Personal Injury Law Blogs

Falling Tree Limb Leads to Stuyvesant Square Park Lawsuit

In July 2007, 29-year-old Alexis Handwerker was sitting on a bench under a tree in Stuyvesant Square Park in New York City when a huge limb from the giant elm suddenly fell and pinned her to the ground. She survived the incident but was badly injured.

She sued the city for negligence, claiming that parks workers had failed to observe that the tree was rotting, despite the fact that the 80-foot tree had dropped limbs in the past. She suffered broken bones and required six staples in her head.

Falling Limbs Lead to Lawsuits

When a judge declined to dismiss the case, New York City settled Handwerker’s lawsuit for $4 million. The city has already paid millions of dollars in settlements related to falling tree limbs. These lawsuits have come at a time when the city is facing deep cuts in their budget dedicated to tree maintenance.

There are at least 10 other lawsuits against the city for falling tree branches that have caused significant injury or death. These suits raise the issue of whether more diligent tree care by the city’s parks department might have prevented injuries.

Unclear Level of Diligence Required by City

The legal issues revolve around the central question of how much responsibility the city has to protect its citizens and visitors from falling limbs. Experts suggest that the science of tree care has improved risk management strategies for trees in high traffic areas, including playgrounds and walkways. The plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that New York has not kept up with the available technology. The lawsuits also uncovered instances of poor communication and delayed responses to concerns about tree health.

Lawyers representing New York City argue that the city does not have the responsibility to protect citizens from tragic accidents caused by falling trees. They deny that the city should be required to use the latest technology to regularly inspect trees for signs of rotting or disease.

Evidence Suggests Injuries Were Preventable

In the past five years, 49 people were injured and two were killed by falling tree branches in the city. Although the number of victims is relatively small, the evidence brought up in the lawsuits suggests that these accidents could have been prevented.

While the city has tree care systems in place, these lawsuits have identified significant problems within these systems. In Handwerker’s case, the city’s workers did not notice that the tree had rotted to such an extent that its trunk was “gooey.” These lawsuits have also demonstrated that the parks department has not made use of available technology designed to manage the risks posed by aging trees.

Several of the lawsuits involved falling tree branches from trees that had already been slated for removal. Parks department employees have provided several reasons for the delays. In at least one case, the department was required to attend to other emergencies and had to delay tree removals. In another case, an employee stated that the delay was a money-saving measure. The city could contract to have trees removed at a cheaper rate if they hired a contractor to remove several trees at one time.

Although the city has fought to have these lawsuits dismissed, their attempts have not been successful. If the city does not change the way it addresses dangerous trees, there are sure to be many more tree-related lawsuits in the future.

About the Author

Tyler Cook is a freelance writer who follows US tort activities. His experience has confirmed his view that life is risky and that individuals should consider review insurance quotes online to find policies to help defend against the financial risks.

Parker Waichman Files DePuy Pinnacle Lawsuit

The national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP has filed a lawsuit alleging that a metal-on-metal version of the DePuy Pinnacle hip implant caused pain and multiple dislocations in an Alabama woman. DePuy Orthopaedics, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, brought about safety concerns over all-metal hip implants when they recalled 93,000 ASR systems in 2010.

According to Parker Waichman’s press release, the plaintiff received her DePuy Pinnacle hip implant in February 2009, suffering from pain and multiple dislocations as a result. The case was filed on May 10th in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where other similar suits are being consolidated in a multidistrict litigation (MDL. 2244).

Metal-on-Metal Hips: An Industry Issue

The lawsuit alleges that the Pinnacle causes the same problems as DePuy’s ASR devices. According to data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, the recalled implants were failing at a rate of 13 percent (1 in every 8 patients) in five years. Since then, experts have realized that the issue is common among almost all metal-on-metal implants, particularly those with large diameter heads (greater than 36mm). The primary problem arises from metallic debris generated by the implant, which can result in:

  • Metallosis
  • Pseudotumors
  • Tissue death
  • Bone loss
  • Lack of mobility

In some cases, the complications may lead to revision surgery and the implant is removed.

Last May, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked 21 manufacturers to conduct postmarket studies assessing the dangers of metal ions released from metal-on-metal hip implants. On June 27th and 28th, the agency’s Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel will convene to discuss the benefits to risk ratio of the devices.

New Study Shows Even Mild Head Injury Can Result in Significant Brain Abnormalities

A new study suggests that even a mild head injury can cause significant problems in brain function. This latest study supports earlier research which has suggested that even seemingly mild cases of traumatic brain injury (TBI) can lead to long-lasting neurological problems, including confusion, chronic headaches, depression, loss of cognitive function and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

According to its authors, the study published in the May issue of the Journal of Neuroscience, is designed to help researchers and health care professionals find improved ways of treating patients who suffer from a traumatic brain injury. Specifically, the researchers have expressed hope that their findings will help doctors better understand the underlying structural and functional changes that take place in the brain following a head injury.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 1.7 million Americans suffer a traumatic brain injury each year. Approximately 75% of these injuries result in a concussion or another mild form of TBI. Traumatic brain injuries are the cause of approximately one-third of all injury related deaths occurring the U.S. annually. By age, children aged 0 to 4, teens aged 15 to 19 and individuals aged 65 or older are most likely to suffer a traumatic brain injury

Head and brain injuries frequently occur as the result of car crashes and other accidental injuries. A recent report issued by The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and State Farm Insurance indicated that approximately 30% of teen drivers sustain a head injury as the result of a car accident. Head injuries are also common among motorcyclists and bicyclists who are involved in collisions with other vehicles.

When a car accident, bicycle accident or motorcycle accident leads to a traumatic brain injury, it’s important that the victim and their family understand their legal rights. In some cases, brain injury sufferers may be entitled to compensation for medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering. When a traumatic brain injury occurs, its’ recommended that you contact an experienced California brain injury lawyer as soon as possible to discuss your case.

Dog Attacks: What Happens To The Dog Following An Incident?

Victims of Dog Attacks May Wonder

Being the victim of a dog attack can be a life changing event. Unfortunately, man’s best friend can be just as dangerous as he is loyal and loving. Dog attacks can lead to serious disfigurement, serious injury, and in some cases, even death. When an attack occurs and the victim chooses to file a lawsuit regarding the incident, many may wonder what happens to Fido after the case is concluded.  For most victims, they don’t want the dog to be harmed following the accident, however, some may simply wonder. In each state there are different laws in place for dogs who attack and how they are handled following an incident resulting in injury. In this article I will use Denver, Colorado as the example state.

What Constitutes a “Dangerous Dog”

In Denver county, Colorado, a dangerous dog can be one of two things: A dog with a demeanor which indicates that he may attack without provocation to cause injury to others; others can be people, or other domestic animals, and, any dog that has a tendency to bite or attack others. According to state and county law, dogs of either one of these types, need to be confined. Confined indicates that the animal(s) are kept in an enclosure that has containing walls of at least eight feet high and are secure, as well as a secure top. This enclosure is also required to have a bottom which is attached to the sides of the structure and embedded into the ground no less than one foot deep. This enclosure is also required to be constructed of a material that the dog cannot destroy or escape from. Dangerous dogs may also be contained within the owner’s home. An owner of a dog of this nature is required to keep the dog confined, unless it is muzzled and leashed when traveling away from the enclosure that the dog is usually kept in. The only exception to the muzzle and leash requirement, is if the dog is part of a dog show; in this case, the dog may not be muzzled, but must be leashed.

For the owner of a dog of this nature, it is imperative that they use the appropriate amount of control for other people’s safety, as well as the dog’s safety. The owner may not allow the dog to bite or harm anyone who is not on their property, or otherwise trespassing. This does not apply to the owner’s business or any other location that is considered public, if the dog is being contained in a location that is open to the public, there is a requirement for appropriate signage, indicating that the dog is contained within the building. This legality is dissolved if the dog attacks someone who is trespassing, robbing, or otherwise committing an act of violence at the said location. Likewise, if the dog is with the owner at a business or public establishment that is not owned by the dog owner, the owner may not allow the dog to bite or attack other people. The only exception to this rule applies to law enforcement officials when engaged in law enforcement activities.

What Happens To A Dog Who Offends?

If a dog happens to bite or otherwise injure someone in Denver county, in the state of Colorado, there are no laws stating that the dog will be destroyed. The law stands that if a dog is considered dangerous, it must be confined in an enclosure to the specifications stated above. The city of Denver does have other regulations, including a ban on pit bulls as a specific breed. They also have a vaccination requirement that all dogs must be vaccinated for rabies. This is only the case in Denver county, Colorado. In other states the laws are more strict, and dogs that offend or repeat offenses, may need to be destroyed, or put down.

If you’ve been injured by a dog, and need legal consultation, McCormick & Murphy P.C. is here to answer any of your questions and concerns that need to be directed to a Denver dog bite attorney. Consultation is free, and we’re available to help you with any and all of your legal concerns.

Whiplash claims cost insurers more than £2 billion last year

Whiplash injury claims cost insurance companies more than £2 billion, with £90 being added to the cost of an average insurance policy according to new research by the AA, reported in the Telegraph last week.

Director of AA Insurance, Simon Douglas said ”I hope that today’s Government announcement will see a tight timescale applied to reform of the civil litigation which at present, encourages people to make a claim regardless of how serious their injury is or even if they have not suffered injury at all.

”Importantly, we need reforms that clamp down on cold-call claims management and personal injury firms who have contributed to the growth of claims.” He added ”The present dysfunctional system has also spawned a fraudulent multi-million-pound ‘cash for crash’ industry.”

Karl Tonks, President of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), said: “Whiplash injuries are real, they can be long term, and must not be trivialised.”

”Before it announces a raft of propositions which risk barring genuinely injured people from bringing legitimate claims, the Government must have a wider debate about the real issues, and it must also hold the insurance industry to account.

”I’m really concerned that in all the latest populist rhetoric about whiplash claims, everyone is being tarred with the same brush.”

Back in January 2012 APIL also released a statement saying “the priority must be for innocent victims of genuine injury, including whiplash injuries, to have access to the full and fair compensation they need. Whiplash injuries can be extremely painful and can often linger, leaving some people with chronic conditions. It must be remembered that the burden of proof lies with the victim. The defendant has every right, and opportunity, to challenge medical opinion if it is thought to be wrong.

Any measures which risk blocking people from making valid claims will leave injury victims and taxpayers effectively subsidising the insurance companies who have already accepted our premiums. It is time for the needs of vulnerable injured victims to take precedence over those whose negligence causes needless injury in the first place.”

Symptoms of whiplash (sp) should be consulted before bringing a claim and you should note that the law differs in this area in Scotland and in England & Wales. Compensation can often be lower depending on the forum in which you bring your claim.

Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke said that the Government’s plans to reform the injury claims system will make it ”quicker, cheaper and easier for valid injury claims to be dealt with through the small claims court”. One of the proposals to be outlined later in 2012 will be to introduce independent medical panels, which would replace assessment by the claimant’s own GP or other medical expert.

Read the Telegraph’s full coverage of this news for further information.

If you’d like to publish legal articles regarding personal injury claims please do register and submit your posts.

Maryland Appelate Court Rules on Pit Bulls

On April 24, 2012, a Maryland Appeals court declared pit bulls to be inherently dangerous, imposing strict liability on owners whose pit bulls attack a person. The ruling also holds landlords responsible for allowing dangerous dogs on their property. This decision lays the groundwork for the first statewide restriction aimed at pit bulls.

If a dog attack involves a pit bull, plaintiffs in Maryland will no longer have to prove that the dog was a known danger. The opinion, written by Judge Dale Cathell, states: “Because of its aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflict serious and sometimes fatal injuries, pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous.” Prior to this opinion, a Maryland dog owner would only be liable if they had knowledge that their pet had demonstrated vicious behavior in the past.

Serious Injuries Caused by Pit Bull Attacks

According to the court opinion, over the last 13 years, there were at least seven cases in Maryland involving a pit bull or mixed-breed pit bull that caused serious injury or death. For this reason, the court took a hard approach, imposing strict liability on pit bull owners and landlords. Under the theory of strict liability, a person is presumed negligent if a pit bull under his or her control causes injury to a person.

The case originated when a 10 year old boy’s parents sued for injuries he sustained in 2007 when he was mauled by a pit bull. Following the attack, the boy spent 17 days in the hospital, required several surgeries and had to spend a year in rehabilitation. Initially, the trial court found that there was insufficient evidence to show that the pit bull’s owner knew that the dog was vicious. The trial court’s decision was reversed on appeal.

Strict Liability for Owners and Landlords

This decision will make it easier for plaintiffs who are injured in pit bull attacks to receive damages from the dog’s owners, as well as from the owner’s landlord. Under the new Maryland law, a person attacked by a dog would first have to prove that the dog was a pit bull or a pit bull mix. Then, the person would have to prove that the defendant was aware that the dog was a pit bull or mixed with pit bull and that he or she had control over the dog’s presence.

The court’s decision imposes liability on landlords because the landlord will have the ability to prohibit the dogs from the premises. Failure to do so will subject them to strict liability. This decision puts Maryland pit bull owners in a difficult situation, especially if they are renters. Because landlords will also be strictly liable for injuries caused by pit bulls on their premises, they will be unlikely to rent their property out to pit bull owners.

Setting Groundwork for Statewide Bans

This decision comes on a wave of bad press for pit bulls. Advocates are working to distance the animal from their reputation as an inherently dangerous breed, but their efforts are often being outdone by similar court cases and breed-specific legislation that targets pit bulls. Advocates argue that the problem is the way that many pit bulls are raised, not the breed itself. They argue that individual dogs have different temperaments, and many pit bulls are loyal and affectionate. Following this court decision, an animal shelter in Frederick County, Maryland has currently suspended adoptions for pit bulls and mixes in their care while they assess the situation and the risk of adopting out the breed. While this decision marks the first statewide legal decision against pit bulls, it may set the groundwork for other states to adopt similar measures.

The team at Lederer & Nojima, LLP handles a number of canine injury cases. Each dedicated dog bite attorney in Los Angeles is abreast of the latest relevant legislative actions.

Study Finds 30% of Teen Drivers Involved in a Car Crash Suffer Head Injuries

A new report from The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and State Farm Insurance indicates that teen drivers are at significant risk for suffering a head injury as the result of a car accident.

The study looked at car accidents involving approximately 55,000 teen drivers and their passengers who were seriously injured in 2009 and 2010. According to the report, 30% of teens involved in serious car crashes will suffer a concussion, skull fracture or a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Car accidents are the leading cause of TBI-related death among teens aged 15 to 19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Due to the delicate nature of the brain and its limited ability to heal in every situation, a traumatic brain injury can cause long-term damage and potentially leave its victim permanently unable to function or care for themselves. A traumatic brain injury can have a devastating impact not only on the victim but also on their family members.

Between 2005 and 2010, teen driving deaths have declined approximately 46% from 2,399 to 1,305 fatalities per year. Fatalities among their passengers have also declined 41%, from 1,777 to 1,022 during this same period.  According to State Farm, teen driving deaths tend to be lower in states that enforce comprehensive Graduated Driving Laws (GDL). These laws require teen drivers to complete at least 50 hours of adult-supervised driving practice under varied conditions prior to seeking a full driver’s license. These laws also limit teen passengers for the first year of licensed driving, place restrictions on unsupervised nighttime driving, prohibit cell phone use and require seat belt use for the driver and their passengers.

The authors of the CHOP/State Farm report recommend that states with higher teen traffic fatality rates change their licensing policies to reflect the guidelines that exist under Graduated Driving Laws. They also suggest implementing programs which are designed to increase seat belt use, educate teens about the dangers of distracted driving and increase overall driving skill in an effort to help keep teens safe while traveling the roadways.

Parents should also educate their teens about the dangers of driving and set a good example by avoiding reckless or careless behavior while behind the wheel. When a car accident occurs, it’s important to consult an experienced car accident attorney to better understand your legal rights.

Possible trends in personal injury 2012

As many will know, big changes are coming in the lucrative personal injury market.

Personal injury has certainly been the most lucrative legal niche outside of the big corporate law firms, and many smaller firms have entered into the market seeking to exploit the relatively low risk and high reward whiplash claim market, which many say is completely out of control.

The Government, particularly in the current political climate, are clearly determined to reign in the whiplash claims market, and it appears they may do this in 2 ways :-

  • by increased regulation and accreditation for any doctor to be qualified to provide a whiplash medical expert report
  • by increasing the personal injury small claim limit to £5,000.00 thereby making legal costs for the majority of whiplash claim far less lucrative

So, how might personal injury firms react to these changes ?

Well, if there’s one thing to say about many of the personal injury specialist firms, they are pretty savvy as business people compared to many lawyers, so it seems likely that many will adapt fast and cleverly, and 2 ways perhaps they may do this are :-

  • to seek to differentiate and position themselves as niche practices which specialise in certain types of injury claims, whether asbestosis, very serious injury claims or claims for injury abroad. by doing this, they may also offer an alternative to the claims packaging type advertising seen on tv.
  • perhaps to diversify into other areas of law, possibly not as lucrative as personal injury, but still worthwhile. Many personal injury solicitors will have a huge database of clients built up over many years and based on a volume service, who they may cross sell to, potentially linking up with other firms who specialise in other areas of law or diversifying themselves. Most personal injury specialist firms have not bothered with leveraging their database as they simply haven’t needed to.

It may well be that a number of personal injury firms, particularly the smaller ones or late entrants to the market, could struggle also. It will likely become more important in future to cherry pick the cases which involve more serious injury, but these are more complex and far more risky than having a practice whose bedrock is whiplash claims. With no win no fee and the fact that the lawyers subsidise the claims as they proceed, getting it wrong on these cases could lead to a practice demise far quicker than in the current market, so there may be an element of survival of the fittest which will separate the men from the boys anyway.

What do you think ?

Texting while Driving – A U.S. Law Perspective

In Kansas City, Missouri, 16-year-old Rachel Gannon was recently charged with second-degree involuntary manslaughter after she lost control of her car, crashing into a vehicle driven by Loretta Larimer, a 72-year-old woman. Larimer later died from her injuries. The teenager was distracted by loud music and texting when she caused the crash.  Larimer’s 10-year-old granddaughter, a passenger in the vehicle, was also injured in the crash. Gannon has been charged with third-degree assault for the granddaughter’s injuries.

A Missouri law that was passed in 2009 prohibits drivers who are aged 21 or younger from text messaging. This case has encouraged Eric Zahnd, the prosecutor who filed the charges against Gannon, to pursue a bill that would ban all texting while driving, regardless of the driver’s age. Although similar bills have been introduced in Missouri, they have not yet become law.

Distracted Driving Impairs Drivers

Cases such as Gannon’s have raised concern about the dangers of distracted driving. Studies have compared the level of impairment caused by texting while driving to the level of impairment caused by driving while drunk. Since 2006, 79 people have been killed in crashes that involved drivers who were distracted by their cell phones while driving in Missouri. The impact of distracted driving has become a heated topic nationwide. Many states have recognized the high level of distraction posed by cell phones and have enacted bans against texting while driving.

A pair of preliminary studies point to strong evidence that texting while driving is extremely dangerous and that there is no safe way to do it. The results of these studies were recently discussed at a medical conference, and have not yet been released. One of the studies was conducted by high school students in Oklahoma. In this study, high school students used driving simulators while they texted with their phones in a variety of positions. Regardless of the phone’s position, these distracted drivers were between four and six times more likely to swerve out of their lane, posing a risk to nearby cars and pedestrians. Although the results have not yet been officially released, they strongly suggest that there is no safe way to text while driving.

Laws Banning Texting While Driving

Currently, 37 states ban texting while driving. Several other states have similar bills pending. Most recently, the Alabama Senate voted to ban texting while driving. Although the bill had previously passed the House without allowing for exceptions, the Senate created a version that allows texting to contact emergency services, obtain GPS data or while stopped in traffic. It is expected that the bill will become law, but it is uncertain which version will pass. Both the House and Senate must approve the same version of the bill before it can be signed into law.

Personal injury attorneys and car accident attorneys support these laws as an effort to promote safer driving. According to the National Safety Council, approximately 1.3 million car crashes per year are caused by drivers who are distracted by their cell phones. Distracted driving increases the likelihood of accidents and puts other drivers at risk. The best way to prevent distracted driving accidents is to keep your cell phone out of reach so that you are not tempted to use it while you are driving. If you need to make a phone call or get in touch with someone, stop your car first. Pull over into a parking lot or a safe distance off the road.

Choosing a personal injury solicitor

If you have been injured through no fault of your own at the hands of a medical professional, an accident in the workplace et-cetera, then you must seek compensation, especially if the injury is lasting. Making a claim for compensation however is a lengthy and complicated process and seeking the help of a legal professional is a must.

However choosing the correct solicitor to deal with your case is like picking from a box of chocolates. They all look the same and yet some are better than others.

There are a number of things to look for and standards to follow which will help you make the correct decision. Read on and take note…

Trust

Look for a solicitor or firm that deals with a large variety of cases because that demonstrates they have the expertise to manage all aspects of the law. Injury and negligence claims are very complex and so you need people who are on the ball and have a firm understanding of all the issues. Look for firms that can prove they are one of the leading teams for cases of serious, personal injury and medical negligence.

If you find a solicitors firm where a large number of their solicitors are seen as leaders in their field then you know you can trust them to do their best for you also. These types of legal representation like to push boundaries to ensure that their clients achieve justice.

Human service – not faceless

The best results are often made by law firms that show a human side. Not huge organisations of solicitors and call centre sales staff. Finding North West Solicitors who you can immediately speak to face to face therefore is always a good indicator of the right type of legal representation to go with.

A large amount of complex time consuming cases usually involve large organisations. When looking for a personal injury solicitor you must choose one that is not afraid to take on these large organisations.

The best legal teams do not just stop at the courtroom however when it comes to their clients. The notable firms make sure there is plenty of support and guidance before, during and after the case.

The best people

Choose a personal injury solicitor who not only has the best people for the case but also gets them to work for you. Senior members of staff should be readily available to deal with your case and achieve the best results. After-all the senior solicitors will have the most experience and be more able to get you the justice you seek.

No time wasting

Some solicitors will take on any case if it means that there is a possibility of payment at the end of it. The more reputable solicitors will review your case and make a decision on whether or not it is worth making a claim – hence not wasting your time.

Fee options

Solicitors who provide fee options are the best route to take. Some will provide a varied range from ‘no win no fee’ to legal expense insurance. Choosing one that does not put its primary focus on fees is the best option. Even if you do not need public funding for your case, choosing a solicitor who accepts this form of payment means they are more than likely ethically sound.