Personal Injury Archive

3 Reasons why a 4 Year Old shouldn’t be Sued for Negligence

November 1st, 2010. By AbiK

So, did you know a four-year-old can be sued for negligence. It’s a mommy alert if I ever heard one. And even though the decision to allow such to happen is rooted in precedent (see below), there are three reasons why it just seems silly to consider a four-year-old old enough to be a defendant in a negligence lawsuit. Here’s what happened.

It’s sort of a Cindy Adams “only in New York, folks, only in New York” moment. Just last week, Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan ruled that a four-year-old can be sued for negligence. He, of course, is basing this on what’s gone on before in such cases when a four-year-old is being brought to task in our court system—including one case in particular that he cites which dates back to 1928.

You may wonder what in heaven’s name a four-year-old could do to find herself being sued for negligence? Well, little Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn were four years old in April, 2009 when they were racing their bikes—as four-year-olds sometimes do—on a New York City sidewalk. They were apparently caught up in the excitement of it all when they accidentally hit an elderly woman, thereby causing the woman to fall and sustain a hip fracture that required surgery.

Reason #1: Uhh…She’s Four Years Old

Let’s just flash back to the age of four for a moment. You probably don’t remember what it was like, so here’s a refresher look at the “official” developmental milestones for a four-year-old…

This list comes the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) where they list these cognitive Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: 4 year old, bicycle, Juliet Breitman, Justice Paul Wooten, Negligence, NYC
Posted in Personal Injury | 11 Comments »

The Mass Tort Muser Ponders Yaz Lawsuits

October 26th, 2010. By Mass Tort Muser

Yaz (and its sib, Yasmin) has been under fire over the past couple of years. Hell hath no fury, right? And there are definitely some women out there feeling a bit scorned by big pharma on this one…

But talk about the pendulum swinging back in the opposite direction. It wasn’t all that long ago that we (women, that is) were ecstatic that finally, yes finally, there was a mere pill—such a teeny tiny helper!—that could save us from unwanted pregnancy and that God-forsaken monthly interruption—cramps and all. (Insert a “Right-on!” shout-out to Ms. Steinem, women’s lib and a few burnt bras…).

Fast-forward almost forty years…and the pill delivers zit relief, too—our cup runneth over! Breakout banisher is basically how Yaz positioned itself on center stage of the contraception market—and how it netted not only a whole new generation of pretty young things as groupies but also a wrist-slap from the FDA. Seems telling women about how clear their skin would be without telling them about potential little side effects like deep vein thrombosis or perhaps the need for gallbladder surgery wasn’t such a slick marketing move. At least they didn’t try to get shelf space next to Clearasil.

But you know all that. And here’s where the musing and pondering kick in…

Given what’s been going on with Yaz, you may be wondering why on earth there isn’t some big brouhaha going on—you know, one of those class actions. It seems whenever there’s a product—be it a lawnmower, Expedia.com’s hotel reservations, or Similac baby formula—that doesn’t do what it says it will do or causes undo harm, there’s a class action. So, what’s up with Yaz? Where the heck is my “opt in” claim form? Was I not invited?!?

Let’s look at how some of the details rack up: indeed, lots of women allege to have been harmed by Yaz—enough perhaps to even be considered a “class” or at least a sizeable cocktail party. And possible Yaz side effects are numerous—and not just your run of the mill “honey I’ve got a headache gonna lie down” type. No, these are biggies: gallbladder problems, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, heart attack, stroke… Keep in mind, too, the women getting Yaz prescriptions filled are, obviously, within child-bearing age, so they’re younger—not the typical age-range for heart attack or stroke, for example.

So why not a Yaz class action? Why not a little “you may be part of a Yaz lawsuit” postcard in the mailbox or a full-page ad of legalese in People magazine? The answer is because Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Mass Tort, Ocella, Yasmin, Yaz, Yaz lawsuit
Posted in Defective Products, Drugs/Medical, Emerging Issues, Personal Injury | No Comments »

There Will be No Lawsuits in Chile

October 14th, 2010. By Hunter West

We’ve all been enthralled, inspired, mystified while watching the successful rescue of the 33 Chilean miners unfolding on our television screens this week. It’s a compelling story that is ready-made for Hollywood—and you want to bet it will be a movie and a series of books, the options for which have already been hammered out. It would make for a worthy introductory movie for Oprah’s OWN network when she launches next year. 

The point is, an event that could have ended so tragically—didn’t. The grace of God has to certainly be a factor. So is luck. The president of Chile called it a miracle, and of course he is right. But the Chilean government and the mining authority did so many things right that by the grace of God and Lady Luck, they pretty much guaranteed a good outcome. 

Miracles can, and do get helped along by good planning. 

Compare what we have just witnessed on TV screens around the world to some disasters on our own shores—or just off them—that didn’t need to happen but did because someone, somewhere cut corners. 

Look at the BP oil spill. Of course, there is inherent risk with any drilling attempt. But oil drilling R&D over the years has come up with a series of checks, balances and safeguards that serves to minimize that risk. In the BP case it is alleged and widely believed that a number of those safeguards were skipped in the interest of haste and cost. A final inspection that would have identified deficiencies leading to a catastrophic failure, was called off. The inspection team was on the Deepwater Horizon, ready to go, when they Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Chile Miners
Posted in Employment, Personal Injury | 2 Comments »

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Video – Real Issues or Just Hype?

August 17th, 2010. By AbiK

Ok, it’s now big enough and viral enough that Cosmetics Design has even reported on it…

The Story of Stuff’s latest video on youtube.com, “The Story of Cosmetics” (above, and yes, it’s eight minutes long), has already gotten over 203,000 views. It’s not only timely because it was released on July 21st, but also because it basically rides on the coattails of the recently introduced in Congress Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. The Act states that it will give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authority to ensure that personal care products are free of harmful ingredients.

A long time coming, yes. Heck, no one wants to put questionable ingredients or suspected carcinogens on their faces or the skin of their loved ones (I’m talking infants here, not massage lotions).

But while cosmetics industry groups—such as the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC)—have also called for more stringent controls on cosmetic ingredients, the PCPC has dubbed “The Story of Cosmetics” a “shockumentary”.

What do you make of it?

Tags: Cosmetic Ingredients, FDA, Safe Cosmetics Act
Posted in Consumer Fraud, Drugs/Medical, Personal Injury | 2 Comments »

Where were all the ‘Safety Nets’ at Amusement Park?

August 4th, 2010. By LucyC

 

Never a fan of amusement park rides—including the Ferris Wheel—I read about this story with a stomach churning sense of foreboding. On July 31, 12-year old Teagan Marti fell more than 100 feet in Extreme World Amusement Park’s Terminal Velocity ‘ride’ and landed on concrete because the safety net was not in place.

Remarkably, she survived. She is in the hospital in Wisconsin, the state where the amusement park is located, in critical but stable condition. She has 10 fractures in her back and one in her skull. Her father, who is a radiologist, performed CPR on her at the scene to bring her back to life.

Dr. Alex Marti, was the first to see his daughter after her fall. During an appearance on CBS’ The Early Show on August 2, he said  “She was dead….She was basically unconscious, not moving and laying flat on her back with blood coming out of her ears and nose. Just a horrible, horrible scene. At the moment she fell and I heard that loud thud, I just assumed she was dead.”

This is everyone’s worst amusement park nightmare—the unimaginable. Why? Because you place your trust in the amusement park staff, experts, ride designers, maintenance people and God—whichever god you like—that everything has been done properly, and your safety is not at issue. Because to actually imagine what happened to Teagan is hard to do. At some point your brain kicks in and says “no—this is ridiculous—it will never happen.” As Teagan’s father put it, after having watched several people do the ‘ride’ before his daughter, “To me, it’s just impossible to imagine that something like that could happen.”

But it did. So now the debate begins—who’s at fault? At a minimum this constitutes negligence resulting in personal injury—it could have been wrongful death. Do waivers hold in these types of circumstances? An interesting point in this situation is that Teagan is 12, yet the legal age to take this ‘ride’ is 14. According to a report on CBS News, Teagan’s parents signed a consent so she could do the Terminal Velocity ride, which incidentally is intended to send you hurtling through space at 52 miles per hour— having been dropped from a barrel 100 feet above the ground–see the video above.

The fellow who let Teagan go—the man at the top of the ride—is not at work at the moment “for mental health reasons.” I would think so. But the park has also been closed as an investigation takes place.

The attorney representing Teagan apparently believes it is this man’s fault because he didn’t check to see if the safety net was in place before he let the young girl go. But I can’t help wondering why there wasn’t a back-up safety net? What would that cost to install? Next to nothing, compared with the alternatives, I’m willing to bet.  And what about procedures? Were there any in place that this man had to follow before letting Teagan go? If there weren’t, how can he be solely responsible? Teagan’s attorney told CBS that there was no failsafe method, no back-up. And he makes the point that the fact that a rider could be released prematurely demonstrates a design defect. If this had been a defective product like a car that had caused an accident, people would not hesitate in placing the blame on the manufacturers and designers, and rightfully so. Therefore, while the man who let Teagan go may have played a decisive role in this horrible accident, I don’t see how he can be held entirely to blame.

I’m also left wondering who oversees amusement park safety? CBS news reports the “US Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that more than 270 million people visit American amusement parks each year. About 7,000 are treated in emergency rooms for injuries from ride accidents. An average of four people die.”

Consequently the experts advise you not to assume all rides are safe. Ride safety expert Ken Martin told CBS News, “Watch the ride, ask questions, make sure the ride operator is paying attention. Make sure other rides are behaving themselves.” That’s exactly what Teagan’s father did.

So, if you can’t assume all rides are safe—in what instance is it safe to go on one?

Tags: Amusement Ride, Extreme World, Teagan Marti, Terminal Velocity, Wisconsin
Posted in Accidents, Emerging Issues, Personal Injury | 3 Comments »