Articles Posted in Personal Injury

Braese, Jr. v. Stinker Stores, Inc., an appeal from the Supreme Court of Idaho, involved a rather unique set of facts. A customer entered the convenience store at a gas station. Store manager permitted customers to bring their dogs into the store because she knew that other area businesses allowed this, and she did not want to be disliked by area dog owners.

One particular day, a customer had his dog on a leash while standing at the counter. However, customer was not holding the leash while at the counter. The dog raised up her paws and put them on the counter. Manager gave the dog a treat. The entire transaction took around two minutes and during that time the dog put her paws on the counter six more times and, on the last time, cashier gave her another treat.

While customer was putting his change in his pocket, plaintiff walked into the store. Customer was facing cashier. Plaintiff put his hand in his pocket to get cash to pay for a lottery ticket. The dog apparently though another treat was involved and jumped up, hitting plaintiff in the chest with her front paws.
Continue reading

Kovnat v. Xanterra Parks and Resorts, a case from United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, involved plaintiff who was injured while horseback ridding in Yellowstone National Park.

Plaintiff and her husband, both from California, traveled to the park in Wyoming for a vacation. While on vacation, they went on an evening horseback ride. Defendant is the provider of the horseback riding attraction.

Plaintiff, her husband, and other tourists were asked to sit on a bench while they were instructed on how to ride a horse. Defendant alleges that all riders are told that if they feel the saddle slip, even slightly, they should stand up in the saddle and attempt to straighten the saddle. They are also told to tell a wrangler that there is a problem with the saddle.
Continue reading

In order to stay competitive, farmers are constantly relying on complex machinery to get the job done. In Yanmar America Corporation v. Randy Nichols, a farmer purchased a new tractor that contained both a front loader and a brush hog attachment. This particular tractor did not feature a rollover protection structure (ROPS) in the design.

Plaintiff and his brother were using the tractor to “brush hog” a parcel of land that featured a significant slope. Plaintiff did not inspect the hill on foot prior to taking the tractor up the hill. According to court records, plaintiff was driving the tractor in tall grass at walking speed when he turned around to check on the brush hog attachment.

When plaintiff turned back around, he felt the front tire drop as if it was falling into a hole in the ground. It was actually a ledge or drop off on the edge of the hill that caused the tractor to roll over sideways. After rolling a complete 360 degrees, the tractor was back on its wheels, but plaintiff was thrown from the tractor during the roll.
Continue reading

When we send our children to the doctor, we assume doctors and healthcare providers have been screened for any issues in their backgrounds. A recent case from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), Roe No. 1 v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr., centers on this issue.

In Roe No.1 (Roe being used in place of the name for plaintiff who is a minor), a doctor was hired by a Boston pediatric hospital in 1966 to work as a pediatrician. The doctor held the position until leaving the hospital in 1985 to work as a pediatrician at an out-of-state hospital.

After 24 more years of working as a pediatrician, he voluntarily surrendered his license to practice medicine in the face of allegations that he performed a number of unnecessary genital examinations on his patients.
Continue reading

Crocker v. Morales-Santana, a case from the North Dakota Supreme Court, involved a sheriff who suffered serious personal injury when his patrol car was hit by a semi-tractor trailer driven by defendant.

The police car was parked on the north side of an interstate, while the sheriff was helping a stranded motorist during a winter storm. Defendant owned the truck that he leased to a tire collection company. According to defendant’s testimony, he was driving the truck that day as an independent contractor of the tire collection company.

Plaintiff first filed a personal injury lawsuit against defendant and the tire collection company. After the tire collection company liquidated, plaintiff and his wife amended their complaint to include a national motor carrier who had contracted with the tire collection company to provide trailers for use by the company. This is a typical arrangement in the commercial trucking industry.
Continue reading

In Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, plaintiff set up a profile on a website used by amateur and professional models in an attempt to find work.

After plaintiff uploaded her information, two men, who were using the website as part of a kidnapping and rape scheme, contacted plaintiff posing as talent scouts. The men invited her to an interview in south Florida.

According to court records, when she arrived at their office, the men gave her a date rape drug that put her into a semiconscious state and then raped her. The incident was recorded on video and sold as pornography.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against owners of the website under a negligence theory known as failure to warn. Her claim was that the website owners knew of the criminal activity by these two men and failed to warn her of this known danger before uploading her profile. She asserted that her being raped was essentially caused by the defendant’s negligence. As sexual assault lawyers in Boston understand, failure to warn of a known danger is one of the more common theories of negligence in situations where a business owner or employer is being sued.
Continue reading

In the last days of summer, people are trying to make the most of what is left of the warmer weather. For some families, that means going to a county fair or local carnival.

According to a recent news article from British publication, Mail Online, an eight-year-old girl was killed while riding on a carnival ride called Air Maxx 360. This was first time carnival promoters had used the particular attraction, but it is said to have been used throughout Australia in the past without incident.

The ride is a typical cardinal attraction where riders are seated in cars that are lifted up and twirled around a spinning tower. One witness said that the victim was wearing her safety harness, but it looked as if she was slipping out of her seat. At one point, she was hanging on the ride by her legs and trying to block her face with her hands as she was violently spun around.

When she could no longer hold on, she was thrown about 30 to 45 feet from the ride at a height of about 30 feet off the ground. She died after hitting the pavement. She was taken to a local hospital by EMTs, but it was obvious to witnesses that the victim was fatally injured. She was pronounced dead a short time after arriving at the trauma center.

Authorities are saying that there will be an extensive investigation into the exact cause of the accident, but it will take some time due the complexity of the events and the number of witnesses involved.

Our attorneys who handle personal injury claims in Boston understand that people are putting their trust and lives in hands of amusement companies every time they go on a carnival or amusement park ride. The public believes that the company has done everything possible to provide a thrilling ride while never placing a rider in any real danger.
Continue reading

According to a recent story from WTOP news, an inmate at Rikers Island New York City jail died from excessive heat while in his cell. It is being reported that the decedent, a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, had been homeless since his separation from the military and was suffering from schizophrenia.

Decedent had been prescribed antipsychotic medication, which doctors know increases a patient’s sensitivity to heat, to treat his mental disorder. He had not been checked on for at least four hours when he was found dead in his 104-degree jail cell, which was not air-conditioned. He was lying at the foot of his bed in a pool of blood and vomit. Speaking on a condition of anonymity, a jail official said he basically baked to death.

The decedent was at Rikers Island after being arrested on misdemeanor trespassing and could not make bail, so he was being held until trial.

As our injury lawyers in Boston know, when a person is injured or killed in a state-run facility such as a prison, nursing home, or hospital, plaintiffs may be able to file a type of lawsuit in federal court known as a Section 1983 Action.

This is short for Section 1983 of 43 United States Code. This section allows a person to sue state employees acting on behalf of the state in federal court for a civil rights violation. “Civil rights” is often an ambiguous term, but it has come to include treating people in a state facility in a negligent way that results in injury or death.
Continue reading

Almost certainly, you have heard of the 1990s case involving the woman who was awarded millions of dollars after spilling takeout coffee in her lap. The case was upheld as an example of how absurd our justice system had become, how out-of-control juries were getting and why civil justice reform couldn’t come soon enough.

However, there are a lot of things you probably don’t know about the case. This includes the fact that news of the outcome was manipulated by corporate interests as part of an ongoing public relations campaign to severely undercut public access to and benefits from civil court. It became the catalyst for a wave of damage caps enacted by state legislators, as well as the start of more companies using mandatory arbitration agreements to force people to settle their disputes out of court. The public was told these steps were in their bests interests, because high damage awards to injured parties resulted in higher costs to them for everything from auto insurance to health care to their next cup of coffee.

Our Boston personal injury lawyers know this is patently false, as is the idea that the plaintiff in the so-called “hot coffee case” was out for a quick payday. All of this is the subject of a new documentary entitled, “Hot Coffee,” available on DVD and Netflix streaming.
Continue reading

Hill v. United States, a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, involved a plaintiff who was serving a five-year sentence in prison when another inmate attacked him. He was hit with a metal object and lost vision in one eye. Eventually, the eye had to be removed by doctors. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The lawsuit was filed pro se.

As your Boston personal injury lawyers know in rare cases a person will choose to represent himself or herself in court. When this happens, the unrepresented party is known as a pro se litigant.

In Hill, the basis for the lawsuit was that the BOP was negligent by allowing the prison to become overcrowded and by failing to safeguard the prisoners in the overcrowded environment.
Continue reading