Extra, extra read all about it: West Virginia woman files lawsuit against Walt Disney Corporation claiming Disney planted a rubber chip in her body without her knowledge or consent!
She filed the complaint last month in Kanawha Circuit Court, West Virginia. The lady is seeking for monetary damages and for the chip to be removed from her body. Can you blame her?
She is representing herself.
Warning: This is a sad story.
A man’s 16-year old daughter was killed when her car veered off a bridge, overturned, and flipped into a creek. After the accident, the authorities agreed to install a guardrail on the bridge to prevent similar tragedies.
Thirty days went by and still no guardrail. The grieving father – who could not stand the sight of the unprotected bridge – decided to take matters into his own hands. He began to build a temporary guardrail. As he was in the act of doing so, the authorities asked him to stop. He refused. He just could not stand to see another car go by unprotected.
Even though the bulk of my work is New York personal injury litigation, I often get asked to represent plaintiffs in defamation (slander and libel) claims. The callers soliciting my services are usually livid that so-and-so made disparaging remarks about them, all lies. They are outraged. Of course they are. A good reputation besmirched is a terrible thing.
Still, it is one thing to be angry, and another to embark on the long and expensive journey of civil litigation. I usually have to bill a client by the hour, rather than on a contingency fee basis, in defamation suits. That’s because liability insurance won’t cover the defamer — we have to reach into his or her pocket to collect on a judgment. And most defamers have little or no money to go after. So collecting on the judgment is very uncertain. And there are usually other uncertainties: Can we prove the statement was a lie, and if so, one that fits the narrow category of lies you can sue for? For example, if a client says of me, “my lawyer is an idiot”, that may be a lie, but it expresses an opinion, and therefore I can’t sue for it. But if the client said, “my lawyer is stealing from me”, I can sue because it states an alleged fact, not an opinon, and one that — if true — would constitute a crime.
My first question in helping the would-be client decide whether to pursue a defamation case usually is, “can you prove you were ECONOMICALLY harmed”? That’s because most defamation cases are not worth the trouble or cost of bringing unless you can prove that the lies actually caused financial harm, for example loss of business or lawyer’s fees defending criminal charges.
This is not easy to stomach. Not for you. Not for your teenager. But watch it. And then make sure your teenager watches it. The driver of the car in the photo was texting and did not see the tractor trailor stop to turn left. The video below is very graphic. Don’t text and drive!
video of texting while driving accident
Keep safe!
Well, spring is finally here (I think . . .)! Yesterday I pulled the bike (bicycle) out, cleaned it up, lubed the chain, and I’m ready to roll. (That’s me on my bike in the photo!) What about you? Ready to roll?
Before you get out there and become a moving target for distracted drivers, remember these safety tips:
LOCK EYES WITH THOSE GUYS: At intersections and driveways, try to “lock eyes” with motorists to be sure they see you. Don’t assume they see you. Assume you are invisible. Unfortunately, to many motorists, you are!
As an avid skier, I was distraught to read about another terrible chairlift malfunction at Sugarloaf Mountain in Maine. The chairlift suddenly started moving swiftly backward. Seven skiers were pretty seriously injured, some of them because they removed their skis and jumped to “safety” from the chairlift, fearing that they would be more severely hurt if they wound up getting spun through the chair housing unit at the bottom. More than 200 people were later evacuated from the chairlift over a 90-minute period.
This isn’t the first time a chairlift malfunctioned at Sugarloaf. In December of 2010, a chairlift cable derailed, dropping 5 chairs violently to the ground. Five adults and three kids were injured in that accident. That time Sugarloaf was at fault for negligent operation of the lift. Sugarloaf paid out-of-court settlements to the victims.
This time the manufacturer of the chairlift – Partek Ski Lifts — is to blame. Engineers believe a design flaw prevented a safety system from locking the chairlift in place after a mechanical failure caused it to begin moving in reverse.
Did you see the recent article in the Syracuse Post Standard about weather-related motor vehicle death statistics? Statistics can be pretty boring. But I found this pretty interesting.
The new study shows that SNOW, SLEET AND FREEZING RAIN cause more than 800 vehicle-related deaths each year in the U.S. And one of the highest snow-related death areas was – you guessed it – Upstate New York’s “snow belt”. Hey, if Syracuse basketball can’t be number 1, at least Syracuse is number 1 at something . . . 🙂
Lake effect snow is literally deadly. Not surprisingly, the intensity of snowfall correlated strongly with the number of vehicle deaths. Also not surprisingly, New York City has a much lower rate of snow-related motor vehicle deaths than Upstate. Onondaga County and Oswego Counties had the highest rates in the state.
Let’s say you get into a car accident in New York State and it was the other guy’s fault. But when the police officer shows up and “investigates” he determines it was your fault. And he says so in his accident report. You sue the at-fault driver for your injuries. Can the cop’s police report come into evidence against you? Can the cop testify it was your fault?
The answer generally is, no and no. Why not? The conclusions in his report that it was your fault are “hearsay”. Further, it’s for the jury to determine whose fault it was based on the evidence. Letting the cop testify about whose fault it was would unduly influence the jury. The cop can testify only about the evidence he found at the scene, for example skid marks, the damage to the cars. He can also generally testify about what the PARTIES said to him, but not about what non-party witnesses said to him. That would be hearsay, too. Those witnesses must be brought into court to tell the jury what they saw and must be subject to cross-examination. The cop can’t tell the jury what they said because then the right of the parties to cross-examine those witnesses would be lost.
Some of these concepts were explored in the recent case of Watch v. Gertsen. In that case, the cop determined, after talking to the participants in the accident, that two motorcyclists who collided into the back of a car were at fault for following too closely. In the personal injury trial, the trial judge let the cop testify about his conclusions in the report. The jury’s verdict aligned with the cop’s conclusions. But the appellate court reversed, finding that it was error to allow the police officer to testify about fault from the accident report. And rightly so. What good is a jury trial if a cop is allowed to say whose fault it was? That’s the job of the jury, not the cop.
A new case demonstrates how tough it is to sue for kids’ sports injuries.
Normally a participant in a sport – even a child – assumes the risks inherent in the sport and therefore can’t sue to recover for injuries. There are some exceptions to the rule. For example, You don’t “assume the risk” of a danger you would not normally expect to find in the sport (example: a puddle on an indoor basketball court).
So here’s a summary of that new case: In Cvijenovich v Beacon Kids Wrestling Club, a child wrestler’s opponent suddenly did “an illegal or unreasonably dangerous wrestling move” causing him injury. An illegal or dangerous move like this is not covered by the “assumption of risk” doctrine because no one joins a wrestling club with the expectation that illegal, dangerous moves will be used. Participants assume the risk only of legal moves.
Came across a great article in the Observer. Here’s my rambling summary:
The insurance industry has convinced more than half the states to pass medical malpractice “tort reform” legislation. Their tactics? Cash-in-fist lobbying plus promises that restricting medical malpractice suits would cause doctors’ insurance premiums to plummet. This would in turn lower health care costs and improve healthcare.
The only problem is it turns out the insurance lobby sold us a bill of goods. Every study ever done since tort reform (I have read most) was enacted has shown little or no gains in the area of insurance premium reduction or medical care cost reduction.
Central New York Injury Lawyer Blog
