Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer - Property Owner's Liability (Slip & Fall)

Lawsuit Over Taser Use on Epileptic Settles for $90,000

Jenny Albano — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:55:37 GMT

A lawsuit for tasing and punching a man who had just had an epileptic seizure has been settled for $90,000. In addition, the settlement mentioned a new policy on Taser use in Lakewood in the $300,000 lawsuit brought against the municipality, the police department, Chief Larry Saunders and four other officers.

According to Lt. David B. Guttu, the Taser policy changes listed in the settlement were not a direct result of the case. Under the new policy officers have to consider whether someone might have a medical condition, such as multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy or epilepsy, before using a taser on the person.

The case arose after Grider, 63, had a seizure and passed out at the auto parts store where he worked as a clerk. A co-worker called 911, an emergency medical crew was dispatched and the medics requested police aid, saying Grider had regained consciousness and was aggressive and threatening, according to a report by Officer Reynaldo Z. Punzalan.

The police report stated that Grider wouldn't let the medics check him and resisted when the police officers tried to calm him and tell him he needed medical attention. He also continued to resist when he was stunned with a few 50,000 volt bursts. After this, Punzalan punched Grider in the face, handcuffed him, and had medics take him to the hospital. No criminal charges were filed against either party.

Grider claims that he told medics he didn't need to go to the hospital and had made plans to get a ride home. He stated that he had seizures occasionally that he quickly recovered from without problems and did not need medical care.

But according to a police report, "Fire Department personnel told us they have dealt with Grider before, and he got very violent that time as well ... they also told us he had to get medical help."

Hostile behavior is not unusual when someone is recovering from a seizure, according to an Epilepsy Foundation report entitled Inappropriate Response to Seizures. "Accordingly, restraint of persons soon after a seizure may exacerbate or precipitate combativeness the opposite of the intended result," according to the report.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Breach of Trust and Confidence

Michael Myers — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 10:05:59 GMT

A female patient of Dr. Chris Woodja, a dentist who practiced in the Shoreline area, was found heavily drugged and half-naked in his office on October 17th.

The patient had come in for treatment of an abscessed tooth. Reportedly, Woodja had contacted the patient's roommates prior to the appointment and requested that the patient bring "the additional four tablets of Triazolam" he had prescribed to the office. Triazolam is a sedative.

When the patient's roommates arrived at the office to take her home they observed her wandering around in only a tank top and clearly drugged.

She was so over-medicated that she doesn't remember anything of the incident. She was taken to Harborview Medical Center for treatment.

In 1999 Dr. Chris Wodja was charged with misdemeanor assault and battery of a 16-year old girl.

This case bears a striking resemblance to the cases we're handling for former patients/clients of Drs. Greenberg and Kamson. It's difficult to imagine a situation more egregious than when a physician or other doctor takes advantage of the trust and confidence put in him and misuses that trust and confidence to gratify his prurient sexual desires or financial avarice.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Gig Harbor Woman Mauled in Pit Bull Attack

Mark McLean — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:39:27 GMT

Sue Ann Gorman of Gig Harbor was mauled by two pit bulls in her home Tuesday morning. The pit bulls entered the house through an unsecured pet door in Ms. Gorman's home. Ms. Gorman was sleeping beside her neighbor's Jack Russell Terrier, Romeo. Romeo was killed and Ms. Gorman was severely injured in the attack.

She said she tried to protect Romeo and, in doing so, suffered wounds that will require multiple surgeries.

The pit bulls were owned by another of Ms. Gorman's neighbors. Apparently, this was not the first of the pit bulls' attacks.

Under Washington law, dog owners are strictly liable for injuries caused by pets. Also, the Washington legislature intelligently abolished the antiquated law that "every dog gets one free bite." Liability for a dog attack is often covered under the owner's homeowner's insurance policy--which would help victims of such attacks recover on a potential judgment or settlement.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark McLean

Court of Appeals Dismisses Jury Award Because Case Brought Too Late

Mark McLean — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:04:17 GMT

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently tossed out a jury verdict awarding a cancer victim $300,000. The victim won her lawsuit alleging that the radiation she was exposed to at Hanford Nuclear Reserve caused her cancer. The Court of Appeals tossed out the verdict because it was not brought within the mandatory statute of limitations (the time period one has to bring a claim, or it becomes barred).

"A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said a lower court erred in its ruling because plaintiff Gloria Wise's case fell outside the statute of limitations."

This is another unfortunate example of how--if you have a personal injury claim--you should be speaking with an attorney right away. Sitting on legal rights has disastrous consequences. Evidence fades away. Facts become harder to prove. Most importantly, the claim could lapse and become barred.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Premises Liability.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark McLean

Mercer Island Priest Accused of Inappropriate Conduct

Mark McLean — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:21:45 GMT

Father Dennis Kemp, Pastor at St. Monica's Church on Mercer Island, has been suspended during the pendency of an investigation into allegations of inappropriate conduct with a minor. Details surrounding the allegations have not been released and the King County Prosecutors' Office has declined to press charges.

It appears that Father Kemp will not face criminal charges for the alleged conduct. However, he still could be liable in a civil lawsuit if the victim can prove that the inappropriate activity occurred. In criminal cases, the state must prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, in most civil cases, the plaintiff only needs to show the truth of the allegations by a "preponderance of the evidence"--which means more likely than not. Just because someone isn't prosecuted criminally doesn't mean they aren't still liable in the civil context.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark McLean

Home Depot Faces Lawsuit for Injuries Suffered from 600 Pound Box

Mark McLean — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:12:05 GMT

Home Depot could be held liable to a Louisiana couple for injuries the wife suffered when she was struck by a 600-pound box that fell from one of the store's shelves.

A Louisiana couple has hit Home Depot Inc. with a lawsuit, asking the court to hold the home improvement giant accountable for the substantial injuries the wife allegedly sustained after being hit by a 600 pound box that fell from one of the store's highest shelves.

A store which welcomes customers for commercial gain is held to the "business invitee" standard of care to prevent negligent acts (which is higher than the ordinary negligence standard). Understandably so, businesses who invite the public onto its premises for profit (like Home Depot here) are required to take extra measures to protect customers. And companies are held liable for failing to do so.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark McLean

Australian Official Recommends Criminal Charges in Cruise Ship Rape and Death

Mark McLean — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:11:22 GMT

The 2002 rape and eventual killing of a cruise ship patron has led Australian officials to recommend criminal charges. Dianne Brimble died after a fellow cruise patron slipped her "Fantasy", a date rape drug.

P & O Cruises, associated with Carnival Cruise Line, apologized to the woman's family.

Our responsibility is to create an environment onboard our ships where we do all we can to make sure people are safe, that behaviour is appropriate and our passengers enjoy their holiday. Our next concern is how we respond if people don't behave appropriately, regardless of what we do to try to prevent such behaviour.

As P & O admits, cruise lines have a "responsibility" for the safety of their passengers. Failing to adequately protect passengers, even from one another, fails to meet this responsibility. P & O's apology to the woman's family shows that greater steps need to be taken by cruise lines to ensure passenger safety and that cruises should be held liable for failing to take those necessary steps.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Airlines, Cruises, Buses, and Other Mass Transit Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark McLean

License Suspended for Psychologist Accused of Voyeurism

Mark McLean — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:13:26 GMT

The Washington State Department of Health suspended Seattle Psychologist Stuart Greenberg's license to practice after allegations that he videotaped his patients and employees using the bathroom recently.

State regulators suspended the license of veteran Seattle psychologist Stuart Greenberg on Thursday over accusations that he videotaped women using his office bathroom.

Greenberg faces criminal charges. But he could also be subject to civil liability to the victims of his voyeurism. A number of legal theories allow victims of this type of behavior redress.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark McLean

Fourth of July Fireworks: As Always, Way too Many Injuries

Mark McLean — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:10:37 GMT

Without fail, fireworks cause serious personal injuries throughout the country every Fourth of July. Seattle is no exception. Harborview treated 32 injuries as a result of fireworks this year.

Often fireworks injuries happen due to the handler's own behavior. Not always. This year, a man was seriously injured when a rocket exploded on a barge on Big Lake in Mount Vernon.

Yesterday, a colleague told me about an even worse situation at an elementary school in Northern Virginia, where a fireworks show gone terribly wrong left children with life-threatening injuries.

There are plenty of potential defendants in this situation. The manufacturer of the fireworks. The operator of the barge. The list goes on. When companies choose to profit on a product as dangerous as fireworks, they should be held accountable for the injuries their incredibly dangerous products cause.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark McLean

Fall on Sidewalk? Plenty of Potential Defendants Including Landowner, Business Owner and City

Michael Myers — Thu, 10 May 2007 08:12:33 GMT

When you fall on a sidewalk there are a number of potentially responsible parties. These responsible parties can be put into three major categories: Municipality, abutting landowner, and abutting business owner.

While the city generally has a primary responsibility to maintain sidewalks (different rules may apply to parking strips and planting strips) responsibility can also fall on the shoulders of abutting land and business owners. (Abutting in this context means owning property that runs up to the edge of the sidewalk (and in many instances beneath the sidewalk)).

Liability for all three groups can flow from both acts and omissions. For instance, an abutting landowner may be held liable if a tree on his or her property grows roots which cause a portion of the sidewalk to tip up (this condition is generally known as a "stub toe"). Similarly the city may be held liable for failure to either properly construct or maintain the sidewalk. Abutting business owners can be held liable for causing slippery substances - like oil - to make their way onto the sidewalk (this is often the case with service stations).

In certain situations it make sense to file suit against defendants falling into all three classes. In others, it makes sense to focus on only one (for instance, the city responsible for maintaining the sidewalk). In order to make the best decision about the potential defendants in the loss, it makes sense to consult with a personal injury attorney.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers