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

Toddler Dies in Day Care Accident

Michael Myers — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:57:48 GMT

A 17 month old child died last Thursday as the result of a tragic accident that occurred at her day care provider. The infant, Jaclyn Frank, was apparently strangled on a set of blinds at her Bothel day care facility. The King County Medical Examiner ruled the death an accident. The King County Sheriff's Office is investigating. Jaclyn's father, Larry Frank, described his daughter as "the sweetest, most innocent girl I've ever known." For more information about this story, read the following links: Infant dies in day care tragedy; Infant Strangles on Day Care Blinds.

Although no criminal charges have been filed against the day care facility the Frank family may file a civil lawsuit for negligent supervision.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

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

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

Sidewalks and Stub-Toes

Michael Myers — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:02:33 GMT

Sidewalks are a big part of American life. They evoke images of neighborhoods, kids riding their bikes and walking from one place to another (instead of driving).

Sidewalks, however, are not without their drawbacks. Seattle must have some of the most dilapidated sidewalks in the nation. One of the primary obstacles is the stub-toe.

A stub-toe is created when one section of sidewalk settles or another is pushed up, usually by roots. Seattle sidewalks are punctuated with stub-toes.

Both the City and the adjoining property owners are responsible for sidewalk maintenance. They have to make sure sidewalks are not unreasonably dangerous.

Stub-toes are not hard to fix. But apparently neither the City nor property owners view them as a priority. As a result a lot of people trip on stub-toes and get hurt.

In trip and fall lawsuits, defendants try to make the rules up as they go. Fortunately when it comes to stub-toes they’re constrained by a set of very stringent standards.

American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Safe Walking Surfaces (ASTM F 1637-02) has specific requirements for sidewalks including:

- Changes in sidewalk levels between 1/4 and 1/2 inch shall be beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2 (rise:run)

- Changes in levels greater than 1/2 inch shall be transitioned by means of a ramp or stairway that complies with applicable building codes, regulations, standards, ordinances, or all of these.

The ASTM cuts property owners very little slack for stub-toes. That makes sense. They present a significant hazard to pedestrians and can be easily fixed.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

Michael Myers — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:36:12 GMT

At least 100 people, including one man who died, suffered carbon monoxide poisoning after they dragged generators and charcoal grills inside to stay warm following widespread power outages in Western Washington. A 26-year-old Kirkland man was found dead in his home yesterday with a generator running in the living room. Other victims as young as 11 months were treated at Seattle-area hospitals after inhaling carbon monoxide. Today at least five people remain at Harborview Medical Center, one in serious condition and the others stable. Virginia Mason has treated more than 55 victims in its hyperbaric chamber, which re-oxygenates the blood.

Guests of the homeowners who decided to bring their grills and generators indoors have personal injury claims against their hosts. These claims should be covered by the hosts' homeowner policies and should be pursued.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Bar Fight Raises Question of Premises Liability

Michael Myers — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:51:56 GMT

At approximately 1:00 a.m. on Monday, November 21, 2005 George Mosher Jr. was stabbed to death outside of Eli's Pub in Kent. Mr. Mosher was an off-duty pub employee who was trying to break up a fight that had erupted outside the establishment. His assailants stabbed him in the chest, puncturing his lung and severing his aorta. They then fled the scene before police arrived. For more information about the incident, click on the following links: Man Killed Outside Bar in Kent; Man Killed in Bar Fight Identified

Instances such as this raise issues of premises liability and negligent security. Bar owners owe their patrons a duty to guard against known dangerous conditions. The Washington Supreme Court has held that landowners may be liable for failing to provide reasonable levels of security to protect their patrons from the criminal conduct of third parties. In the case of Nivens v. 7-11 Hoagy's Corner the Court held that a customer who had been assaulted by a group of loitering teenagers could sue 7-11 for failing to provide a security guard to protect against the loiterers.

If Eli's Pub failed in its duty to provide adequate security Mr. Mosher's estate may have a cause of action against the bar.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Injuries On The Reservation – Do The Tribes Have A Dog In The Fight?

Michael Myers — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:13:54 GMT

Indian casinos punctuate Washington’s landscape. A quick glance into the rearview mirror while driving along any interstate or highway shows a backdrop of brightly lit buildings advertising slots and tables.

As tribes built casinos in the 1990s I assumed that it didn’t make sense to pursue personal injury claims against the Indians. After all, all personal injury claims must be filed in tribal court on the reservation. It seemed like there would be a strong bias against plaintiffs, a bias not based on race, but rather the personal injury plaintiff’s desire to take some of the tribe’s money.

My initial assumption proved incorrect. Despite being major economic players, the tribes do not self-insure. Like most businesses they carry policies of insurance. Payments made to injured visitors, particularly non-tribal members injured in the casinos, come from their insurance carriers.

The fact that payment isn’t coming straight out of the tribes’ accounts goes a long way toward eliminating the bias and self-interest that caused so much initial concern. The tribes have a strong cultural sense of hospitality and want to make sure guests are treated fairly and with respect. If there is negligence, the tribal court will make sure injured guests are treated fairly.

Because the tribes are not paying out of pocket, these claims are definitely worth pursuing. This is particularly true when the injury takes place at a casino owned by a tribe that has adopted or turns to guidance from the Washington State Court Rules or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

All that being said, I think it’s important to end with a cautionary note: Tribes are not subject to the three year statute of limitations that applies to most tort claims in the state of Washington. Because they are effectively sovereign nations, tribes are allowed to enact any statute of limitation they want. These limitation periods certainly can be less than three years and in some cases as short as sixty days. It’s important not to delay when an injury occurs on Indian Land.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

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

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

Woman Beaten by Husband Wins Civil Suit

Michael Myers — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:08:35 GMT

Before her divorce was final, Deborah Martin sued her husband, Ernest John Lofgren, for beating her and causing her to suffer a broken cheekbone, broken nose and dislocated jaw, as well as severe dental injuries. Fairfax County jurors decided Lofgren needed to do more than just a short jail stint. They ordered him to pay Martin $550,000, in part for the extensive bills to repair her face -- and mind -- and to make a statement that domestic violence is intolerable, jurors said.

There is a popular misconception that family members may not sue one another. Family members can sue one another for not only intentional injuries, like those described here, but also in sitautions where family members are negligent. Car accidents are usually the most frequent basis for one family member suing another.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers