Personal Injury Archive

3 for Hall of Shame Forgot their School Lessons (1st up, BP)

July 22nd, 2010. By Hunter West

There are three events going on in the world right now that are downright shameful. And while the three are not at all related, there is enough of a common denominator to illicit a cry of, “what the hell???…” 

Item: BP somehow manages to unleash the worst oil spill in US history. The environment, fragile eco-systems and the livelihoods of thousands of innocent people are affected by the misguided actions of a few… 

Item: Toyota knew in 1996 that there was a problem with the steering rods in its sport utility vehicles (the 4Runner over here, but marketed under another name in Japan). Toyota quietly switched the rods to a better version, but didn’t tell anybody. It was only when the accidents started happening in Japan that they bowed to a recall in their own country. In 2004, eight years later. Oh, but the 4Runners in the US are fine, they said. 

A year later, in 2005, they recalled more than 900,000 vehicles 1996 and prior… 

Item: More than 1000 war veterans will have to be tested for communicable diseases such Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: BP, BP Oil Spill, Toyota, VA Hospital, Veterans
Posted in Personal Injury | No Comments »

Who’s at Fault if Suicide Deterrents Fail?

July 9th, 2010. By AbiK

A study done by Canadian researchers looks at suicide barriers—those grids or bars on bridges and places like the observation deck of the Empire State Building that are supposed to prevent would-be suicide victims. According to an article at healthfinder.gov, the study showed that, “suicide barriers on bridges may fail to reduce overall rates of people jumping to their deaths because jumpers may go elsewhere to commit suicide.”

I read that line and thought, “No kidding.”

Read it again to ensure you understand what the study was trying to ascertain. The idea was to see if having suicide barriers in a geographical area translated into a lower suicide rate for that area as a whole—ie, not just whether the rate of suicides went down at the specific location where the barriers had been installed.

The article goes on to quote Dr. Mark Sinyor, resident physician at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre’s psychiatry department as saying, “This research shows that constructing a barrier on a bridge with a high rate of suicide by jumping is likely to reduce or eliminate suicides at that bridge but it may not alter absolute suicide rates by jumping when there are comparable bridges nearby.”

Yes, you read that correctly. And I don’t mean to belittle the study (ok, maybe I do) but let’s try to make some analogies here. Will putting a lock on a car with a GPS system inside prevent the theft of a GPS system in an unlocked car nearby? Will living in a “dry town” Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: suicide, Suicide Barriers
Posted in Defective Products, Emerging Issues, Personal Injury | 2 Comments »

Enough with the Hot Beverage Lawsuits

July 3rd, 2010. By AbiK

Flashback, 1992. Stella Liebeck. Hot coffee. From McDonald’s. You remember the case. Personal injury. She was in a car—I believe her grandson’s—riding shotgun when the coffee she received from a McDonald’s drive-thru. Apparently the car was not in motion when she went to take the lid off the coffee to add cream and sugar. And, apparently there had been a fair number of claims over the ten years prior to this incident where folks had complained about Mickey Dee’s coffee being too hot. Yes, temps were taken and the coffee you have at home is apparently 135 to 140 degrees; the drive-thru coffee was 185 degrees (plus or minus five degrees). So yeah, it was hot. And Liebeck got burned.

There was a fair amount of public outcry about this case—even though Ms. Liebeck did get burned. It seemed frivolous to many—myself included. Not because McDonald’s was in the right. But because of this question: What is the reasonable expectation that a person might get burned by a cup of hot coffee?. If you ask me, it’s pretty reasonable to expect that such might happen. Contrast with the very sad and unfortunate case that just happened last week in New York City—the baby that died as a result of a tree limb falling at the Central Park Zoo. There is no reasonable expectation that a tree limb—one that hangs on trees that are reportedly pruned regularly—will fall out of the blue and strike someone. It’s a freak of nature. Unexpected. Inexplicable. And with terrible consequences.

Not so the coffee. You buy it knowing and expecting it to be hot. Don’t believe me? Try grabbing a quick cup of Joe from Dunkin Donuts—and take a sip pronto. You’ll know what hot is. And yet, hot is an expectation of its customers. And along with that comes some risk. Risk that I know to bear personally—and to drink responsibly as a result of.

So here we are…fast-forward to 2010. Scene: Starbucks in Bensonhurst, NY. Villona Maryash orders tea. She’s in the Starbucks with her 5-month old son in a stroller next to her. She receives the tea, and according to nypost.com, awaits her food order. She picks up the tea to take a sip, and heavens to Betsy—realizes it’s hot. So she drops it. The tea spills over her son, “causing ‘serious injuries'”.

Here’s the beef: the lawsuit claims the tea was “improperly served”. That it did not have the omnipresent protective sleeve on it (and gee, is it now enough for coffee houses to simply provide a stack of the sleeves at the milk and sugar bar, as so many do?). Maryash’s lawyer goes as far as to say “proper” serving would’ve also meant it would’ve come on a tray as well. When was the last time you ordered a drink—sans food as the food wasn’t there yet—and got it on a tray at an establishment where, I’m guessing, 85% of the patrons order drinks to-go?

I don’t know what damages are being sought. And I am certainly sorry that a young, innocent and helpless child was on the receiving end of the spilled tea. That’s not in question here. But when will we learn that a hot beverage is, uh, HOT? That extra care needs to be taken upon taking a hot drink from the cashier. That it’s reasonable to expect that the hot drink may be just hot enough to cause a burn…

Tags: hot coffee, hot tea, starbucks
Posted in Personal Injury | 1 Comment »

Let’s Get Real about David Carradine’s Death

June 4th, 2010. By AbiK

I’m a David Carradine fan. Well, I’m a fan of David Carradine in movies. I didn’t know David personally, so I can’t say if I’m a personal fan. And be that as it may, I’ve tried to separate out his on-film image from the images conjured up by the reports of his death in Bangkok last year.

The images of David being found dead in a hotel closet with ropes around his neck and genitals.

I didn’t need to know that David. But thanks to the widespread press, I now do.

Why do I bring this up now? Because now David Carradine’s widow, Anne, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the French production company that was managing Carradine’s final film.

Anne’s lawsuit alleges that the production company, MK2 SA, could’ve prevented the actor’s death if they had provided him with “all the best amenities” and “sufficient assistance”.

I’m not sure just what the hell that means, but after reading several (ok, many) news sources on the story, it appears that David et al were supposed to go to dinner on the night of his demise. When someone from the production company (that would be his aforementioned “assistance”) called to arrange picking David up, David did not answer the phone. So the dinner party left without him. David apparently called a bit later and the dinner party was already across town—so he was on his own to get himself to the dinner.

He never made it. We know where he made it.

The above crossing of the wires re: dinner plans is apparently part of the “negligence” Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Bangkok, David Carradine, MK2 SA
Posted in Personal Injury | No Comments »

Button Batteries: Convenient for you – and Baby, too

May 28th, 2010. By Hunter West

One can’t imagine the horror of discovering that your child has swallowed a battery. But it happens—and it’s occurring with increasing frequency, according to a study published this week in the medical journal Pediatrics.

It’s bad enough when a child swallows anything not meant to enter the mouth and the life-threatening choking hazard that can ensue. But just as dangerous—if more so—is the potential for an ingested battery to do permanent damage resulting from the electric charge still inherent with the ingested battery.

As reported earlier this week by CNN, there has been a 6.7 fold increase in the percentage of severe outcomes from battery ingestion over the last 24 years. What’s more, the severity of those outcomes, or injuries, has worsened. Reports have included damage to, and destruction of the esophagus, perforation of the aorta and vocal cord paralysis.

A common culprit, as described in the study, is the 20mm lithium battery.

You know these batteries. They’re the ones that look like a dime, or a penny. It’s the same concept as the small, button batteries that power your watch. And you can see the need for using these compact batteries, given the ever-shrinking size of electronics. Everything is getting smaller, including remotes for electronic devices. Remotes are everywhere, and most households have a collection of them lying around, in plain view and available for a toddler to locate, pick up and jam in his mouth.

That’s what children do. Everything goes in their mouths. And it always happens just when your back is turned for a split second. Call it Parental Murphy’s Law.

While I don’t dispute the need for smaller batteries (some products are so small and thin, even the small, ‘AAA’ batteries are way too big), where is the caution on the part of electronics manufacturers to baby-proof their devices?

I have four children. The oldest is 35 and the youngest is 14—so I’ve been through a lot of parenting and a basketful of toys, some of which were battery-powered. Most of the toys designed for children Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Batteries, Button Batteries, Lithium Batteries
Posted in Personal Injury | 1 Comment »