an earlier study that was published in April found a connection between excessive drinking and medical errors.

That earlier study looked at eight surgeons and 16 medical students and found that those who were hung-over from a previous night of drinking made 19 errors on a virtual reality procedure conducted in a safe lab setting. Those who did not consume alcohol the previous night only made eight errors on the virtual reality procedure.

If a doctor does something that is not in accordance with the requisite standard of care then that doctor has engaged in medical malpractice. If you or some you know has become sick or injured because of a doctor falling below the required standard of care, you need the help of a St. Louis injury attorney experienced in medical malpractice to help protect your rights and recover damages for your injury. Contact med mal attorney Ben Sansone today for a free initial consultation at (314) 863-0500.

Source: “Survey Reveals that 15% of Surgeons have Alcohol Dependency,” by Christine Hsu, published at MedicalDaily.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Medical Malpractice Non-Economic Damages Cap: Watts v. Cox – Oral Arguments in the Missouri Supreme Court
St. Louis patients need to be on guard for doctors not washing their hands

For many, the idea of a child being injured due to a defective or dangerous product is obviously devastating. But sadly, the truth is that there are a number of products – including children’s toys, bedding and car seats – that are recalled every year due to safety issues. However, what is truly frightening is that many parents may never even hear of the recall and then continue to use the dangerous product.

About 40% of recalls last year, or 121 of 310 overall, involved children’s products, according to a recent study titled “Kids In Danger.” The same study notes two recalls of bunk beds and infant video monitors involved deaths. The Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) complaint database includes many reports of children injured or killed by recalled products, says Kids In Danger’s Nancy Cowles.

According to the recently released Kids in Danger report, there was actually a decline in the number of recalls in 2011. However, even though there was a 24 percent decrease, injuries and other negative incidents actually rose 7 percent last year.

It turns out that part of the problem is most likely due to the fact that when a recall is announced, only between 15 percent and 30 percent of the products are actually sent back or fixed. Of course, there are some rather larger higher-profile recalls that make the news and end up having a larger send back rate, but many smaller recalls do not end up getting as much attention.

Additionally, it seems part of the problem is that when there is a recall, stores have a hard time always tracking down the purchaser to let them known about. Disturbingly the average recall response rate for child safety seats is only about 41%, while about 75% of owners of cars and light trucks take their cars back for recalls, says data and analysis firm Lindsey Research Services. Car recalls are bolstered by mandatory registration while retail recalls suffer from not being able to locate shoppers. The ability to find someone depends on whether they paid with a card or whether they have a customer loyalty account. Online retailers often have the easiest time contacting consumers.

Members of loyalty programs at Toys R Us and Babies R Us get e-mail alerts about product recalls; others can sign up on the stores’ websites to get notices. Amazon and Costco notify customers when products they buy online are recalled. Those not members of such programs can take action and sign up for recall notices on CPSC’s and NHTSAs websites.

If you or someone you know has been injured because of a company’s failure to provide a safe and healthy consumer product, you need the help of a St. Louis products liability attorney experienced and ready to help protect your rights and recover damages for your injury. Contact products liability attorney Ben Sansone today for a free initial consultation at (314) 863-0500.

Source: “Recalls of unsafe kids products down but often ignored,” by Jayne O’Donnell, published at USAToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Lead in Lipstick Could Lead to Liability
Death of Missouri Newborn Raises Formula Fear

Recently we settled a negligent hydraulic hose repair and thumb injury case pending in Perry County Missouri. The thumb injury occurred as the result of a hydraulic tractor hose that sprung a small leak and shot a very thin and strong stream of hydraulic fluid into my client’s thumb. Hydraulic oil injection injuries are deceiving because the injury seems minor at first, however, the hydraulic oil is very toxic and quickly causes injury to spread.

A hydraulic fluid injection injury is probably the most dangerous injury that can result from a hydraulic hose failure. Mainly because the injury appears benign at first, so the injured person often dismisses it and no urgent medical care is sought. Injected hydraulic oil is highly toxic, so in addition to the physical, and often appearing minor, physical cut, the oil literally poisons you.

The most important things to remember: NEVER touch a pressurized hose with your hand and if you suspect an injection injury has occured, get to an emergency room right away!

In our case, the victim was the owner of a tractor. One of the tractor’s hydraulic hoses became frayed near the end of the hose. The metal mesh under-layer began to show through the thick rubber outer-layer. The owner became concerned about the integrity of the hose and took it to the local hardware store for replacement. While at the hardware store they told him they could repair the hose rather than replace it, they would cut the frayed part off and reattach the hose connector at the end. The repair was made, however, a few inches of the hose still showed some metal coming through; the hardware store employee insisted it was safe and blew into it using his mouth to show no air was leaking through.

The owner reattached the hydraulic hose and within minutes a very strong and needle thin stream of hydraulic fluid came from the frayed area and shot into the owner’s thumb.

The hardware store was liable as they represented themselves as a competent and professional hydraulic hose repair and/or replacement shop. The tractor owner relied on the employee’s guarantee that the repair was done correctly, despite his concern.

This was a very unique case as hydraulic injuries resulting on negligent repair are very rare and there is little industry literature or material addressing how hydraulic hoses must be repaired. Therefore, the legal theory was a general negligence claim, no established standards or rules were violated, just what we claimed to be general negligence by the hardware store through its employee.

A general contractor was hired by a tenant of a building in Manhattan. The project was to install duct work into the intake air duct down in a shaft below street level in front of the building. A New York Injury Lawyer said the general contractor hired an air conditioning contractor to install the duct work at the job site. The air conditioning contractor subcontracted out its work to the metal sheet contractor.

The complainant was employed by the metal sheet contractor as a journeyman sheet metal worker, whose responsibilities were to hang and install duct work through the supervision of the complainantas foreman. On November 9, 2004, the complainant and his foreman went to the building in order to install a large piece of prefabricated duct work, known as gooseneck duct, below street level. According to the complainant, the gooseneck duct was the size of a car and was approximately six feet long, six feet wide, and five feet tall, and weighed between 110 and 125 pounds. The site where the gooseneck duct was to be placed was located below a series of about 40 metal grates that were in place on the ground. Each grate measure approximately two feet by four feet, and this grating covered an area of the ground measuring approximately 12 feet by 8 feet. The vault below the grating was approximately 15 feet deep.

In order to install the gooseneck duct below ground, the grating on the street level needed to be opened. The gooseneck duct was to be lowered through an opening in the grates in order to be installed below them.

Upon the complainantas arrival together with his foreman at the job site, they met with a representative from the general contractor, The general contractor representative who showed them where the gooseneck duct was going to be installed in the area below the grates and told them to wait for the representatives of the buildings to see how they would go about installing it. A mechanic and an engineer, who were employees of the building met with the complainant and the foreman. The two building employees then told the complainant and his foreman that the gooseneck duct was going to be lowered though the grating, and asked the foreman which grate was to be opened. The foreman told the building employees which grate to open and the complainant and his foreman went back to their truck to unload the gooseneck duct. As the complainant and his foreman were unloading the gooseneck duct off the truck, the mechanic removed the grate by unbolting four clips that held the grate down, lifting the grate up, and leaning it back against the building. However, the mechanic did not open the grate that the foreman had requested him to open. Instead, the mechanic opened the grate in the far corner, creating an unprotected two feet by four feet holes.

In order to maneuver the gooseneck duct to the grating area, the complainant and his foreman had to take the gooseneck duct around a rectangular billboard sign, which was attached to posts that were bolted to the ground over the grates. They transported the gooseneck duct to the area of the billboard on a dolly, and, when they arrived at the billboard area, they removed the gooseneck duct from the dolly, and attempted to drag the gooseneck duct behind the billboard on the left side in the space between the billboard and the building. While the gooseneck duct was on the sidewalk over the grates and the complainant was attempting to pull it into position, he let go of the gooseneck duct and fell backwards down approximately 15 feet into the hole created by the open grate.

Consequently, the complainant filed the action against the property manager and the general contractor, seeking to recover damages for the personal injuries sustained by him due to his slip and fall. The complaint alleges claims of common-law negligence, and violations of Labor Laws. The general contractor and the property manager both interposed their answers and the property manager asserted cross claims against the general contractor. The general contractor filed a third-party action against the metal sheet contractor. The metal sheet contractor answered the third-party complaint and the general contractor filed a second third party complaint against the air conditioning contractor. The air conditioning contractor interposed its answer and served cross claims against the metal sheet contractor. The general contractor sought to voluntarily discontinue its second third-party action against the air conditioning contractor, but none of the parties, other than the general contractor and the air conditioning contractor agreed to sign and execute the stipulation of discontinuance. The complainant filed his note of issue upon the completion of discovery.

The complainant argues that he is entitled to summary judgment in his favor on his Labor Law claim. The Labor Law imposes liability upon owners and contractors and their agents who fail to provide or erect safety devices necessary to give reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers engaged in construction work who are exposed to elevation-related hazards. The legislative purpose behind the enactment is to protect workers by placing ultimate responsibility for safety practices at building construction jobs where such responsibility actually belongs, on the owner and general contractor, instead of on workers, who are scarcely in a position to protect them from an accident. A Long Island Personal Injury Lawyer said it is well settled that Labor Law is to be construed as liberally as may be for the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was framed.

In opposition to the complainantas motion for summary judgment and in support of its motion insofar as it seeks summary judgment dismissing the complainantas Labor Law claim, the property manager contends that the Labor Law is inapplicable to it because it was not the owner of the premises, a general contractor, or the agent of the owner or general contractor. However, a Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said while the property manager was not the owner of the premises or a general contractor, a party can be deemed a statutory agent under the Labor Law and may be held vicariously liable as an agent of the property owner for injuries sustained pursuant to Labor Law where it had the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury.
.
When the work giving rise to the duty to conform to the requirements of Labor Law has been delegated to a third party, that third party then obtains the concomitant authority to supervise and control that work and becomes a statutory agent of the owner or general contractor. Indeed, it has been held that a property manager can be held liable under Labor Law as an agent of the owner.

The property manager argues that although it served as the property manager for the premises, it had no contractual relationship to the construction work which the complainant was performing. The property manager relies upon the fact that the general contractoras contract for the project was with the tenant. However, it is unnecessary for the property manager to have it actually contracted for the work in order for it to be held liable under Labor Law.

The property manager also relies upon their mechanicas deposition testimony that his supervisor, had told him to go up to the street level and open a piece of the grating for the tenant. Such deposition testimony, however, only supports the argument that the property manager was acting as an agent for the owner when its employee, the mechanic opened the grate for the complainant to install the gooseneck duct.

While the property manager argues that it did not supervise or control the complainantas work, their employees, the mechanic and the engineer, were present at the work site. The property manager contends that the removal of the grate by their mechanic did not constitute supervision or control over the complainantas work since it was the foreman who directed their mechanic to remove a particular grating. The foremanas direction as to which grate to open, however, did not negate any independent duties which the property manager may have had under the Labor Law, or prevent them from assuming those duties and thereby becoming vicariously liable as an agent of the property owner.

With respect to the supervision and control of the property manager over the complainantas work, the foreman testified, at his deposition, that a representative from the general contractor told them that they had to wait for somebody from the building to come and see how they were going to get the gooseneck duct into the building. The foreman further testified, at his deposition, that the people from the building then told them that they should bring the gooseneck duct down through the grating. Although according to the foreman, he told the people from the building which grate he wanted removed, the mechanic decided to open a different grate because he thought it would be the safest one, and neither the complainant nor the foreman was informed of it.

By opening the grating and thereby creating an open unprotected hole, the property manager, through its employees, exercised sufficient supervision and control over the complainantas work so as to render it liable under Labor Law as an agent of the owner. While vigorously disputing the liability of the property manager, which is acknowledged to be an incorrect accused and not the owner of the premises, the company has acknowledged that it served as the property manager for the subject premises. Thus, as the agent for the owner, they would be liable to the complainant under the Labor Law. Thus, the property manageras cross motion, insofar as it seeks dismissal of the complainantas Labor Law claim, must be denied.

In opposition to the complainantas motion for summary judgment in his favor, the property manager argues that the complainant is not entitled to summary judgment because there is a question of fact as to whether the complainant acts were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Specifically, the property manager contends that the complainant was aware of the necessity for a grate to be removed so that the job could be carried out, but did not pay attention to the work of the employees. The property manager asserts that the complainantas failure to pay attention is a sufficient ground to deny his motion for summary judgment.

The property manager’s argument is rejected. Where a violation of Labor Law is a proximate cause of an accident, the worker’s conduct cannot be deemed solely to blame for it. The law states that contributory negligence will not exonerate an accused who has violated the statute and proximately caused a complainantas injury.

The general contractor and the metal sheet contractor, in opposition to the complainantas motion, argue that Labor Law is inapplicable to the case because the complainant was not involved in any work related to an elevation differential, but was, instead, merely moving the gooseneck duct from one location on the ground to another and not attempting to lower it. The argument is rejected. Although the complainant was at ground level, the hole into which he fell was 15 feet deep, and, thus, there was an elevation differential. The purpose of the complainantas actions, moreover, was to move the duct from ground level to the lower level through an opening in the grate pursuant to instruction. Traversing the ground where there was a 15 foot deep hole constituted an elevation-related risk covered by Labor Law.

The general contractor further argues that an opening created by the removal of a grate is akin to an opening created by the removal of a manhole cover. The Appellate Division in so holding, specifically noted that while Labor Law is applicable to work performed at heights or where the work itself involves risks related to differentials in elevation, the work in which the injured the complainant was involved in that case was wholly unrelated to an elevation-related hazard, the manhole in which he fell. Thus, the complainantas injury was not a direct consequence of the performance of his work.

Doing our job sometimes exposes us to danger. If you are harmed or injured while at work, you can seek the services of Brooklyn Slip and Fall Attorneys together with Brooklyn Accident Lawyers. If you are unable to work and earn a living due to injuries at work, you may consult a Brooklyn Workers Compensation Lawyer from Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

A 72 year old lady lived in an apartment complex where there was a ano petsa policy in the lease. One of the residents violated his lease and kept a pit bull as his pet. On August 8, 1995, the 72 year old lady was walking down a pathway when she heard a dog barking. She saw a neighbor or hers as he tried to control his barking pit bull. The dogas owner told the 72-year old lady that his dog was barking because he saw children playing and that aggravated the dog.

A New York Injury Lawyer said a few seconds later, the dog jumped up on the 72 year old lady. The dog attacked the lady and she sustained a head injury when the dog bit off her left cheek. The lady then sued her landlord because he was negligent in enforcing the terms of the lease that no pets were allowed in the apartment building. She also sued the dog owner. She claimed that the dog owner knew or should have known that his dog had vicious propensities. He should have known that his dog attacks people.

Both the landlord and the dog owner filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the complaint against them be dismissed. The plaintiff also moved for a summary judgment asking the court to determine liability.

During the trial, the plaintiff presented evidence of newspaper reports and magazine articles that pit bulls are dogs with vicious propensities. A Suffolk County Personal Injury Lawyer said the trial judge took judicial notice that pit bulls were a vicious breed that is known to attack and bite people.

The dog owner and the landlord filed this appeal. The only issue before the Court was whether or not there were triable material issues of fact.

The Court first noted that the judge improperly took judicial notice that pit bulls are a vicious breed. The Court held that in order for judicial notice to be properly taken, the fact must be of such generalized knowledge that is so notorious that there can be no reasonable dispute.
The Court also held that there are many other sources or authorities that show put bulls do not have a vicious nature but that they have the capacity to be trained to become vicious. The existence of these evidence show that judicial notice should not have been taken by the trial court judge.

The Court held that the viciousness of a breed cannot substitute for evidence of the viciousness of a particular dog who is a member of that breed. There must be evidence that the specific dog itself was vicious. Evidence that viciousness must be specific to the dog who had bitten the child.

The plaintiff submitted evidence that five times prior to being bitten, he saw the dog owner and one of the dog owneras sons walking the dog while it was on a leash. She testified that the pit bull appeared extremely strong as it was always straining at his leash. He looked like he had very sharp teeth.

The Court ruled that all this is not sufficient to prove that the dog owner knew or should have known that his dog had a vicious propensity. A Staten Island Personal Injury Lawyer said it does not prove that the owner knew his dog attacks and that the dog bites people. There is also no evidence that the landlord knew that his tenant had a dog with a vicious propensity.

Although there is evidence that the dog owner had been in violation of his lease because he kept a pet in his apartment despite the clear prohibition to keep pets, this violation of the lease does not show that the landlord was negligent. It does not show that the landlord knew that the dog had vicious propensities.
Thus, taking everything into consideration, there is no triable issues of fact that tends to show that the landlord or the pet owner knew or should have known that the dog had a vicious propensity.

Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today. They have New York Dog Bite Lawyers at any of their offices in the New York area. You can talk to any of the New York City Dog Bite lawyers and ask them to assess if you have a viable cause of action for damages. Their NYC Dog Bite attorneys can help you file your complaint. Their NY Dog Bite attorneys can help you present evidence on your behalf. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today and begin the process of claiming the compensation you deserve.

A woman was walking along a sidewalk on Leonard Street in Brooklyn. She passed a house with a garage that abutted a sidewalk. The position of the garage door indicated that the residents of the house passed the sidewalk when they bring their cars to and from the garage.

A New York Injury Lawyer said as the woman was walking on the sidewalk in front of the garage door, she slipped on ice and snow that had not been removed. Her weight was on her right foot when she suffered the slip and fall. She sustained personal injury and commenced a suit in damages against the owner of the property that abutted the sidewalk.

After discovery proceedings and before trial, the property owner moved for a summary judgment, asking that the complaint be dismissed for the failure of the plaintiff to show that there are genuine issues of fact that must be heard by a jury.

The defendants offered preliminary evidence that they cleared or attempted to clear the snow from the sidewalk in front of their garage to prevent the slip and fall. They did not create or worsen what could have been a dangerous or hazardous condition on the sidewalk.

The plaintiff naturally opposed the motion for summary judgment. She claimed that the homeowner made special use of the sidewalk as access to their driveway and garage. She also contended that the use of the homeowner of the sidewalk caused or created the icy condition on the sidewalk and caused the woman to slip and fall. She also claimed that dangerous condition is that the ice covered the cracked surface of the sidewalk that had a hole in it.

The only question before the court was whether or not there are material issues of fact that still remain and that can only be tried by a jury. A Staten Island Personal Injury Lawyer said the Court ruled that the homeowner was entitled to the summary judgment they moved for as there are no more issues of fact that must be tried.

The Court first of all stated that there is no duty on the part of the homeowner to keep the public sidewalk in front of his house in a safe or passable condition. The reason for this rule is that the homeowner does not own or control the public sidewalk. The Court further stated that there is however a legal duty imposed upon landowners whose properties abut a sidewalk to refrain from acting negligently and creating dangerous conditions or obstacles. If the homeowner takes it upon himself to repair the sidewalk that abuts his property, he may be liable for injury caused to others by the shoddy repair job. When the landowner benefits from a use of the sidewalk, a legal duty also arises for the homeowner to maintain the sidewalk with due care for the safety of passersby.

There is no allegation or evidence that the homeowner in this case acted negligently in such a way as to have created a dangerous condition or obstacles on the sidewalk. There is no allegation or evidence that the homeowner has derived a benefit from the sidewalk or has undertaken the duty to repair the sidewalk for the purpose of benefiting from the sidewalk. There is no shoe showing that the homeowner has constructed a special feature on the sidewalk although they may have regularly used it to get into and out of their garage.

There was no allegation or showing that the homeowner caused the ice to form on the sidewalk. A Queens Personal Injury Lawyer said from all indications, the ice was a natural occurrence. The woman who sustained injury was unable to show that the homeowner ever cleared the sidewalk or attempt to clear it thereby causing ice or snow to accumulate on the sidewalk.

The motion for summary judgment in favor of the homeowner is granted and the complaint is dismissed.

So suffered a slip and fall accident. Are you wondering what your legal options are? Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to speak with their NYC Slip and Fall lawyers who can listen to your story and explain to you what your legal options are. Are you wondering whom you can sue? The NY Slip and Fall attorneys of Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help you find the names of the persons responsible for creating the condition that caused your slip and fall. Are you wondering how much in damages you can claim? The New York Personal Injury lawyers at Stephen Bilkis can help you arrive at a figure that can cover all the actual and moral damages you suffered. Call Stephen Bilkis today, go to any of their offices in the New York area: their NYC Personal Injury attorneys can help you get reasonable compensation for the legal injury you sustained.

A boy was invited by his friend to a sleep over at his house. He had been to his friendas house several times before. A New York Injury Lawyer is friend had a family pet, a beagle-collie-Rottweiler mixed breed dog. The dog was excitable. He ran around a lot and barked. But he was not aggressive.

On that night that seven boys were at the house for the sleep over on December 31, 1998, one of the boys went down to the kitchen to use the bathroom. The family pet barked at him. The boy was not afraid. He went to the bathroom and he was already on his way back up to his friendas room when he saw his friendas mother with the dog.

Whenever there were visitors to their home, the family kept the dog fenced-in in the kitchen as he barked when he saw the guests. As the boy was going back up the stairs, his friendas mother called him over and told him to put his hand out so the dog can smell him. The mother told him that the dog will remember that he had been to their house before. The boy was not afraid as his friendas mother had the dog on a leash. When the boy reached out to the dog, the dog lunged at the boy and bit him. The boy sustained a head injury because of the dog attack.

The boyas mother then sued the dogas owners. At the trial, it was stipulated that the attack and dog bite was unprovoked. The parties testified that they had no knowledge that the dog had ever previously threatened or bitten any other person.

The dogas owners moved for a summary dismissal to dismiss the complaint for damages for failure to state a cause of action. A Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer said the dog owners argued that the plaintiff failed to prove that the dog had vicious propensities. They claim that the plaintiff failed to prove that the owners knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities. The plaintiff argued that the dog owners knew of the vicious propensities of their dog or they would not have fenced him in. The judge found for the plaintiff and ordered the dog owners to pay damages.

On appeal, a Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said the Appellate Division ruled that the plaintiff failed to raise a material issue of fact that the dog owners were aware that their dog had vicious propensities. Hence, this appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of New York.

The only issue before the Supreme Court was whether or not there is a triable material issue of fact that the dog owners had knowledge that their dog had vicious propensities.
The Court affirmed the Appellate Divisionas dismissal of the complaint.

The Court ruled that the law of the state has been consistently applied that the owner of a dog who knows or should have know of his animalas vicious propensities shall be held liable for the harm caused by the animal because of those vicious propensities.

The Court ruled that vicious propensities meant that the dog attacks and the dog bites. It had a propensity to act so as to endanger the safety of persons and property of others. The evidence that the dog owner knew of the dogas vicious propensities is if there had been prior acts of a similar nature which was known to the owner.

Evidence that the dog had been known to growl, snap or bare its teeth is enough to show that the dog had vicious propensities. Evidence that the owner restrained the dog is also acceptable to prove vicious propensities. Even if the dog has not bitten anyone before, if it can be proved that the dog acts in a way that puts others at risk of harm is enough to prove vicious propensities.

In light of all the evidence presented, the Court held that there was no material issue of fact raised that the dog had vicious propensities that were known or should have known to the defendants.

At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, you can speak to any of their New York City Dog Bite Lawyers. You can talk to their New York Dog Bite Lawyers and they can assess if you have a viable cause of action to sue for damages consequent to a dog bite. Their NYC Dog Bite attorneys can help you present evidence and help you argue your case. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today, speak to any of their NY Dog Bite attorneys at any of their offices around the New York area.

A married woman owned a property with a two-car garage. She decided to renovate the two-car garage by making it over into a guesthouse with a fireplace. She hired a general contractor to secure the necessary permits and licenses needed for the project; to hire and to supervise sub-contractors for each and every phase of the work; and to purchase insurance to shield the owner from suits in damages for any accidents that may occur during the renovation at the worksite.

The general contractor hired a company that constructs and installs drywall. It also hired a rock supplier to provide and install sheet rock as flooring. A man was hired by the rock supplier to deliver 16-foot sheet rock. A New York Injury Lawyer said he drove the truck on which the sheet rock was delivered. He also operated the boom that lifted the sheet rock from the truck bed to the forklift. A foreman from the general contractor told him to just bring the sheet rock into the garage and rest them on the long wall. The man and his helper took one sheet rock and carried it between the two of them. They entered the garage. When they got to the room where they were supposed to pile the sheet rock, the manas right foot slipped into a hole on the cement floor of the worksite that measured about sixteen inches in diameter. There was a pipe that protruded from the hole and the man tripped on this and fell. The man could not see where he was going as he and his helper carried the sheet rock in between them. His slip and fall made him land on the sheet rock which fell and broke.

The man sustained serious personal injury and sued the owner of the premises (premises liability), her husband, the general contractor, the drywall installer, and the rock supplier for common law negligence and for negligence under the labor code to compensate him for the damages he sustained as a result of his personal injury.

All the defendants moved for summary judgment asking for the dismissal of the complaint of the sheet rock delivery man. The only question before the Court is whether or not the defendants are entitled to a summary judgment of dismissal.

The owner of the premises submitted proof that she personally and solely owned the premises. She hired a general contractor to oversee in her behalf the construction and renovation. A Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer said that she often visited the premises but did not exercise any supervision of the construction work. She did not give instructions as to the performance of the construction work. She merely visited to see how the work was progressing.

The husband of the owner of the premises submitted proof that the premises are not conjugally or jointly owned by him and his wife; he submitted proof that only his wife owned the premises. He also submitted proof that he has not visited the premises and has not in any way supervised the work at the construction site.

The dry wall company submitted proof that on the day of the accident, it was not yet working at the worksite. The phase of the work that involved the installation of drywall had not yet begun and so it did not have any employees or equipment at the worksite. It had not yet worked at the worksite.

The rock supplier also disclaimed any responsibility for the slip and fall accident of the delivery man. Although the sheet rock was delivered at the worksite, the rock supplier had yet to begin work at the construction site. It had not yet done any work that could have created or caused the slipping and tripping hazard claimed by the deliveryman.

The general contractor denies any liability by stating that its job was limited to hiring sub-contractor to do the different phases of the construction work. A Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said it hired architects, engineers and interior designers; it secured all the necessary licenses and permits for the construction work. Also it denies that it can be held liable for negligence under the Labor Code as it is not the employer of the deliveryman.
The only question before the Court is whether or not the complaint should be dismissed.

The Court ruled in favor of dismissal of the causes of action against the owner or the premises who never at any time exercised supervision or control of the construction project. The cause of action against the husband of the owner of the premises is also entitled to a dismissal of the cause of action against him as he is not the owner and has no relationship of supervision or control over the construction project.

The Court opined that liability for causes of action based on common law negligence and for violations of the Labor Code is limited to those who exercised control or supervision over the deliveryman; and to those who had actual or constructive notice of the existence of an unsafe condition that has caused the accident.

Clearly, none of the people and companies sued for damages under common law or the labor code exercised supervision or control over the deliveryman at the time that he delivered the sheet rock. There is no preliminary proof adduced in any of the causes of action that any of the parties here had actual or constructive notice that a dangerous condition existed that caused the deliveryman to slip and fall.

The complaint was dismissed.

Are you an employee who got injured at a worksite? Did you suffer damages as a result of a construction accident? Are you wondering if you can sue? Are you wondering whom to sue? Call the New York City Workers Compensation lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates. They can give you advice on the most viable cause of action to bring. Their New York Workers Compensation attorneys will spare you the nightmare and expense of engaging in costly litigation that will end up in dismissal. You will also need to have some idea of the amount of damages you are likely to obtain. The NYC Slip and Fall Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates can sit down with you and work out the actual and moral damages you can claim. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates at any of their offices in the New York area. The NY Slip and fall attorneys there are willing to assist and to represent you.

A woman went to a fast-food burger joint and ate there. After finishing her meal, she went to use the bathroom. She waited a while to use the bathroom as another lady was still using the bathroom when she got there. When she entered the bathroom, as she passed the sink to go to the toilet, she had a slip and fall because of a puddle of water.

After her slip and fall, she cleaned up herself and limped out of the bathroom. As she left, she saw a yellow caution (wet floor) sign outside the bathroom area. The sign was folded near the wall of the menas bathroom.

She reported her slip and fall to the store manager. From the store manager the lady learned that the bathroom had just been mopped not half an hour before her slip and fall. She also learned that there was no regularly scheduled cleaning of the bathrooms; any regularly scheduled inspection of the bathrooms. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the store manager informed her that he had not received any information that a puddle of water existed near the sink in the ladiesa bathroom.

After discovery, the fast-food burger joint filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that it had no notice that a puddle had formed in the ladiesa bathroom and it did not have any opportunity to clean or prevent the puddle from becoming a dangerous condition.

The only question before the court is whether or not there are still issues of fact that need to be tried by a jury. A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer said the Court ruled that it is a law that owners of establishments must keep their premises reasonably safe for its customers, and avoid putting them at risk of serious personal injury. However, the law also puts the burden on the plaintiff to show that the fast-food establishment acted negligently and created the puddle, or, that it had actual or constructive notice off the puddle which caused the slip and fall injury and yet, it chose to do nothing.

In this case, since it is the fast-food burger joint that filed a motion for summary judgment, it has the burden of proving affirmatively not only that it did not create the puddle, it also has the burden of proving that it had no actual or constructive notice that the puddle existed.

The Court rejected the fast-food burger jointas claim that it could not have known about the puddle as no one complained of it and that they could not have learned about it as there were no regular inspections in the bathroom. A Manhattan Personal Injury Lawyer said the Court notes that the fast-food burger joint is a popular fast-food chain that has a lot of people so it defies all belief that clean-ups and inspections are only conducted as needed when a customer complains.

The fast-food burger joint claims that the woman who used the bathroom just before the plaintiff used the bathroom could have created the puddle. Even if another customer created the puddle, still the fast-food burger joint cannot be relieved of its responsibility to positively show that it had not created the puddle and it had no notice of the existence of the puddle.
The fast-food jointas motion for summary judgment motion is denied and the parties are directed by the Court to report for jury selection in preparation for trial.

Did you slip and fall within the premises of an establishment? Are you wondering what your legal remedies are? Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates and confer with any of their New York City Slip and Fall attorneys who can explain to you what remedies are open to you. Their NYC Slip and Fall lawyers can apprise you of the different causes of action you can bring to ensure that you are justly compensated for the legal injury you suffered. Are you wondering what kinds of evidence you have to present? The New York Slip and Fall attorneys at Stephen Bilkis can show you and help you obtain the evidence you need to prove your cause of action. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today, speak to their NY Slip and Fall lawyers and begin to work toward obtaining a reasonable compensation.

Personal Injury Lawyer Los Angeles – FREE CONSULTATION by Personal Injury Attorney Los Angeles – Legal Defenders, Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyers – Law Offices of Burg and Brock, who have won over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for clients

Page took 5 seconds to load.