Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous - Most Popular

Farm Injuries - Part 2 - Tractor Rollovers

Kevin Coluccio — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:24:34 GMT

I remember one summer while I was working on my Uncle's farm a local farmer being killed when the tractor he was driving rollovered and on top of him. It was a tragic event for the farming community. Unfortunately, tractor rollovers are all too common. We have handled a few such cases over the years.

Rollovers are generally due to driving too fast for conditions; striking surface hazards such as rocks, stumps or holes; running into ditches; driving on steep slopes; and operating front-end loaders improperly. All too often, safety is put aside to save time.

Most farm workers learn how to drive tractors by "trial & error". Tractor safety manuals and classes on how to safely operate farm tractors are not readily available.

One other problem is that young kids are allowed to operate tractors and they don't appreciate the dangers associated with driving a tractor. I started driving a tractor when I was 14 years old. The first time I operated a tractor, I nearly drove it thru a fence. I spent hours upon hours in open fields prepping grass for baling and learning how to operate a tractor. As I watched and learned, I began to understand the dangers and risks involved with driving a tractor. The death of the local farmer also reinforced my need to drive as safely as possible and to avoid any risks.

Farm tractors are one of the most important pieces of equipment on farms. The safe operation of farm tractors is essential to farm workers. More needs to be done to make sure that drivers are properly trained and kids do not start driving at too young an age. Proposed limits on what kids can do on farms is getting some push-back, but, some safety tools need to be in place to protect against injuries or deaths cause by tractor rollovers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Kevin Coluccio

Ski Resorts: Why Aren’t They Common Carriers?

Michael Myers — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:34:04 GMT

I drove across Interstate 90 this afternoon. There was snow in the mountains by Exit 42. It looks like we are going to have a stellar year. Many thanks in advance to La Nina.

The snow in the mountains turned thoughts not only to skiing but also cases arising from ski accidents.

In many other states chairlift operators are considered common carriers. Common carriers under Washington law get paid to transport people from one place to another. They are held to the highest standard of care.

Ski resort owners in Washington take the position that they shouldn’t be considered common carriers. Specifically, they point to a statute that sat dormant for the last 45 years.

The statute indicates that people and businesses that run chairlifts should not be considered common carriers. However, this dormant statute has not been cited by any appellate court in the entire State of Washington for almost half a century.

It’s my opinion that the failure of any court to recognize let alone rely on this perverted (I say perverted not in a sexual sense but perverted in the fact that it contorts the common law) statute means it isn't really the law of the land. Letting the statute sit idle for almost half a century renders it ineffective. If a law is not going to be applied and enforced, it’s no longer a law.

Ski resorts should be held to the same standards as other common carriers like taxicabs, railroads, bus companies, etc. There is no reason to provide special treatment and, in doing so, deprive skiers of the safety they deserve.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Farming Injuries - Part 1

Kevin Coluccio — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:23:54 GMT

I spent my summers growing up and many of my weekends during the school year on this farm. It is still owed and operated by my Uncle, who is one of the most wonderful persons in the world. He bought this farm with his mother after his father passed away. He was a young man at the time. He not only worked this farm, but, he also worked graveyard at the Boeing Company. He taught me how to work hard and the importance of loyalty, trust, honor and truthfulness. I don't recall ever hearing him complain, even though he worked two jobs and had little time to sleep.

I learned many lessons on the farm, including how to drive, how to fix things, how to milk a cow and the importance of following instructions. I can also share that there were many "close" calls with accidents. I think about some of the unsafe conditions that we encountered and the fact that many of the tasks I undertook were learned by "trial & error". Now, I came out of the experience without any lasting injuries and view my time of the farm as one of the most valuable experiences of my life. My farm experiences shaped many of the important characteristics that drew me to the law. Over the next several blogs, I plan to share information and thoughts about the important topic of farm injuries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Kevin Coluccio

Legal Malpractice Claims Expected to Rise in 2009. One Big Factor: Attorneys Practicing Outside their Core Areas

Michael Myers — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:22:52 GMT

Experts predict that the current economic downturn will give rise to an increasing number of legal malpractice lawsuits. Historically, claims against lawyers escalate during economic downturns.

There are several different reasons for the increase in malpractice claims: (1) assets lose value; (2) deals go sideways; and (3) attorneys start practicing outside of their core competence. This last reason is perhaps the most interesting.

Lawyers feeling economic pressure are more likely to retain work they would otherwise refer out to someone with more specific knowledge. We see this with increasing frequency when it comes to personal injury claims.

Instead of referring personal injury claims to personal injury attorneys, business and real estate and family law attorneys are starting to handle these claims to prop up their own sagging practices. This leads to a host of problems.

While personal injury claims can see simple on their faces, they are laced with complexities and really only can be competently handled by experienced practioners. There are just too many "hidden" traps for the occassional practitioner.

The bottom line for clients and attorneys is very much the same: make sure that personal injury cases are handled by personal injury attorneys. It's the best thing for the client and, in the long run, the best thing for the business or real estate or family law attorney who first speaks with the client.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Childhood Sexual Abuse - It's Virtually Never "Too Late" to Hold the Accuser Accountable

Mike Myers — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:21:07 GMT

Pedophiles are criminals. They're also cunning. Their "party line" involves a mixture of rationalization and victimization. This is on full display at the Nambla website. It offers a litany of excuses and justifications of sexual relationships between adults and children.

Sexual abuse is prevalent. Even rampant. It's been going on for thousands of years. The most recent headlines have been made by the Boy Scouts, Catholic Church and Mormon Church.

There are a lot of reasons victims don't want to come forward. One of them is that they feel like they have waited too long. But in Washington that's rarely the case. Washington has one of the most expansive statutes of limitations in the whole country.

Washington law goes beyond repressed memory. The statute of limitations on a claim for sexual abuse does not begin to run until the discovery of the "causal relationship between injury and abuse." The statute applies not only to claims against abusers but also to claims against negligent third parties (like spouses and employers).

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Myers

Positively False—A Million Little Pieces (Class Action) Redux

Michael Myers — Sat, 22 May 2010 12:43:28 GMT

We sued James Frey and Random House for falsely promoting A Million Little Pieces as an accurate account of Mr. Frey’s trials and tribulations with drugs and alcohol. The lawsuit generated refunds for people who purchased the book and—we thought—taught the publishing industry something about due diligence and the consequences of turning a blind eye to author’s opportunistic use the “non-fiction” label.

Apparently the publishing industry (particularly Simon & Schuster) needs another reminder. And so does Floyd Landis. Dave Rosenthal offers a good description in the Baltimore Sun:

In his memoir, published in 2007, Landis took a defiant stand, saying he was innocent of the doping accusations and victim of cycling's establishment. The publisher described the book this way: "Floyd Landis details the highs and lows of his career with unabashed honesty. It is this same honesty with which he will clear his name once and for all ... and finally lays to rest the scandal that threatened to destroy everything he's worked so hard to achieve." And that tone is clear, from the book's opening words: "I have nothing to hide."

This week we will be filing a nationwide class action seeking refunds for all persons who paid (MSRP $24.95) for Positively False. Please let us know if you’re interested in participating.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Falling Trees--When Should the Property Owner be Held Liable?

Michael Myers — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:37:44 GMT

Owning property with trees isn't considered an ultra-hazardous activity in Washington. So liability is determined based on garden variety negligence principles.

Cases dealing with the liability of adjoining property owners for damages caused by falling trees are all over the board. The traditional rule from the Restatement (Second) of Torts is frequently used:

A possessor of land in an urban area is subject to liability to persons using a public highway for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm arising from the condition of trees on the land near the highway.

In Albin v. National Bank, 60 Wn.2d 745, 375 P.2d 487 (1962), a windstorm knocked a tree across a county road killing the occupant of a passing car and injuring its driver. The road passed through a heavily wooded, but recently logged, mountainous area.

The Albin court approved the dismissal of the wrongful death action against the County. But the Albin court reached a different result with regard to the landowner.

It reasoned that because the landowner had altered the property from its natural state by logging it, there was a jury question as to his liability. In particular, Albin found it significant that the landowner had altered a natural condition that resulted in injury and it also recognized that the property was located in a rural setting.

Albin supports the proposition that a landowner may be liable if he has actual or constructive notice that an alteration to a natural condition creates a hazard to persons on adjacent property.

Albin is also consistent with the evolution of the law with regard to trees adjacent to other property. In general, the owner of land located in or adjacent to an urban or residential area has a duty of reasonable care to prevent defective trees from posing a hazard to others on the adjacent land.

It follows that a possessor or owner of urban or residential land who has actual or constructive knowledge of defective trees is under a duty to take corrective action for the protection of the plaintiff on adjacent land.

Actual or constructive notice of a 'patent danger' is an essential component of the duty of reasonable care. Absent such notice, the landowner is under no duty to 'consistently and constantly' check for defects.

Under Washington law, a person whose land is located in or adjacent to an urban or residential area and who has actual or constructive knowledge of defects affecting his trees has a duty to take corrective action.

Do you think that this is fair to the landowner? Do you think this is fair to people who may be injured by falling trees? Does the fact that most property owners have liability insurance affect how high the Court should set the landowner's duty of care?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Cruise Ship May be Liable for On-Board Doctor's Negligence

Michael Myers — Sun, 02 Apr 2006 12:47:29 GMT

Traditionally, maritime rule provides that a cruise line should not be held liable for the negligence of its on board doctor. However, the Illinois Appellate Court disagreed with the rule. In a recent case, a passenger cut his foot and was treated by the ship's doctor. He then sued the cruise line for the doctor's negligence. The court reasoned that a passenger has no choice but to seek treatment from the on-board doctor when they are injured on board. Because a cruise line should anticipate illness at sea, on-board medical treatment is part of its business. Therefore, the cruise line could be held vicariously liable for the doctor's medical negligence.

If you have been injured while on a cruise, you should contact a personal injury lawyer right away to discuss your options. Personal injury attorneys are able to maneuver within international legal systems and determine the liable parties for your injuries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Snowboarder Dies of Suffocation on Mount Baker

Michael Myers — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:36:56 GMT

Matthew Aaron Chase, a 31-year old Bellingham man, died while snowboarding last Monday at the Mount Baker Ski Area. Mr. Chase, an expert snowboarder, was riding with a friend on an advanced-level run known as The Chute when he lost contact around 12:00 p.m. Mount Baker patrollers ultimately located Mr. Chaseâ€™s body at the base of a 15 foot rock wall seven hours later. He was upside down and totally buried by snow. The snow had apparently fallen onto Mr. Chase after he rode off the 15 foot drop.

The area where Mr. Chase was riding was marked by signs indicating an approaching hazard.

An autopsy determined that suffocation caused Mr. Chaseâ€™s death. He did not suffer significant injuries prior to suffocating. The coroner ruled the death accidental.

Mr. Chase is the second person to die at Mount Baker this year. The first, Trinity McQuair, died when he fell off a 125-cliff.

More information about Mr. Chase and Mr. McQuairâ€™s accidents is available at the following links: Mount Baker Snowboarding Accident Claims Second Life; Snowboarder Killed in Accident on Mount Baker; Skier Killed In Fall On Mount Baker.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Just When it Seemed All Was Lost...The Statute of Limitations and Active Duty Servicemen

Mike Myers — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:52:30 GMT

The statute of limitations provides a deadline for filing personal injury suits. While there are some exceptions, the statute of limitations is basically three years in Washington.

If suit is not filed within three years of the date of accident, the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. But like any rule of law, there are exceptions.

One of the most important exceptions works to the benefit of active duty military. Specifically, the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act tolls the state statute of limitations for active duty servicemembers. (The cite is 50 U.S.C. Section 526.)

That means that servicemen involved in accidents (who thought they missed their chance to pursue a personal injury claim) may have extra time to obtain compensation for their damages.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Myers