Injured

Butt Injection Deaths May Lead to Lawsuits

2013-06-18T17:01:01Z

A Mississippi resident faces charges for illegal silicone butt injection deaths in two states. Civil lawsuits are possible as well.

Tracey Lynn Garner, also known as Morris Garner, was already accused in a Georgia woman's death from illegal silicone butt injections. Garner has now been charged with "depraved heart murder" in the case of an Alabama woman who died after getting the same butt-augmentation procedure.

Garner, 52, is a man who lives and dresses as a woman, The Clarion-Ledger reports. Garner is currently under house arrest.

Unlicensed Operations

Garner's latest alleged victim, Karima Gordon, died in an Atlanta hospital of a blood clot in her lung a few days after receiving a silicone buttocks injection.

Part of the reason the procedure is so dangerous is because it's being administered by non-medical professionals. Silicone butt injections aren't technically illegal if administered by a licensed medical provider who uses a sterile product. Even so, the FDA has yet to approve the risky procedure because patients may end up hospitalized, in pain, disfigured and suffering respiratory problems, reports Science Daily.

In this case, Garner does not appear to have any medical licenses. His operating room was in his home, reports the Clarion-Ledger.

A separate issue is the quality of the injection itself. In many cases of butt injections gone bad, the substance is counterfeit silicone.

Wrongful Death Lawsuits Possible

A word of caution to those drawn to back-alley health procedures: Don't find your butt injecter on the Internet. That's how Gordon was allegedly referred to Garner.

If convicted in either case of depraved heart murder, Garner faces up to life in prison. In addition, Garner may also face wrongful death lawsuits by relatives of the women who died after their butt injection procedures.

Even if Garner is acquitted of the criminal charges, wrongful-death lawusits may still be successful. Part of the reason is that the standard of proof is typically lower for civil lawsuits.

However, wrongful death suits must be brought within a specific time frame, depending on which state you're suing in. An experienced wrongful death lawyer can help you determine the best way to proceed.

Mississippi's attorney general encourages anyone who may have received a buttocks or breast augmentation from Garner to notify the AG's Consumer Protection Division at (800) 281-4418.

Related Resources:

MS woman charged with murder in buttocks injection case (Memphis, Tennessee's WMC-TV)
Butt Injections Get Lauretta Cheek, Phony Surgeon, Busted -- Again (FindLaw's Legally Weird)
'Black Madam' Butt Injection Doc Arrested at Philly Pumping Party (FindLaw's Legally Weird)
Illegal Silicone Butt Injector Pleads Guilty, Worked Entire East Coast (FindLaw's Legally Weird)

Juneteenth Shooting: Boy Injured, Teen Arrested

2013-06-17T16:43:01Z

In connection to a Juneteenth shooting, police in Ohio have charged a 15-year-old boy with felonious assault, reports The Columbus Dispatch.

The shooting, which occurred Saturday at the Juneteenth Festival at Franklin Park in Columbus, injured an 11-year-old boy.

Lovauntea J. Mickens is accused of firing a stray gunshot that hit the boy in the leg.

Arrested for Assault

Basic assault occurs when you try to put someone in reasonable fear for their safety. Use of a deadly weapon during an assault constitutes aggravated assault. This applies whether or not the weapon causes physical injury to anyone. There doesn't need to be actual physical harm for basic assault or aggravated assault.

In this case, however, someone was injured. More serious injuries to the victim can cause a basic assault to become an aggravated assault. In most states, assaults causing serious bodily injury qualify as aggravated assaults.

In addition to criminal charges for the Juneteenth shooting, the injured child can also potentially recover compensatory damages in a civil lawsuit over the alleged assault.

Potential Parental Liability

One of the big questions is whether Mickens' parents can be held liable for the injuries. In Ohio, and in many other states, the answer is yes.

Under Ohio law, the parent of a child under the age of 18 can be held civilly liable for injuries if their child willfully and maliciously assaults another person by a means or force likely to produce great bodily harm.

In this case, the "means" is a gun, which is certainly likely to produce great bodily harm -- which it did. If the court finds that Mickens' conduct was "willful and malicious," his parents will likely have to foot the injured child's medical bills.

But in Ohio, the amount of parental liability for a child's willful and malicious acts is capped at $10,000.

This kind of offense is not dependent on a prior finding that the child is a delinquent child. That is to say, the child doesn't need to have a record within the juvenile justice system.

The shooting disrupted the annual Juneteenth festival, dedicated to celebrating and honoring the emancipation of African-American slaves.

Police closed down the festival after the shooting. It was supposed to have run through Sunday evening.

Related Resources:

Juneteenth shooting in Ohio injures 11-year old (+video) (The Christian Science Monitor)
Elements of Assault (FindLaw)
Parental Civil Liability (FindLaw)
'Family Car' Doctrine: Liability for a Kid's Wreck (FindLaw's Injured)

Miami Deck Collapse Injures 33 at Sports Bar

2013-06-14T16:53:01Z

A Miami deck collapse left 33 people hurt, two of them seriously, at a waterfront sports bar Thursday night. Who could potentially be held liable for the injuries?

About 100 people were on an outdoor deck at Shuckers Bar and Grill, a popular restaurant in North Bay Village, watching the Miami Heat in the NBA Finals. About 9:20 p.m., the deck collapsed and sent dozens of patrons plunging into the shallow waters of Biscayne Bay, authorities told WTVJ-TV.

Witnesses say the deck collapsed after Heat fans jumped to celebrate their team's scoring a basket. Could that have contributed to the collapse?

Deck Collapse Investigation

That's up in the air right now, as an investigation is underway. But if some of the injured victims choose to hire personal injury lawyers to sue for compensation, a number of factors will be considered.

One of the first issues is whether the sports bar's deck could accommodate 100 people. If it was above its full capacity, the bar's owners could be in trouble.

Another potential issue invovles safety inspections. If the sports bar isn't up-to-date on its inspections, the owners could be liable for negligence because weak or improper construction may have gone unnoticed.

Customers Jump In to Help

Bar customers who were spared turned into first responders within seconds and pulled people from the bay amid a chaotic scene, according to one witness who spoke to ABC News Radio. Another witness said there was yelling and crying, and that some patrons jumped into the water to help the victims.

While it's heartwarming to see comraderie during times of crisis, it's fortunate that no one got hurt from any of the Good Samaritans' actions.

In general, a person has no legal duty to rescue a victim in distress, unless a special relationship exists. But if a Good Samaritan fails to exercise reasonable care during a rescue and makes things worse, he can potentially be held liable for damages. Florida has a Good Samaritan law that shields some providers from civil liability, but only if they behave "as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances."

After Miami's win last night, Heat player Dwayne Wade told reporters the team wanted to "share our concerns for all that were injured tonight at Shuckers restaurant." Of the 33 injured in the deck collapse, 24 were taken to local hospitals for treatment.

Related Resources:

Miami Sports Bar Deck Collapse Sends People Into Water (ABC News)
Good Samaritans Save Woman's Life, Then Sue Her (FindLaw's Injured)
Sugarland Sued for State Fair Stage Collapse (FindLaw's Injured)
Indiana Stage Collapse: $50M Wrongful Death Suit Filed (FindLaw's Injured)

Hands-Free Devices Distract Drivers: AAA Study

2013-06-13T16:29:01Z

Hands-free technology in your car may keep your phone habits legal, but these devices are still dangerously distracting drivers.

A new study by the American Automobile Association's Foundation for Traffic Safety has found that both handheld and hands-free calls resulted in a "moderate risk" to drivers.

With these new findings, is it safe to keep using distracting devices in our cars?

Voice-Activated Texting Most Distracting

Although many studies have recognized the risk of handheld phone calls on driver safety, few have evaluated the cavalcade of new hands-free features being released in new automobiles.

Many new vehicles feature the ability to read and respond to emails and text messages, like in this BMW ad (spoiler: married man shows disdain for mother-in-law), but the AAA study found that using these devices were even more dangerous than talking on a handheld phone.

There are obviously varying levels of distraction for a driver, like dealing with a noisy passenger vs. a quiet one, but AAA claims that using speech-to-text devices is "three times as distracting" as listening to the radio, reports U.S. News.

Distracted Driving Laws

In many states, like California, not only is talking on your phone while driving illegal, but so is texting or even touching your phone at all while operating your vehicle.

However, many states have passed laws allowing hands-free calling and even hands-free texting, which lets drivers send email and listen to text messages using voice commands -- the same behavior that AAA claims is incredibly distracting to drivers.

Critics of these laws have pointed to research like the new AAA study as proof that distracted driving laws fail to reduce truly risky behavior, and have even failed to reduce overall crashes.

Hands-Free Doesn't Mean Liability-Free

Even if you live in a state where you can talk on your handheld phone while driving, like Texas, you can still be found to be reckless or negligent if your mobile phone use contributes to a crash.

Distracted driving might be difficult to prove in other circumstances, but a log of your hands-free calls, emails, and texts can provide ample evidence of alleged carelessness.

Smart drivers, regardless of the state, will take note of this new AAA study and try to refocus on driving while in the car -- or at least only using email and text features while the car is parked.

Related Resources:

Texting While Driving (FindLaw)
What's More Dangerous Than Texting and Driving? (FindLaw's Injured)
Texting and Driving? There's an App to Stop That (FindLaw's Injured)
Browse Traffic Ticket Lawyers by Location (FindLaw)

Frozen Berries Recalled: 87 Sick in 8 States

2013-06-12T15:01:01Z

An organic frozen berry mix that's been recalled is being linked to dozens of illnesses in eight states.

The frozen berry and fruit mix has reportedly led to at least 87 people getting sick. Of those, 36 have been hospitalized with acute hepatitis A infections, NBC News reports.

The mix in question -- Townsend Farms Organic Antioxidant Blend frozen berry and pomegranate mix -- is made by Townsend Farms Inc. of Fairview, Oregon. According to the FDA, packages with the following "Lot" and "Best By" codes have been recalled:

"Lot" codes T041613E and T041613C, with a "Best By" code of 101614, sold at Harris Teeter stores.
"Lot" codes T012415 sequentially through 053115, followed by a letter, sold at Costco.

So far, only Costco customers have gotten sick, according to the CDC. While pomegranate seeds in the frozen berry mix are suspected to be tied to the outbreak, hepatitis A has not yet been found in the product itself, the FDA reports.

However, illnesses have been reported in Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington state.

What does this recall mean and who can be held responsible?

Potential Food Poisoning Lawsuits

Many lawsuits, including class actions, have been filed after food poisoning outbreaks. Food poisoning typically falls under product liability, alleging that a dangerous or defective product caused harm or injury.

Several parties can potentially be held liable for causing food poisoning. Anyone in the chain of production all the way to the merchant selling the product to the consumer may be named in a lawsuit.

In the illnesses linked to the frozen berry mix, this may include Townsend Farms, retailers, and the processor of the pomegranate seeds.

Strict Liability?

For strict liability (automatic liability regardless of whose fault it is) to apply, however, the product must have been the kind that's regularly made in the course of the merchant's business.

Therefore, in this case, retailers likely wouldn't be susceptible to strict liability. But the pomegranate seed processor and Townsend Farms, both of which are presumably normally engaged in producing fruit for consumption, could potentially face strict liability.

Hepatitis A is unlikely to lead to illness if proper vaccinations are given within two weeks of exposure, according to the FDA. Anyone with questions about the frozen berry recall can contact Townsend Farms at (800) 875-5291.

Related Resources:

Frozen berry mix linked to hepatitis A recalled (The Associated Press)
What To Do After Food Poisoning (FindLaw's Injured)
Food Poisoning and the Law (FindLaw)
Browse Products Liability Lawyers by Location (Findlaw)

Fla. Boat Crash Sends 10 to Hospital

2013-06-11T14:51:01Z

A boat crash in the Florida Keys sent 10 people to the hospital. Authorities are still working to determine the cause of the crash.

The collision occurred near Elliot Key on Sunday night, when a 36-foot Carrera powerboat carrying 16 people hit a smaller boat, causing the smaller craft to sink, reports the Associated Press.

Though many of the details are still unclear, both boat captains face potential liability for the injuries and property damage sustained in the crash.

Authorities: Captains Not Drunk

An officer with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission confirmed that authorities conducted a field sobriety test on both captains, and there were no indications that alcohol was involved in the crash, reports ABC News.

If either captain had been drinking while boating, which is just as illegal as a DUI, the drunken party would likely have been held responsible for damages under negligence per se.

However, the Fish and Wildlife officer reported that no blood testing was done on either captain, so it is unlikely that more evidence will be available to challenge their sobriety.

Comparative Fault

With boat crashes as well as car crashes, often both parties are to some degree at fault. That's when comparative fault comes into play.

In this case, authorities are still investigating whether either captain violated Florida boating laws by failing to operate their vehicle in a reasonable and prudent manner, which may also explain the crash.

If both parties were negligent or violated Florida law in causing the crash, then each negligent party's damage award would likely be reduced in proportion to their level of fault. So if both parties were 50% responsible for the damages to each other, then neither one will receive anything.

What to Do After a Boat Crash

So what should you do if you're involved in a boat crash? Following these steps may help you avoid potential liability:

Don't flee the scene. Just like in a car collision, you do not want to abandon the other party after a boat crash. You could face criminal charges if you do.
Assess emergencies and act. After a crash, there may be emergency situations like a sinking vessel or passengers struggling to stay afloat. Deal with these events before worrying about liability.
Call 911. Any injuries, major property damages, or loss of life should be reported to police and emergency services.
Exchange information. If there are no injuries or major damage, just like with a fender bender, trade contact information with the other party in the crash.
Contact an attorney. Even if the other party assures everything is fine, real liability can arise later. Getting experienced legal representation on your side can help.

Related Resources:

10 in hospital after boats collide near Elliott Key (The Miami Herald)
Alaska Tourist Boat Runs Aground, 76 Rescued (FindLaw's Injured)
Barge and Tour Boat Collide in Philadelphia (FindLaw's Injured)
Ride the Ducks Boat Crash Deaths Settled for $17M (FindLaw's Injured)

Sober Man's DUI Arrest Leads to $500K Claim

2013-06-10T18:23:01Z

A sober man's DUI arrest is turning into a sobering experience for police in Surprise, Arizona.

Jesse Thornton, a 64-year-old retired firefighter, hadn't been drinking when he was pulled over by police one night and arrested for a DUI. A Breathalyzer test confirmed his blood-alcohol level was zero, reports Phoenix's KNXV-TV.

After enduring a series of unfortunate events, Thornton has filed a $500,000 claim against the police department.

Red Eyes Lead to Arrest

To keep similar hours as his wife who is an ER nurse, Thornton lives a nocturnal lifestyle. He sleeps during the day and runs errands and works out at night.

When the retired firefighter was pulled over, the officer allegedly told him, "I can tell you're driving DUI by looking in your eyes," reports KNXV.

Thornton, who says his eyes could have been red because he'd been swimming earlier that evening, was ordered to take a field sobriety test -- even though he had bad knees and was scheduled to have hip replacement surgery in two days.

After the test, Thornton was placed in handcuffs and told to sit on the curb, again, despite having a bad hip and knee.

Back at police headquarters, a Breathalyzer test confirmed Thornton's blood alcohol level was zero. He says a drug recognition expert even told him, "I would never have arrested you. You show no signs of impairment."

After having his car impounded, receiving a message that his license was suspended and spending time in police custody, Thornton was later released to his wife, who had to leave work to come get him, reports KNXV.

Unlawful Arrest?

While courts often grant law enforcement immunity as to not hinder their investigative duties, that immunity is qualified, meaning that police officers may not freely and willingly violate an individual's rights.

That means a person wrongfully arrested for DUI can potentially sue the police for a false arrest.

To legally arrest someone, police must first have probable cause. Without probable cause, an arrest violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizure, resulting in an actionable claim for false arrest.

In Thornton's case, the police will likely argue they pulled him over for crossing the white line in his lane.

The question then turns on whether the arresting officer's belief was reasonable at the time of the arrest. In this case, the statement by the DRE could come back to haunt the police department.

Driving While Black?

But Thornton thinks it was less about a DUI and more about a "DWB." "It was driving while black," Thornton told KNXV, claiming he's been pulled over 10 times in the city of Surprise. The latest incident of alleged racial profiling prompted him to hire a lawyer to file a claim against the police department.

Thornton's attorney has filed a notice of claim against the City of Surprise seeking $500,000. That's the first step toward possibly suing the police.

The DUI charge was recently dropped, but Thornton's lawyer claims it's not enough.

"Listen, I was a firefighter and firefighters work hand in hand with police officers," said Thornton, whose daughter works in law enforcement. "I have nothing against police officers, this just wasn't right."

Related Resources:

Sober Man DUI: Jessie Thornton Charged With Drunk Driving In Surprise, Ariz., Despite 0.000 BAC (International Business Times)
Getting Arrested Checklist: Have My Rights Been Violated? (FindLaw)
Joe Arpaio's Sheriff Department Racially Profiled Latinos, Court Finds (FindLaw's Decided)
Lawyer Couple Get $360K Over NYPD False Arrest (FindLaw's Injured)

After Philly Building Collapse, Lawsuit Filed

2013-06-10T15:15:01Z

A contractor blamed for causing a deadly Philadelphia building collapse last week is being held without bail. One injured victim has already filed a lawsuit, and more are likely.

Police say crane operator Sean Benschop, 43, tested positive for marijuana after the collapse that killed six people at a thrift store next to a demolition site. Benschop faces six counts of involuntary manslaughter and 13 counts of recklessly endangering another person, Reuters reports. Benschop's lawyer insists his client is not guilty, and that the building collapse was an accident.

But if there was indeed reckless action that led to the collapse, then the negligent parties may soon face a heap of legal trouble.

Building Contractors Suspected

As the dust settled Thursday, attorney Robert Mongeluzzi was at the scene, proclaiming that it was "the most egregious construction accident" he's ever been involved with, reports the Associated Press. Mongeluzzi filed a lawsuit Thursday on behalf of a woman who survived the collapse after being pulled from the rubble.

Mongeluzzi suspects the demolition contractor is at fault and likely violated several federal safety regulations, which could lead to automatic liability for per se negligence.

Any of the construction project's supervisors may also be liable for negligently hiring an employee responsible for the collapse of the Philadelphia building.

Crane Operator Allegedly Intoxicated

The building collapse may have been the result of many factors, but if any fault lies with the crane operator, his allegedly intoxicated state is fairly damning.

A source with Philadelphia's City Hall confirmed on Friday that the crane operator in question had "marijuana and pain medication" in his blood, CNN reports.

Intentionally operating heavy construction machinery like a crane while intoxicated is reckless behavior. Similar to damages caused by a drunk driver, the intoxicated crane operator will likely be held legally responsible for any injuries related to his actions.

Wrongful Death Suits Likely

Relatives of the six victims who died in the Philadelphia building collapse are entitled to sue for wrongful death. Crane operator Sean Benschop is the most likely target of these suits, considering the criminal charges against him -- though liability may also potentially fall on his employer, or other parties involved.

A wrongful death verdict is almost certain if a jury convicts Benschop of involuntary manslaughter, as the burden of proof is higher in criminal court than in civil.

Related Resources:

Philadelphia building collapse: Criminal probe apparently under way (CBS News)
Notre Dame Student Dies When Tower Collapses (FindLaw's Injured)
Indiana Stage Collapse: $50M Wrongful Death Suit Filed (FindLaw's Injured)
St. Louis Tent Collapse Kills 1, Injures 100 (FindLaw's Injured)

Summer Lovin': 3 Potential Ways to Sue After Sex

2013-06-07T11:49:01Z

For many young singles, summer means plenty of new relationships and sexy flings with Australian girls named Sandy. But it can also mean you getting your pants sued off.

Summer lovers would be wise to remember these three potential causes of action that may follow getting some action:

1. Getting an STD.

Although some sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are symptomless in men and women, if you think your partner knew about her STD status before making whoopie, you may have a case.

Many states actually have laws against the intentional or knowing spread of STDs. But even if your state doesn't, you could potentially sue your partner for negligence if they didn't tell you they had herpes.

The amount in damages you can receive will depend on the severity or chronic nature of the STD, and punitive damages may even be available if your partner intentionally or recklessly infected you.

2. Being Secretly Recorded.

Celebrity sex tapes are legion, but it is very possible that you (and maybe 20% of those celebrities) were recorded mid-coitus without your knowledge or permission.

Even in non-sexual situations, secretly video-recording private moments (like conversations between a husband and wife in their home) can be grounds for an invasion of privacy suit.

You may also be able to sue any peeping Toms who are caught intruding in your private affairs by snapping photos or video of you during a boink session.

3. Slander on Social Media.

Once the pillow talk is over, your prior partner may do a lot of talking outside of the bedroom concerning you. If he ends up posting on Facebook or Twitter that you're a cracked-out prostitute, you can potentially sue him for defamation.

To successfully sue for defamation from a tweet or online comment, you must prove that the post:

Was published. This can be proven by showing the public post, or even a private post, was seen by at least one other person.
Caused you injury. This can include the loss of job opportunities, lost profits in your business, or other types of pecuniary injury.
Was false. Truth is a perfect defense to defamation, so you may have to prove you've never smoked crack, if that's what you're being falsely accused of.
Was not privileged. This typically only applies to testimony at trial.

So remember, even if your summer flings don't mean a thing, be careful about your summer nights.

Related Resources:

5 Ways Love Can Lead to Lawsuits, Legal Action (FindLaw's Legal Grounds)
Twitter Defamation: Can Your Business Sue? (FindLaw's Free Enterprise)
Erin Andrews Sues for $10M Over Peephole Videos (FindLaw's Tarnished Twenty)
TX Surgeon Sued for Giving NY Woman Herpes (FindLaw's Injured)

Child Shootings: Are Parents Responsible?

2013-06-06T18:06:01Z

Can parents be held liable for child shootings? The incredibly tragic act of one child shooting another seems to be occurring far too often these days, unfortunately.

Along with these sad acts occurring, there are usually an endless list of questions that beg to be answered.

One of them is most definitely going to be about the parents of the child who committed the act: Can they be held liable for the shooting?

Parental Liability in General

Parental liability for a minor child's acts fall under the umbrella category of vicarious liability (in other words, liability for actions of others).

In general, if a parent were to be held liable for their child's acts, it would only start when the child is around 7 to 10 years old (depending on your state), up until the child reaches the age of majority. After that, children are responsible for their own actions.

In which situations can parents be held liable for a child's shooting? Here are a few:

Liability for a Child's Torts

Every state has its own laws regarding a parent's liability for the torts committed by her child.

For a child's torts, many states will commonly hold parents financially liable for the damages and injuries caused by their children. The extent of this liability varies as well, but generally covers such things as vandalism and destruction of property. Some states also cap a parent's liability at a certain dollar amount.

Liability for a Child's Criminal Acts

Criminal acts are treated differently. If a parent knows that her child has a penchant for criminal behavior -- that the child is capable of, and has committed acts that require a parent's restraint -- then courts may see this as a reason to hold parents accountable.

When it comes to child shootings, many states have laws which explicitly impart liability on parents for their child's criminal acts involving firearms. Many of the provisions contained in the acts look at whether or not a parent keeps guns in the house, has them stored safely and in a place unreachable by the child, and just how easy it is for the child to gain access.

Depending on the circumstances, parents can also potentially be charged with failing to supervise their child, or even contributing to their child's delinquency. The recent spate of child shootings should serve as a lesson for parents who may have firearms in the house to ensure that all safety measures are taken.

Related Resources:

Dad charged in New Jersey child-on-child shooting death (New York Daily News)
Parental Rights and Liability (FindLaw)
Are Parents Liable if Their Kid is a Bully? (FindLaw's Blotter)
Am I Civilly Liable for My Kids' Actions? (FindLaw's Injured)

Should I Sue for Medical Malpractice?

2013-06-05T19:16:01Z

Should you sue for medical malpractice? It's one way to get compensation for medical mistakes and omissions, but there are many factors for you and your medical malpractice attorney to consider.

In fact, "the great majority of patients who sustain a medical injury as a result of negligence do not sue," a 2006 study in the New England Journal of Medicine reported. But when patient-victims do sue and win, payouts can be substantial.

So what should you ask yourself before pursuing a lawsuit? Here are four general considerations:

1. Whom can you sue?

Should you sue for medical malpractice, a wide range of defendants may be involved. Doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals can all potentially be held liable for injuries due to their own negligence.

Hospitals, surgical centers, and other health-care facilities can also be sued for their employees’ mistakes — which is why they often classify medical staff as “independent contractors” to avoid liability.

If your injury is due to medicine or defective equipment, drug companies and medical device makers can also be sued.

2. What can you sue for?

Medical professionals are commonly sued for negligence, or breaching a duty of professional care. This can stem from misdiagnosis, errors in treatment, or mistakes made during surgery.

Medical-device and drug companies are often hit with product liability claims that allege defects or a failure to warn about known side effects.

3. What must you prove?

Proving medical malpractice often requires expert witnesses to testify about the appropriate standard of care. In some egregious cases, like when a sponge is left inside a patient after surgery, a legal theory called res ipsa loquitur allows a jury to infer that negligence occurred.

Suits against device and drug makers may require investigation into the production of the product in question.

4. Other factors to consider.

Each state’s statute of limitations for medical malpractice suits is different, so don’t delay in filing a claim. Some states cap damage awards in malpractice cases, especially if you’re suing a state entity. Like other types of lawsuits, medical malpractice cases are often settled out of court.

In fact, malpractice settlements led to larger average payouts, the study in the New England Journal of Medicine found. Of course, should you sue for medical malpractice, consulting with a local malpractice attorney can be your best bet for recovery.

Related Resources:

Medical Malpractice (FindLaw)
Blind Man Sues Hospital for ‘KKK’ Surgery Scar (FindLaw’s Injured)
Man Dies During Threesome, Family Wins $3M for Medical Malpractice (FindLaw’s Legally Weird)
Browse Medical Malpractice Lawyers by Location (FindLaw)

Jenny Craig Lawsuit Claims Diet Led to Gallstones

2013-06-04T11:47:01Z

The latest Jenny Craig lawsuit claims the name-brand diet caused gallstones -- about 1,000 of them, apparently, according to TMZ.

Mara Shapshay, a Los Angeles-based comedian who also writes for Glamour magazine, is suing Jenny Craig after she had to have gallstones removed from her body. She also blames the company for a recent miscarriage, and for causing abdominal pain, vomiting, and other side effects.

Jenny Craig knew its diet could lead to gallbladder disease, Shapshay alleges, and she is now suing them for unspecified damages. Should the company be concerned?

A little bit, at least. Jenny Craig could have a possible products liability issue on its hands, depending on a whole number of circumstances that are currently unknown.

In general, products liability arises when a defective product is used by a consumer who then suffers injuries. While there are several specific theories that a plaintiff can assert, the type of defect must first be determined. The three most common types are:

Manufacturing defects, which apply to one product that has somehow left the warehouse (or manufacturer's hands) flawed. It does not mean that the rest of the products are defective, but rather just that one somehow did not conform to standards.
Design defects, which can happen when there is a flaw in the design of the product itself. This implies that every single product is defective, or could have been better made.
Marketing defects, which include the improper labeling of products, faulty instructions posted on a product, or a failure to warn customers of a product's hidden dangers.

Note that while Shapshay's Jenny Craig lawsuit may seem to be alleging a marketing defect, that kind of defect only applies to hidden dangers. This means that obvious dangers (a knife that can cut you, for example) do not need to come with a warning. So in the company's defense, lawyers for Jenny Craig may try to assert that health risks come with every diet plan, and that they should be obvious.

It's also not known what other substances Shapshay may have ingested, which could potentially also have led to gallstones. If her lawsuit proceeds, Shapshay's personal injury lawyer will likely need to somehow prove -- perhaps through the use of scientific experts -- that her Jenny Craig diet was the precise cause of her injuries.

Related Resources:

Hazards and Complications Associated With Gallbladder Surgery (FindLaw's Knowledge Base)
When 'Fad' Diets Go Wrong, Can You Sue? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
Weight Loss Contracts: Read Nutrisystem, Jenny Craig Terms Carefully (FindLaw's Common Law)
FDA Issues Warning on Weight Loss Products (FindLaw's Common Law)

In Killer Bee Death, Is Anyone Liable?

2013-06-03T16:44:01Z

A killer bee death in Texas has left a man's family in mourning. It also raises a few potential legal issues regarding liability.

Larry Goodwin of Moody, Texas, who just celebrated his 62nd birthday on Friday, was driving his tractor when it hit a pile of wood -- which included an empty chicken coop that contained 22 honeycombs. An estimated 40,000 killer bees swarmed and stung him to death, KCEN-TV reports.

Goodwin had apparently been on his neighbor's property when he upset the hive. The neighbor's wife and daughter tried to help, and got stung approximately a hundred times between the two of them. One of these women also remain in critical condition.

"Killer bee" deaths are not common, having occurred just a handful of times in the past, according to federal figures. Still, can anybody be held liable for a killer bee death? It depends.

Potential Premises Liability

Under the theory of premises liability, property owners can be held liable, depending on the circumstances, for accidents and injuries that occur on their property.

Factors that determine liability usually depend on the status of the visitor who was hurt. There's generally no liability for trespassers, for example. But for guests who are on the property with the owner's consent or awareness, there is generally a higher standard of ensuring a safe premises. (Based on news reports, it's not entirely clear if Goodwin was technically trespassing or not.)

However, that safety standard is often limited to circumstances that the owner is aware of, or would be aware of through a reasonable inspection. So in this case, if the neighbor knew about the killer bee hive and did nothing to get rid of it or warn guests on his property, then he could potentially be found liable for the injury or death of a visitor.

Animal Liability and Negligence

Further details are not known at this point as to whether or not the bees were actually owned by the neighbor or anybody. However, in the general case of animal liability, owners of the animals in question can be held responsible. While commonly liability for animals applies to dogs and their owners, this can extend to beekeepers and their bees as well.

State laws on bee liability vary, but if the bee is considered a wild animal in that state, then the beekeper could be held strictly liable.

Related Resources:

'Killer bees' leave Texas man dead, woman in serious condition (NBC News)
Does the Type of Animal Affect a Bite Injury Case? (FindLaw)
Chimps Escape in Vegas: 1 Killed, 1 Captured (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
Browse Personal Injury Lawyers by Location (FindLaw)

'Google Breakup': A Streetview Invasion of Privacy?

2013-05-31T16:30:01Z

Nobody wants Google Streetview capturing their saddest moments and displaying them on the internet, especially their breakups.

But that's what seems to have happened to this Southern California woman, who had her picture taken at what might as well have been 123 Dumpsville Road.

Is Google Streetview invading your privacy by memorializing your pain on their maps?

You can see the Google Streetview "breakup" image in question on Imgur and Reddit.

U.S. privacy law serves to protect the private lives and information of those within its jurisdiction, and typically taking photos of someone in a private moment is considered an illegal intrusion of solitude.

However, this law does not apply to photos of someone taken in public, and the unfortunate Google dumpee appears to be on a public street.

Even if it isn't illegal, just like with Facebook photos, the person pictured in the Streetview photo may contact Google and ask them to remove it

What About the (Alleged) Breakup Story?

Although Google Streetview has taken photos of people in very private moments (such as men urinating in their yards), it doesn't editorialize.

The story of the girl being dumped -- if it's even true -- didn't come from Google, it came from user Ipmark04 on Reddit, who describes the picture as "the glorious moment" when his friend kicked his ex-girlfriend to the curb.

This woman in the picture may not be able to sue Google, but she may be able to sue Ipmark04 for false light, a form of invasion of privacy. Similar to suing for defamation, an invasion of privacy lawsuit may be successful if it's proven that:

Ipmark04 published the photo of her on Reddit,
Ipmark04 posted the photo with reckless disregard,
The photo and his comments are misleading (they don't need to be false), and
Being painted as a brutal dump victim is embarrassing to a reasonable person.

Even though Google has already settled for millions for some of its Streetview privacy violations, potential liability for this one, if any, appears to be on Redditor Ipmark04.

Related Resources:

Pray that the Street View cam doesn't capture your breakup like this (MSN Now)
Google Admits Street View Cars Collected Private Data (FindLaw's Common Law)
Google's Street View: Too Revealing? (FindLaw's Technologist)
Google Street View Wiretapping Lawsuit Proceeds (FindLaw's Technologist)

7 Dead in Upstate N.Y. Runaway Trailer Crash

2013-05-30T17:20:01Z

Seven people were killed in upstate New York after a runaway trailer collided with a minivan on a rural two-lane highway.

The crash happened south of Syracuse about 6 p.m. Wednesday, when a trailer dislodged and crossed the center line, hitting a minivan carrying eight people. Seven people in the minivan, including four children, were killed, the Associated Press reports.

While officials have yet to determine what exactly caused the accident, something made the trailer come loose. The tragedy serves as a reminder of how important it is to safely secure items being towed, especially as the summer travel season gets underway.

Potential Liability

It's not just commercial trailers that can come loose. An improperly attached boat, camper, or other towed item can potentially make you liable for injuries or, as in this tragic case, deaths.

For example, make sure hitch pins are safely secured. If a pin is missing any clips, replace it immediately. Also, don't rely on one safety chain -- use two or more.

In this case, there were thunderstorms and steady showers -- including hail -- in the area, reports the AP. During inclement weather, it is crucial to take extra steps to securely fasten the towed item.

Case in Point

If you fail to take those precautions, you could end up like 25-year-old Amanda Engelhart of Minnesota, who pleaded guilty to careless driving and unsafe equipment, reports Minneapolis' KARE-TV. Her unhitched trailer killed a father and his 3-year-old daughter.

Engelhart spent 30 days in jail, but that punishment pales in comparison to her guilt.

"You don't ever get over something like this," she told KARE. Thinking of the young widow, she continued, "I just couldn't imagine that being the last time you're seeing your little girl and your husband."

"This should never have happened," the Minnesota state trooper who conducted the investigation said about Engelhart's case. "This was completely avoidable, in every sense of the word."

Related Resources:

Runaway trailer kills 7 in N.Y., including 4 kids (CBS News)
5 Things You Shouldn't Do After a Car Accident (FindLaw's Injured)
Wrongful Death Suit Filed in Duck Boat Incident (FindLaw's Injured)
Browse Car Accident Lawyers by Location (FindLaw)