News
Personal Injury
Read More
Articles
Personal Injury-Wrongful Death
I Have Been Hurt by Using a Defective Product, Who is Responsible for My Injuries?
There are many products on the market that we use today. Since the products are available to us, we assume that they have been tested, approved by the proper authorities and are safe. However, this is not always the case and injuries may occur. Products on the market that cause injuries may be found to be inherently unsafe and defective. A product may be defective in its design or in the way it was manufactured. The cause of the defect may determine the party responsible for any injuries you have suffered due to using the product. The liable parties will also depend on the type of product and the factual situation in which you were injured.
Read More
Injury Due to Medical Malpractice
Health care workers, including doctors, nurses, other hospital staff members or other health care related professionals, must be held to an industry standard of care when administering treatments to patients. The industry standard has been established by what type or level of care other health care employees/professionals would provide a patient in similar or comparable conditions. If a health care employee does not meet the industry standard of care when administering, or failing to administer, treatment to a patient and the patient is injured as a result, medical malpractice may have occurred. If this is the case, the injured individual may have a legal claim for compensation for injuries suffered. It is important to note that not all injuries a patient may suffer are the result of medical negligence. Medical treatments often have risks involved and negative results may be unavoidable. To have a medical malpractice claim, the patient’s injury must be the result of the negligent action (or inaction) of a medical health care provider.
Read More
|
|
Case Summaries
Injury & Tort Law
[03/10]
Primiano v. Cook
In an action against the manufacturer of an artificial elbow, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the exclusion of plaintiff's expert's evidence was error as plaintiff's expert, with a sufficient basis in education and experience, testified that the artificial joint "failed to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in light of its nature and intended function," which was enough to assist a trier of fact.
[03/10]
Fortis Corp. Ins. SA. v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS
In a maritime shipping case involving a claim for rust damage to steel coils caused by exposure to seawater during a journey from Poland to Ohio, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) a ship manager charged with providing a Master, officers and crew, and performing various other ship-management tasks for the shipping vessel does not qualify as a "carrier" under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), and thus the COGSA's one year-statute of limitations does not bar the underlying suit; and 2) defendant's claim that the district court's finding of negligence was based on clearly erroneous factual findings is rejected.
[03/10]
Cameron v. N.Y.
In an action for false arrest and malicious prosecution, judgment for defendant-officers is reversed where: 1) prosecutors' opinions as to probable cause and complaining officers' credibility are irrelevant in virtually all cases involving claims of malicious prosecution; and 2) the introduction of such evidence was not harmless because it provided strong external validation for propositions that otherwise would have come in only from the defendants' mouths.
[03/09]
McGuan v. Endovascular Techs., Inc.
In plaintiffs' products liability action against the makers of a device for use by surgeons to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms, for injuries suffered after they were implanted with the device, grant of defendants' motion for a summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' fraud claims of FDA violations are preempted under Buckman; 2) the trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motions to amend their complaints; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants' motion to seal documents.
Read More
|
