Blog Topic
Recent Updates
June 19, 2008
Extending the Thong, err, Wrong Message
May 06, 2008
SECONDARY INJURIES DURING A WORKER?S COMPENSATION CLAIM
May 03, 2008
IMPD Officer Shelnutt at it Again?
March 19, 2008
Metal Baseball Bats Banned Due to Injuries
March 18, 2008
CAN AN INJURED PARTY SUE THEIR EMPLOYER FOR A WORK RELATED INJURY?
March 14, 2008
Legal Malpractice
March 10, 2008
Worker's Compensation
March 10, 2008
Legal Malpractice
January 25, 2008
Please Report All Work Related Injuries
January 10, 2008
Dog Bites
Archives
Personal Injury
Personal Injury
Posted by: Jason Reese
January 10, 2008
Landowners Liable for Inadequate Security
Many states differ on when a landowner may be held liable for negligent or inadequate security. Crime victims may be subjected to rape, sexual assault, murdern, or shooting. Propert owners have a legal duty to provide a reasonable safe premises for customers and the public. Indiana law requires landowners to take steps to prevent reasonably foreseeable acts of third-parties when they know or should know that cirminal activity has occurred on the premises.
Security Trade Practices--Do Not Establish Legal Standard of Care
Allen v. Ramada Inn, Inc., 778 P.2d 291 (Colo. 1989)
Allen was a guest at a motel where she occupied a garden-level room. An intruder apparently entered her room through a window from which security bars had been removed and raped the plaintiff. The motel was allegedly in a high crime area and no window stops were placed on the windows.
During trial, the defense introduced testimony concerning the security measures and features of other hotels within the city. Plaintiff did not contest the introduction of this information but asked that a jury instruction be included stating that local security trade practices do not establish the legal standard of care. The trial judge declined to include the instruction and was subsequently reversed on appeal.
Liability Significance: The notion that if the adjacent property has a particular type of protection, so therefore I must have identical protection, is incorrect. The legal standard of care is the totality of the security measures and not any one specific measure.
Personal Injury
Posted by: Jason Reese
January 09, 2008
Escalator Injury in China Leads to $3.5M Verdict in Massachusetts
A jury awarded $3.5 million to the family of a 4-year-old boy injured on an escalator in China. While riding the escalator, the boy's hand was trapped and nearly amputated. The verdict was based on the fact that the U.S. based company Otis Elevator Co. was involved in the production of the escalators. It was found that Otis Elevator Co. chose to go with a cheaper skirt panel on the escalators instead of a safer, more expensive skirt panel.
Full Story - http://www.masslaw.com/010408.cfm
