Personal Injury Law Blogs

A Heated Court Room Battle Rages Against Johnson and Johnson’s in the De Puy Hip Implant Recall Case

Plaintiffs in a heated court room battle against Johnson and Johnson’s De Puy, the manufacturer of an allegedly defective artificial hip implants, scored an impressive victory last week when Judge Brian R. Martinotti, a New Jersey Superior Court judge, denied Johnson and Johnson International’s attempt to separate the bellwether trials of Barbara Gullo and Kevin Coughlin.

The issue was whether or not the two cases should be tried separately based upon factual differences raised by the defendants who claimed that if the cases were tried together it would create confusion for the jury. The plaintiffs argued that the cases both shared the same claims-essentially that De Puy failed to warn them of various defects inherent in the design of the implants. The plaintiff’s lawyers argued that it would be better to have one jury reach two verdicts rather than potentially have inconsistent verdicts in deciding the same issues.

Barbara Gullo Experienced Problems After Hip Surgery and Ultimately Suffered a Heart Attack

Barbara Gullo is a married 72 year old woman who was working as a secretary when she began experiencing problems after she underwent hip implant surgery with the De Puy ASR XL in December 2008. In August 2010, De Puy recalled all ASR XL implants due to complaints that patients were developing metal poisoning. Ms. Gullo then had her blood test checked on four separate occasions, each showing that she had increased levels of both chromium and cobalt.

In September 2011, she underwent a hip implant revision surgery which resulted in an infection requiring a second revision surgery in October 2011. A month later, she suffered a severe heart attack. In spite of a number of alleged risk factors; Ms. Gullo attributes her heart attack to her multiple surgeries. In addition to pain and suffering and other damages-Ms. Gullo is seeking lost wages. Her husband however is not making a claim for loss of spousal consortium.

Kevin Coughlin Found Chromium and Cobalt in His Blood Stream

In contrast, Mr. Coughlin, a married man, experienced hip pain since the 1990s. He underwent a total hip replacement surgery in 2009 and recovered without complications. In April 2011, after the De Puy recall and after having blood tests that demonstrated elevated levels of both chromium and cobalt he underwent a hip revision surgery. Unlike Ms. Gullo, his spouse is seeking loss of consortium damages.

Based upon the foregoing and additional factual distinctions, the defendants wanted both cases tried separately by two different juries. So far two ASR XL trials have taken place in the United States. Each took approximately six weeks with two weeks being dedicated to case specific testimony rather than generic testimony. In the two cases, one had 17 company witnesses and 10 expert witnesses and the other had 11 company witnesses and 10 expert witnesses.

The First Multiple Plaintiff Case in the De Puy Litigation

Judge Martinotti ordered the trials be consolidated opining that it would be better to eliminate the inconvenience of double litigation on the same facts and transactions and that the factual differences raised by the defendants were not significant to warrant having separate trials based upon the amount of anticipated generic testimony.

According to Ellen Relkin, the attorney for Mr. Coughlin, “this will be the first joint trial of multiple plaintiffs in the De Puy litigation.” Our law firm is currently co-counseling with Ms. Relkin in the Stryker hip implant litigation that is also pending in front of Judge Martinotti.

(This case is governed by US law and is being tried in New Jersey state.)

Author Spencer Aronfeld has enjoyed powerful courtroom victories over Walt Disney World, Wild Oats, P.A.C. Construction, Fedan Tire, and Todel Apartments and has gained international recognition as a lawyer for the people.

Two Landmark Personal Injury Sports Cases

The press coverage of personal injury law being applied to sport injuries in the case of Manchester United youth team player Ben Collett winning £4.3 million for a broken leg during a reserve team game would lead you to believe that these types of claims are fairly new in nature. The reality is somewhat different with cases dating back to the early 1960s.
Outlined below are two landmark cases that helped to shape personal injury law in the UK.

Wooldridge v Sumner (1963)

The case of Wooldridge v Sumner was based around an accident that occurred at xx were an experience horse rider injured a photographer when he lost control of his horse. The accident occurred when the rider galloped too quickly around a corner and lost control of his horse. The horse left the track and entered the crowd. As a result of the panic in the crowd the photographer Wooldridge (the plaintiff) was injured.

Was the defendant negligent because he failed to control his horse? It was held that the injury occurred due to an error of judgement and therefore was not a result of negligence on the part of Sumner.

In the judgement it was outlined that the relationship between a competitor and a spectator was a special one and that a spectator took the risk of any damage done to him during the course of the game, even though his injury resulted from an ‘error of judgment’ on the part of a competitor.

The case set the legal precedent that only “where the competitor deliberately intended to injure the spectator or demonstrated a reckless disregard for the safety of the spectator that the spectator would have a cause of action in respect of the damage done.”

Condon v Basi (1985)

The case of Condon v Basi dealt with the standard of care required by one sportsman to another.

In a game of football (soccer) played in the Leamington local league and tackle from the defendant broken the leg of the claimant. The defendant was playing for the Khalso Football Club and the claimant for Whittle Wanderers. The question before the court was the standard of care expected of a football player.

The defendant in the case was held to be negligent as the tackle had been made in a ‘reckless and dangerous manner’. As the tackle had been deemed to be dangerous the court did not have to resolve the conflict over the status and interpretation of Wooldridge v Sumner.

Another legal precedent was set when the judge Lord Justice Donaldson declared that the standard required to judge if an action was negligence depended on the skill level of those involved. A higher standard should be applied to a professional than a player in a local league.

This latter statement suggests that the court would have applied the standard based upon the reasonable sportsman rather than the approach based upon recklessness and that this would be the approach adopted in the future.

The tort created by Condon V Basi was used as the basis for a number of high profile cases in professional football including Paul Elliot V Saunders and Liverpool Football Club and Dean Ashton’s compensation claim against the Football Association.

Antony Heywood ©

For more infornation on personal injury visits http://www.penningtons.co.uk/Services/Private-individuals/Personal-injury.aspx

Time Flies: Making Sure You File Your Injury Claim Before Its Too Late

Time Flies: Making Sure You File Your Injury Claim Before It’s Too Late

Being involved in any type of accident can be a very disheartening experience. Luckily, innocent victims who suffer injuries often have the right to file a claim against a negligent individual who caused the accident. It’s important to note, however, that these victims can not just sit around and bide their time before filing a claim or seeking legal action. Bottar Leone Attorneys, a New York based law firm, state that the time you have to file can be as quickly as one month depending on the type of injury.

Just like in the criminal justice system, there are statutes of limitations when it comes to filing a claim, and individuals who miss these deadlines will often be out of luck.

What are Statutes of Limitations?

Statute of limitation laws actually set a time limit on how long a person has to file a claim after they’ve suffered an injury due to an accident. If a claim isn’t filed by the time this deadline has passed, an individual loses their right to file one. While these laws may seem pointless, they are meant to protect defending parties from facing unfair burdens at trial. A person who is accused of causing an accident, for instance, may have lost evidence showing he wasn’t at fault if the plaintiff waits five years to file a claim.

Statute of limitation laws may seem like an unfair burden on accident victims, but luckily, there are some legal protections against this. If an action causes an injury, for instance, but that injury doesn’t become apparent for some time, statute of limitation laws often “start the clock” at the point an individual realizes they’ve been injured. This is why people who worked with asbestos were able to bring claims forth decades after the fact.

Do Statutes of Limitations Vary?

It’s important to note that statute of limitation laws are not universal. A person injured in New York, for instance, may have longer to file a claim than an individual in Kentucky. It should also be noted that these statutes can even vary within a state. In New York, for example, a person filing a claim for medical malpractice will have 30 months to do so. For other personal injury claims in the state, however, this deadline extends to three years.

Avoid Missing the Deadline

Luckily, an injured person can avoid reaching the statute of limitations in various ways. Seeking medical treatment, for instance, even when no injury is obvious, can ensure that a person recognizes any seemingly minor issues that can lead to serious injuries down the line.

Additionally, hiring a personal injury lawyer can help as well. These legal professionals will know the statute of limitations laws in their specific state. On top of that, they can ensure that the negligent party or their insurance provider doesn’t stall in an effort to allow the time limit to expire. While having an attorney is important during any legal matter, it’s almost essential in personal injury cases.

The American legal system is set up in such a way that it protects individuals who are injured due to the neglectful actions of others. These rights apply to all individuals within the country, but unfortunately, the rights are not absolute in every way. It’s a simple fact that allowing too much time to pass can negatively affect an individual’s ability to defend themselves. Luckily, quickly filing a claim and having one’s attorney handle it can ensure that fair compensation isn’t missed out on.


The legal system can be very difficult to understand, as it is for writer Melanie Fleury. She has found when there is a reason to consult an attorney, keeping careful track of your injuries, noting important dates and times and getting prompt medical care are all important steps to making your case. Her research also found that Bottar Leone Attorneys know what the time limits are for filing cases and work aggressively for clients to get the compensation they are entitled to.

Why Lawsuits Against Truck Companies are Different

truck company lawsuitProving negligence in an auto accident frequently boils down to showing that a driver violated a traffic law. Violating a traffic law is often dispositive in proving who was at fault and therefore, who must compensate the victim for losses as a result of the accident.  Every jurisdiction has statutory rules of the road.  According to trucking accident law if a driver is given a ticket for violating a rule, then he or she likely caused the accident.  When the negligent party was driving a commercial truck the rules are the same.  If the driver of the truck broke a law related to operating the truck and as a result caused an accident, then the truck driver or the driver’s employer would be liable. That’s why it’s important for every business owner to look into commercial law before opening up just in case they run into any legal troubles. However, a lawsuit against a truck driver or a truck company can be very different from a lawsuit against the driver of a car as the laws that apply to the trucking industry are different.  Of course truck drivers must follow the same basic rules of the road as cars, such as stopping at red lights and obeying posted speed limits.  However, the trucking industry is subject to additional rules both on the federal and state level that effect the licensing of truck drivers, the insurance trucking companies must carry, and the operation and maintenance of the trucks.

In order to qualify for a license to drive a commercial truck, drivers must attend special classes on how to drive a truck safely as well as how to load and unload the truck.  Such requirements are not necessary to receive a license to drive a car.  Thus, if you are injured in an accident where the truck driver did not receive the proper training or did not have the required license, then the truck driver will be liable for your injuries.  If the trucking company that employed the driver knew that the driver was not properly trained or failed to make sure that the driver had the proper training and credentials, then it was negligent as well.

In addition, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) issued regulations requiring routine alcohol and drug testing for truck drivers, the proper transportation of hazardous materials, compliance with hours of service rules, maintaining log books, and truck maintenance.  If a truck driver or his or her employer violates any of the FMCSA’s rules resulting in an accident, then negligence can be fairly easily established, strengthening a victim’s personal injury lawsuit against the truck driver and the trucking company.

Furthermore, lawsuits involving the negligence of a trucking company are distinguishable from lawsuits involving passenger vehicles in that the financial stakes are often significantly higher. State financial responsibility laws require car drivers to carry a minimum amount of liability insurance.  For example, Oklahoma drivers are required to carry at least $25,000 coverage for injury or death of one person, $50,000 for injury or death of two persons, and $25,000 for property damage.  Federal law requires that truck drivers, on the other hand, carry much more insurance as losses incurred in truck accidents tend to be greater than in automobile accidents.  Trucks carrying non-hazardous goods are required to carry a minimum of $750,000 in coverage for property damage and injury.   A truck carrying hazardous materials is required to carry at least $1,000,000-$5,000,000 in coverage.

If you were a victim of a truck accident it is important to immediately contact an experienced truck accident attorney.  The rules that apply to trucks are complicated and distinguishable from the rules that apply to cars.  Thus, it is critical that the lawyer representing you is familiar with the nuances of the laws that apply to truck accidents to ensure that your case receives the best possible outcome.

PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing: The Preemption Puzzle & Product Liability

product liabilityDrug manufacturers have a duty to provide adequate warnings to consumers about the dangers their drugs present.  If a drug manufacturer knows or should have known about a risk of injury and fails to adequately disclose it, then under the product liability law theory of “failure-to-warn” the manufacturer may be liable to a consumer who is injured by the drug.  However, when the problematic drug is a generic version of a branded drug, the question of the adequacy of labeling becomes a bit more complex.  In PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011), the Supreme Court of the United States was presented with a failure-to-warn case that it had to examine in light of the concept of federal preemption.

In 2001 Gladys Mensing was prescribed Reglan by her physician. Reglan is a brand name for metoclopramide (MCP),  a drug that is used to treat diabetic gastroparesis as well as other ailments.  MCP received FDA approval in 1980 and soon thereafter A.H. Robins Company began marketing it as Reglan.  A few years later it was discovered that long-term Reglan use was associated with a neurological disorder called tardive dyskinesia (TD).  There is no cure for TD.  As required by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), in 1985 Reglan modified its label to include a warning about TD, and in 2005 the label was again modified to recommend that Reglan be used for no more than 12 weeks.  Pursuant to the guidelines of the Hatch-Waxman Act, a generic version of Reglan was introduced to the marketplace and manufactured by PLIVA.  As required by the Hatch-Waxman Act the generic version of Reglan had the same warnings as Reglan.

When Mensing filled her prescription the pharmacist gave her a generic version of MCP manufactured by PLIVA, Inc.  After using it for 4 years, in 2005 Mensing was diagnosed with TD.  Mensing sued PLIVA in the U.S. District Court asserting the Minnesota law based tort claim that PLIVA failed to adequately warn about the dangers of long-term use of MCP.  PLIVA asked the court to dismiss Mensing’s state-based failure-to-warn claim based on federal preemption grounds since the state tort claim conflicted with the labeling requirement of federal law. Mensing v. Wyeth, Inc., 562 F. Supp. 2d 1056, 1065 (D. Minn. 2008).  The District Court granted PLIVA’s motion. Mensing appealed to the Eighth Circuit, which sided with Mensing reversing the District Court’s decision. PLIVA appealed to the Supreme Court.

The central issue of the Mensing case is whether federal law that requires labeling of generic drugs to be the same as their branded equivalents preempts state law that suggests different labeling.  Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution requires that where there is a conflict between federal and state law, federal law preempts state law.  After reviewing the Hatch-Waxman Act and FDA regulations, the Supreme Court concluded that generic drug labeling was meant to be the same as the branded drug labeling.  If PLIVA had changed its labeling to provide a stronger warning as required by state law, it would have violated federal law.  Thus, any duty imposed by state law that required additional warnings, including heightened warnings would be in conflict with federal law and preempted by it.

Even though the Supreme Court concluded that federal law preempted state law, arguably there were steps that the defendant could have taken to both provide a stronger warning on its MCP and comply with the requirements of the FDA and the Hatch-Waxman Act.  For example, it could have sought FDA approval for a change in the labeling.  Should federal preemption inhibit  drug companies from providing consumers and physicians with enough information to make informed decisions about using a product?

For more information about product liability visit www.Parsonslawgroup.com

A List of Infamous Prom Incidents

For seniors, the prom is an epilogue to their high school years. The pictures, the socializing, the parties, and the dancing often add up to a night that is extraordinarily memorable. Yet, sometimes, prom can be memorable for all the wrong reasons.

Anyone who ever watched the 1990’s series Beverly Hill 90210 likely remembers when Donna Martin got drunk at prom and, as a result, was prohibited from graduation festivities. Thankfully, the administration relented when the whole school got together in protest, yelling “Donna Martin Graduates” on the steps of City Hall.

While actual events that have taken place at prom aren’t always that dramatic (or corny), they are controversial. The following discusses some of the more recent controversies prom has produced:

Prom Cancelled Due to Same Sex Couple

Per CNN, a 2010 prom was cancelled at a Mississippi high school in order to avoid a lesbian bringing her girlfriend as her date. A lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union alleging that refusal to allow a girl to bring her girlfriend to prom violated the student’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

The lawsuit was eventually settled, and the school agreed to pay monetary damages as well as establish GLBT education classes for future students.

Busty Girl Busted

According to Seattle’s Fox affiliate, a Washington high school found themselves at the center of controversy when a busty 17 year old girl was told to cover up her cleavage or leave the prom and go home. While the school stated that they were within their rights to enforce a dress code, others believed that this code wasn’t enforced uniformly: rather, this was a case of breast-ism. Attesting to the latter was the fact that several students posted pictures on Facebook dressed in outfits that were in direct violation to the school dress code. Yet, these students were allowed to remain at prom.

Segregated Prom Finally Unsegregated

Though the Civil Rights Act outlawing racial discrimination in schools and public areas took place almost 50 years ago, according to US News, racially segregated proms were still being held in Georgia’s rural Wilcox County. Because these proms (one called the “white prom” and one called the “black prom”) were organized and funded privately, the school was not in direct violation of federal law: rather than illegal, it was just archaic and offensive.

In 2013, students decided that they had had enough of the separate prom idea. They united to throw one prom that accepted students of all ethnicities. This move received laudation from the school district.

Dirty Dancing Disallowed

Most people can’t dance as well as Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey did in that classic movie, but this fact doesn’t stop them from trying. While dirty dancing seems to be a part of the youthful dance culture, per Denver’s ABC news affiliate, two parents chaperoning a prom in Manitou Springs weren’t fans. These parents are accused of spraying Lysol disinfectant on teens who were dancing in what the parents thought was a risqué manner and calling the girls “whores” and “sluts.” Police were notified when a student filed a report and subsequently began an investigation.

While the above instances aren’t as drastic as what happened in Steven King’s Carrie, for instance, they are reflective of many of the issues facing Americans today. They are also examples of how proms can be made political when they are really just supposed to be fun.

Byline

Drake Pritchard is a freelance writer and blogger who typically focuses on prom dresses, bridal gowns, prom incidents, prom safety, clothing and other areas; those looking to get extra prepared for prom next year should check out the clothing selection from Terry Costa.

Dangerous Dining: Restaurant Injuries On The Rise

People are quickly learning that some of the most healthy food can be made in the comfort of their own home, but there’s no denying that it’s enjoyable to head out on the town and have a nice dinner at a restaurant every now and again. These meals usually end well, although the service may sometimes be questionable, and a family can head back home with maybe just a bit too much sodium in their body. Unfortunately, every so often a patron may be unlucky enough to experience an accident due to the restaurant’s negligence. Common Types of Restaurant Injuries
Most people are surprised when they learn of the potential dangers they face when they go out to eat. Sadly, these accidents can sometimes lead to serious injuries, and in extremely unlucky circumstances, they can even lead to death. Researching your particular situation on the Internet on websites such as Williams Law Association, P.A. can be a good way to get started in understanding what steps you may need to take after one of these situations.

A) Choking: Most people would think that there would be no way that a restaurant could be liable for a choking patron, but this belief is entirely inaccurate. If food isn’t properly cooked, for instance, it can increase the chances of an individual choking. In addition, if certain items, such as strings or plastic, that are used in packaging aren’t removed prior to serving, a patron can choke on the item.

B) Slips and Falls: Slip and fall accidents account for a large percentage of injuries experienced in America each year. If something spills in the dining area or bathroom floor, for instance, and isn’t quickly cleaned, it can easily lead to a fall. Falls can also occur if restaurant owners have placed furniture or other items where they may constitute a tripping hazard.

C) Auto Accidents: Restaurants can even be held liable for car accidents experienced by individuals who have never been in the establishment. Restaurants have a duty to stop serving alcohol to people who are obviously drunk. If they don’t, and that individual ends up causing an accident, the restaurant can be held liable for the incident.

Dealing with Injuries at Restaurants
It’s important to deal with injuries sustained due to a restaurant’s negligence in a very specific way. If an injury was suffered in or around the restaurant, for example, it’s important to have someone immediately notify the manager. This will allow them to fill out an incident report. Once management has been notified, it’s also important to visit a doctor. Injuries can turn especially detrimental if they’re not properly treated.

It’s also essential to seek out the help of an attorney in these instances. Restaurants are all about making money, and having to reimburse a patron for their medical bills is not conducive to this outcome. This is why they’ll likely fight any claim for damages in court. Luckily, legal professionals are experienced in proving fault; and in fact, a restaurant’s insurance provider is much more likely to offer a fair initial settlement if they know that a person has legal representation.

It’s a sad fact that a nice night out will not always end the way an individual envisions it. Due to the negligence of some restaurant owners or their employees, innocent patrons may end up injured due to an accident that should’ve been could have been avoided. When faced with a possible negligent situation, it’s always a good idea to discuss your case with an attorney to clarify possible legal responsibilities for both yourself and the establishment.

 

Kari Lloyd is a freelance writer and blogger who contributes to a wide range of publications, particularly those involving legal and business matters. If you have been affected by an injury at a restaurant, visiting a specialist attorney group like Williams Law Association, P.A. can be a good starting point to ensure you understand the steps and procedures of the legal process.

Portal extension could mean more expense for clients

The extension of the personal injury portal has implied that clients may have to pay more for good service following the latest update. Public liability and personal injury cases worth up to £25,000 will now fall into the portal for the first time. Claimant Solicitors with cases worth up to £10,000 will be able to claim up to £900 and cases worth up to but not above £25,000 could recover £1,600.

Solicitors may have to tell claimants now that it is necessary to pay more if their case is more serious in order to get a more thorough service provided by a top personal injury solicitor rather than a trainee or paralegal.

It was believed that law firms would adopt a new approach to the conditional fee where deductions from damages are capped at 25% but this wasn’t the case.

The extension of the personal injury portal to employers and public liability cases could encourage insurers to benefit from reduced claimant fees and therefore top fighting a case as they cannot afford to pay personal injury fees for the sake of it.

Personal injury and legal experts will have to be wary in future. It is essential that a defendant know who the claimants insurers are prior to opening a case, without knowing the crucial details the portal will be irrelevant.

An example of a case that would automatically fall into the portal would be; a personal injury case where a serious injury has been received but liability has been admitted meaning that the claimant would be the loser.

The latest Personal injury news implies that personal injury lawyers will have to be more careful in future to lower budget cases and make it clear to the client that in order to get a better outcome they may have to pay more then expected.

Personal injury solicitors could see an increase of cases going through the portal at around six percent.

A Case of First Impression in Law Enforcement

injured veteranA recent federal employment law case has set a significant precedent that will likely impact the way law enforcement agencies view disabled job applicants and treat disabled employees. It will also likely provide encouragement to injured veterans seeking to be productive citizens as they re-enter civilian life.

In Justin Slaby v. Eric Holder, Jr., the U.S. District Court considered whether the FBI discriminated against a disabled veteran when it dismissed him.  In 2004, Justin Slaby , an Army Ranger who served two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, while preparing for a fourth tour lost his left hand when a defective grenade exploded prematurely.  Slaby’s right hand is his dominant hand.  After learning to use a prosthetic left hand, Slaby applied to and was accepted by the FBI academy to train to become a special agent. In 2009 after a few weeks at the academy, FBI academy instructors removed him from training because of his disability.  The FBI did not dismiss him completely.  He was first offered a job as a janitor, then as a member of the support staff.  Slaby filed a lawsuit in federal court, asserting that the FBI discriminated against him because of his disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  This case has been closely watched by law enforcement as well as other employers as its outcome will likely significantly impact their hiring practices.  It has also been closely watched by veterans groups as injured veterans often face considerable obstacles when they return from combat and try to assimilate back into civilian life.

The FBI defended its decision to not permit Slaby to continue training based on its belief that even with accommodations, due to his disability Slaby was unable to handle a gun and would put himself and other agents a risk. The Americans with Disabilities Act, while requiring employers to make certain accommodations for disabled employees, also provides that such accommodations do not have to be made if the employee poses a direct threat to safety.  The government’s case, however, was damaged by the fact that Teresa Carlson, the head of the FBI’s Wisconsin’s office, stated her belief that disabled people should not be FBI agents and warned an FBI firearms instructor slated to be a witness at the trial to “come down on the side of the government.”

Eight days of testimony produced evidence  that it is not necessary to be proficient with a firearm using a non-dominant hand to pass the FBI’s firearm test. Furthermore, evidence was presented that Slaby was not only proficient with his dominant hand he also was quite capable of using a firearm with his prosthetic.  The jury found in favor of Slaby.  It awarded Slaby $75,000 and back pay.  Slaby will also be permitted to complete his training to become an FBI special agent.  He will be the first FBI agent with a prosthetic limb.  It is unclear as to whether the government will appeal the verdict. Teresa Carlson, who invoked her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, has since been reassigned from the Wisconsin FBI office.  A criminal investigation of her conduct is pending.

Do you think that discrimination is a significant factor in the inability of many disabled, returning veterans to find employment?

Strong and Weak Personal Injury Cases

(US law) Personal injury cases come in all shapes and sizes; and, some of them are strong, but some of them are weak. Why does this difference matter?

Well, apart from the often obvious and very general advantages to what is strong over what is weak, if you have a strong personal injury case then filing a personal injury lawsuit is likely to be of great benefit and even monetary reward to you.

However, if you have a weak personal injury case, then you might not even be able to find a personal injury lawyer willing to take it and file a lawsuit on your behalf. And, in the end, you might lose your lawsuit and be stuck with expensive attorney’s fees if a personal lawyer does decide to take your personal injury case.

So, let’s take a closer look at strong and weak personal injury cases to help you decide how your personal injury case can be categorized: Strong, or weak?

Strong Personal Injury Cases

Strong personal injury cases are usually those that have a clear idea of the who, what, where, when, and why. They establish the following:

  • Who — Who was negligent and caused the accident that brought about the plaintiff’s injuries? This is important, because a plaintiff doesn’t have a case without a defendant.

  • What — What happened? Circumstantial and direct evidence need to be found in order to prove that the defendant was negligent and caused the accident, injuring the plaintiff.

  • Where and When — Where and when the accident happened are also important. This is for legal reasons, such as proper jurisdiction of a case and timely filing. The Statute of Limitations bars filing a lawsuit for a personal injury case that is anywhere from two to four years old in most states.

  • Why — Who was really at fault? If a plaintiff is also at fault, then comparative negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk also come into play.

Weak Personal Injury Cases

Well, weak personal injury cases are the exact opposite. It’s hard to pin down a defendant, and it’s also hard to establish and prove whether or not his or her negligence caused your accident. In addition, if the defendant is the state or the case is just too old, then a lawsuit might have little chance of being allowed to be filed by local, state, and federal law.