Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog

A Sacramento federal magistrate judge handed down his decision last week regarding a summer vacation turned tragedy. A 9-year-old boy was visiting the Lassen Volcanic National Park with his family in July of 2009, when the boy and his sister sat on a retaining wall in order to take some pictures. The wall quickly gave way, throwing both of the children down the mountainside, killing the boy and injuring his sister. The family filed a wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit against the park for its negligence in failing to maintain the wall.
In his ruling, the judge held that negligence on behalf of National Park Service officials caused the boy's death when the wall gave way. He also reprimanded the park's superintendent for making several fraudulent statements regarding evidence and interview attempts, and the alleged destruction of critical evidence relevant to the case.

The findings relate to destruction of documents during the discovery (evidence collection) portion of the case, including the shredding of an internal memorandum regarding the potential instability of the wall and other relevant documents. There were also damning statements from a governmental architect, and further evidence that the park superintendent lied about attempts to be interviewed by the park agency's inspector. The wall was also torn down within weeks following the incident, further disallowing the inspector the opportunity to inspect the wall.

Continue reading "Judge Finds National Park Service Negligent in Boy's Fall Death" »

A Texas woman has filed a wrongful death suit against the manufacturers of the drug GranuFlo, alleging that the manufacturer is responsible for the death of her husband.

The drug at the center of the lawsuit, called GranuFlo, is used for treatment in dialysis patients who are suffering from kidney failure. The integral chemical component of the drug acts by removing blood impurities which the kidneys can no longer remove on their own.

Her lawsuit claims that Fresenius USA is responsible for the death of her husband, who died two days after he received treatment with the drug. The suit alleges that the plaintiff's husband began to feel ill immediately following a dialysis treatment which involved the administration of GranuFlo. Two days after the treatment, the plaintiff called an ambulance for her husband who was complaining of pain in his chest and head. However, her husband had died of a heart attack before any help arrived. Her suit alleges that in addition to being responsible for her husband's death, the manufacturer may have known of the risks of the product as early as 2003, yet no action was taken. The woman seeks damages for her husband's pain and suffering as well as for the loss of her spouse.

March 29, 2012 was the date the FDA instituted the initial class 1 recall for Naturalyte and Granuflo Acid Concentrate. A Class 1 recall is the highest priority recall issued by the FDA, and is only issued in cases where there is a significant chance that a drug can cause serious injury or death. These products have been linked to elevated levels of bicarbonate in treated blood, which can potentially cause stroke, heart attack and death. Almost immediately, lawsuits began to be filed nationwide.

Continue reading "Dialysis Drug Subject of Wrongful Death Suits Countrywide" »

Living Essentials, LLC, the Michigan-based manufacturer of the drink marketed as 5-Hour Energy, currently faces lawsuits around the country blaming the drink’s high caffeine content for multiple injuries and deaths, or alleging that the company makes false statements regarding the drink’s contents or benefits. A nonprofit health organization recently accused the company of misquoting its executive director in an advertisement. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has named the drink in multiple reports based on consumer complaints, including thirteen fatalities, and two U.S. senators have requested to meet with the FDA regarding concerns about regulation of the beverage.

At least ninety-two FDA reports have mentioned 5-Hour Energy since 2004. Thirty-three of those reports involved hospitalizations, and thirteen involved deaths. Common caffeine-containing beverages like Coca-Cola have strict limits on their caffeine content set by the FDA, but “energy drinks” like 5-Hour Energy, Monster, and others are often labeled as “dietary supplements” rather than beverages. While a 12-ounce beverage like Coca-Cola might have an upper limit of 71 milligrams of caffeine, or roughly six milligrams per ounce, a dietary supplement does not face the same regulations. A single serving of 5-Hour Energy, sold in sixty milliliter (approx. two ounce) containers, may contain 207 milligrams of caffeine. The FDA has announced its intention to review its policies on labeling and warnings for drinks with such high caffeine content.

The company has also dealt with complaints from a non-profit science group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). The group accused Living Essentials of running a misleading advertisement online, which implies that the group’s executive director endorses the product’s safety. According to the CSPI, the advertisement includes a quote from the director saying that a fatal overdose is unlikely based solely on caffeine. The company suspended the advertisement in response to the group’s criticism.

Several lawsuits pending around the country are challenging the safety of 5-Hour Energy, either as a result of injury or death, or based on allegedly false or misleading statements regarding the beverage’s ingredients. A Tennessee lawsuit, Hassell v. Innovation Ventures, et al, alleges that consumption of 5-Hour Energy caused the death of the plaintiff’s husband by cardiac arrhythmia in 2009. The plaintiff asserted causes of action for negligence and products liability, but nonsuited the case without prejudice in November 2011.

Continue reading "Energy Drink Maker Faces Lawsuits and Congressional Scrutiny After Multiple Reports of Deaths" »

A wrongful death lawsuit arising from a Nebraska automobile accident invokes that state’s fetal death statute, reportedly for the first time since the Nebraska Legislature enacted it in 2003. The plaintiffs in Baumann v. Slezak, et al are asserting multiple causes of action in relation to the deaths of a Maryland couple, their two children, and their unborn child. The unborn child was a viable fetus at the time, which is an important distinction in some jurisdictions. The right to recover damages for the wrongful death of a person requires that the law recognize the decedent as a “person.” Nebraska’s statute explicitly applies to unborn children “at any stage of gestation,” while the District of Columbia’s statute does not mention unborn children or fetuses. Case law from DC, however has established that the law may apply to a “viable” fetus.

The accident in Nebraska occurred during the early morning of September 9, 2012. A family of four, consisting of a father, a pregnant mother, and two children, were driving through western Nebraska on their way to California. Each parent was driving a separate vehicle, and the children were riding with the mother. Traffic on westbound Interstate 80 was at a standstill because of an accident between two semi-trailers about one mile further up the road. While the family’s two cars were stopped, one behind the other, at the rear of the line of traffic, another semi-trailer approached from behind at about seventy-five miles per hour. The driver allegedly did not slow before colliding with the father’s car. This caused his car to collide with the mother’s car, propelling it under the trailer in front of her, and killing the four family members and the unborn child.

The legal representatives of the two parents filed suit on behalf of the parents, the children, and the unborn child, asserting causes of action for negligence and violations of federal trucking safety regulations. They sued the truck driver, his employer, and the driver and truck companies allegedly responsible for the accident that caused the traffic jam, asserting causes of action for negligence and violations of federal safety regulations.

Continue reading "Statutes Allowing Fetal Wrongful Death Lawsuits Vary from State to State: Baumann et al v. Slezak et al" »

The U.S. Supreme Court recently considered an appeal of a products liability and wrongful death claim arising from alleged asbestos exposure in railroad equipment. The decedent worked in locomotive repair for decades and died of cancer years later. The defendants argued that the federal Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) preempted the plaintiffs’ state tort claims, and the trial court and appellate court agreed. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts in a 6-3 decision in Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp., 132 S. Ct. 1261 (2012).

The decedent, George Corson, worked for the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad for about twenty-seven years, from 1947 to 1974. His job as a welder and machinist involved locomotive brakeshoe installation and insulation stripping on locomotive boilers. He allegedly came into contact with asbestos during this time. He was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in 2005.

Corson and his wife sued fifty-nine defendants, including Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC) and Viad Corp in a Pennsylvania state court in 2007. The lawsuit alleged that RFCP distributed brakeshoes, that Viad was the successor-in-interest to a manufacturer and distributor of locomotives and locomotive engine parts, and that all the products in question contained asbestos. The plaintiffs asserted products liability causes of action for defective design and failure to warn. When Corson died, his executor, Gloria Kurns, joined as a plaintiff with Corson’s wife.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Rules that Federal Law Preempts State Wrongful Death Lawsuit Over Asbestos Exposure: Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp." »

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently entered judgments in several lawsuits against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS). The plaintiffs were victims of the 1983 U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, in which the government of Iran and the MOIS were implicated. The lawsuits were brought under an amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA), which provides a federal cause of action for injuries against a foreign state designated as a sponsor of terrorism. The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs in both cases, although the question of recovering damages from the defendants remains highly unsettled.

FSIA, which first became law in 1976, gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over most civil claims against foreign states, but applies many of the principles of sovereign immunity. This is the legal doctrine that a government entity may not be sued unless it has waived immunity. It applies in lawsuits against city, county, or state governments, where a claimant must follow steps set out by statute before filing suit. People claiming damages for injuries caused by foreign states have generally been barred from relief by this doctrine. Federal courts applied FSIA in blocking claims for damages caused by the September 11 terror attacks in In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 538 F.3d 71 (2nd Cir. 2008), and a 2003 terror attack in Riyadh in Heroth v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 565 F.Supp.2d 59 (D.D.C. 2008).

Congress added an exception to FSIA in 1996, with amendments added in 2008, for foreign states designated as “state sponsors of terrorism” either at the time of the alleged injury or as a result of the alleged injury. The foreign state must also remain designated as such at the time a claimant files suit. The exception applies to claims for personal injuries or wrongful death resulting from acts such as hostage taking, torture, sabotage, or the support of such acts by the foreign state.

Continue reading "Washington DC District Court Enters Judgments Against Iran in Two Cases Brought Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act" »

The estate of a woman who died from vaccine-related complications may recover death benefits, but not injury benefits, under the federal Vaccine Act, according to a ruling by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Griglock v. Secretary of Health and Human Services. A Special Master found that the woman’s death was attributable to an influenza vaccination, allowing the death benefits claim to proceed, but also found that the statute of limitations for an injury benefits claim had expired. The Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit affirmed that decision.

The decedent, Sophie Griglock, received a vaccination for influenza on October 6, 2005, when she was seventy years old. In late November 2005, a neurologist diagnosed her with Guillian-Barré Syndrome (GBS), a disorder in which the immune system attacks the nervous system. It can cause paralysis and death due to an inability to breathe. Griglock died of GBS-related respiratory failure on May 11, 2007.

Griglock’s estate filed a petition for compensation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) in April 2009. HHS did not contest the question of whether the vaccine caused Griglock’s GBS. It recommended death benefits of $250,000, the maximum amount allowed by the Vaccine Act. The estate also requested injury benefits under the Vaccine Act to compensate for Griglock’s medical expenses. The case went before a Special Master, who determined that the vaccine caused Griglock’s GBS and her GBS-related death. While this gave the estate standing to claim injury benefits, the Special Master determined that the claim, filed in 2009, was barred by the statute of limitations.

Continue reading "Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Claim for Injury Benefits Under Vaccine Act" »

A husband’s wrongful death lawsuit alleges that his wife’s doctor caused her death last year by prescribing a wide array of psychotropic medications. The suit further claims that the doctor defrauded her of nearly half a million dollars, which she contributed towards his research funding while under the influence of these medications. The two types of claims, brought in a single lawsuit, raise uncomfortable questions about the doctor/patient relationship.

Phyllis Harvey, described as a philanthropist who formed a foundation with her husband, Brian Harvey, to fund scholarships and engage in other charitable activities, died last year at the age of 59. She reportedly had a history of mental illness and alcoholism, and was diagnosed in 1999 with possible bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or early dementia. She sought treatment from Dr. Alexander Bystritsky, a physician at the University of California, Los Angeles, beginning in 2004. Dr. Bystritsky allegedly put her on a regimen of multiple psychotropic medications, even though the 1999 diagnoses were never fully confirmed. Her prescribed medications included the anti-psychotic drug Seroquel and the anti-anxiety sedative Ativan.

Continue reading "Wrongful Death Lawsuit Alleges Medical Negligence and Intentional Torts Against Doctor" »

A wrongful death lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeks damages from the federal government for the allegedly unlawful killings of United States citizens abroad. The families of several people killed overseas by unmanned drone aircraft are claiming violations of the decedents’ constitutional rights as U.S. citizens. Unlike many wrongful death lawsuits, this suit alleges violations of statutory and constitutional rights, rather than negligence, by the government. The lawsuit is sure to generate public controversy, particularly since the government asserted national security reasons for the drone attacks.

Nasser al-Aulaqi (sometimes spelled al-Awlaki) and Sarah Khan, with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed suit against federal government officials, including Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director David Petraeus, in mid-July 2012. Their complaint alleges that the federal government has engaged in targeted killings of suspected terrorists abroad since 2001. Anwar al-Aulaqi, an American citizen living in Yemen, was added to a “kill list” in late 2009 or early 2010, based on suspicion of terrorist activity or support.

On September 30, 2011, the complaint says, unmanned drones operated by the CIA and the Department of Defense fired missiles at a vehicle in Yemen containing Anwar al-Aulaqi. The blast killed al-Aulaqi and another U.S. citizen, Samir Khan. Another drone strike on October 14, 2011, also allegedly authorized by the defendants, killed at least seven people at a restaurant in Yemen, including another U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi’s 16 year-old son Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi.

Continue reading "Washington DC Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed by Families of U.S. Citizens Killed in Drone Strikes" »

A study of injury-related deaths conducted by a national healthcare advocacy group, the Trust for America's Health (TFAH), ranks the fifty states and the District of Columbia based on ten “key indicators.” These key indicators relate to laws, regulations, and initiatives undertaken by state governments. According to TFAH, they represent the effectiveness of state efforts to prevent fatalities due to injuries.

Washington DC scored highly in the study, with seven of the ten key factors. In terms of total number of injury-related deaths per 100,000 population, the District of Columbia did not fare as well compared to many states, with a rate slightly above the national average. The study’s authors stress that they cannot say with certainty why any one state has a lower rate of injury-related fatalities than any other state, but their key factor analysis offers a good set of guidelines for assessing state efforts to promote injury prevention.

TFAH’s study, prepared with the assistance of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a philanthropic organization that supports health care, examined statistics for injury-related deaths over the past twelve or more years. It drew a distinction between injury-related deaths and deaths from both communicable and noncommunicable disease, calling injury-related deaths a serious but largely hidden public health crisis. The study divided injuries into several categories based on the type and cause of the injury, including vehicular accidents, falls, blunt-force impacts, cutting or piercing wounds, burns, poisoning, drowning or suffocation, gunshot wounds, and “unclassified.” TFAH developed its list of key factors based largely on the cause of injury, such as accident or intentional violence.

Continue reading "Washington DC Injury Prevention Ranks High in National Survey" »

The tragic death of a 12 year-old Chicago-area boy in a baseball-related accident has brought attention to a lack of data tracking regarding sports injuries in children. Although researchers have extensively catalogued injuries in athletes at the high school level and up, no one is collecting information on injuries to younger athletes. Sports can be a cause of serious injuries in children, so having access to information and statistics could help not only parents, but equipment manufacturers assess risks and develop safer products.

A 12 year-old boy from Oswego, Illinois, Eric Lederman, died in April from an injury caused by a baseball hitting him in the neck. Lederman was playing catch with a teammate on the side of the field while warming up for a game on Thursday, April 12. The ball struck him in the neck, reportedly hitting his carotid artery. He immediately collapsed and was taken to the hospital. He was pronounced dead at the hospital just after 8:00 p.m. The cause of death was determined to be a cerebral hemorrhage caused by blunt-force trauma, and was declared an accident.

Continue reading "The Death of a Young Baseball Player and the Lack of Statistics on Youth Sports Injuries" »

A bill pending in the District of Columbia Council would extend the statute of limitations for filing a Washington DC wrongful death lawsuit. Known as the “Wrongful Death Act of 2012” (WDA), the bill would change the statute from one year to two years. Councilmembers Phil Mendelson and Marion Barry introduced the bill on March 6, 2012. The bill has been referred to the Council’s Judiciary Committee and is awaiting a hearing. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer, in a letter dated March 19 (PDF file), confirmed that sufficient funds are available through fiscal year 2015 to allow the bill’s implementation.

According to the Blog of Legal Times, an attorney struggling with the tight time constraints of a one-year statute of limitations proposed the bill to Councilmember Barry’s office. Tennessee is reportedly the only other jurisdiction in the United States with a one-year statute of limitations for wrongful death claims. Subject to certain restrictions, Maryland has a three-year statute, and Virginia’s is two years. DC’s one-year statute dates back to the late 19th century.

The District of Columbia Official Code, in Section 16-2702, requires a claimant to bring a wrongful death lawsuit within one year from the date of death. From the standpoint of a personal injury attorney preparing a case for litigation, this does not allow a great deal of time to investigate the facts of the case and develop legal theories of negligence and liability. A wrongful death claim is essentially a claim for negligence, in which the injuries asserted include both the decedent’s death and the claimant’s loss of the decedent’s income, support, and companionship. These damages can be very difficult to evaluate and prove, particularly with a short time limit.

One lawsuit mentioned in relation to the WDA and the relatively brief time period to file a wrongful death claim is Nardyne Jefferies’ claim against the District of Columbia for the death of her daughter, Brishell Jones. Jones was murdered on March 30, 2010 in a mass shooting on South Capitol Street that left three people dead and six wounded. One year to the date after the shootings, Jefferies filed her wrongful death suit.

Jefferies’ lawsuit names the District of Columbia and various agencies and officials as defendants. Because the shooters were known to the DC criminal and juvenile justice systems, the lawsuit alleges that the government should have known that they posed a danger to public safety. Jefferies alleges fourteen separate counts, including several negligence-based counts, alleged violations of District and federal statutes and regulations, and violations of constitutional due process and equal protection. the defendants removed the case to federal court in June 2011, where it is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Continue reading "DC Council Considers Bill Extending Statute of Limitations for Wrongful Death Claims" »

The families of two women killed during a 2007 shooting rampage on the Virginia Tech campus received a jury award of $4 million each in their claims against the university for negligence. The jury found that the university negligently delayed warnings about Seung-Hui Cho, who had shot and killed two people in a campus dormitory two-and-a-half hours before embarking on the deadliest shooting spree in modern American history. Cho ultimately killed thirty-two people before turning a gun on himself. The university, backed by the Commonwealth of Virginia, is now asserting a state law that caps damage awards against the state at $100,000, as the families fight back.

Cho was a 23 year-old undergraduate student at Virginia Tech with a history of mental illness and “abnormal behavior.” His shooting spree began at about 7:15 a.m. on April 16, 2007, when he killed two students on the fourth floor of a high-rise dormitory. Cho then reportedly spent approximately two-and-a-half hours re-arming himself and mailing a package a photographs and documents to NBC News. At about 9:45 a.m., he went to a classroom building across the campus where he shot dozens of people, killing thirty, over the course of nine minutes. Cho then committed suicide when police breached the building.

Virginia Tech soon faced accusations that it negligently failed to warn students and staff after the first two murders, which allowed Cho’s rampage to proceed almost unimpeded. Police initially thought the first two deaths resulted from a “romantic dispute.” The university sent an e-mail to students and staff advising them to be cautious more than two hours later, roughly twenty minutes before Cho’s second attack began. Multiple negligence and wrongful death lawsuits followed.

The families of twenty-four of Cho’s victims, as well as eighteen people injured by the shootings, settled with the state in 2008 for $11 million. Several families refused to settle, and two of them recently went to trial.

In March 2012, a trial took place in a courtroom in Christiansburg, Virginia for the families of two victims, Erin Peterson and Julia Pryde. The university repeated many of its defenses, maintaining that officials believed Cho had fled the campus after the first two shootings, and that they did not connect the two series of shootings until later. The jury, after deliberating for just over three hours, returned a verdict finding that Virginia Tech officials were negligent in delaying warnings about the first two shootings, and that this delay directly contributed to the victims’ deaths. It awarded $4 million to each family .

Continue reading "Families of Virginia Tech Shooting Victims Win Trial but Face Cap on Damages" »

The Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) settled seven lawsuits brought by the families of people killed in a 2009 crash on the Red Line. The crash remains the deadliest accident in WMATA’s history. The exact terms of the settlement are confidential. Along with three companies that provide equipment for the train system, WMATA has admitted liability for the crash in a court document filed in mid-February. Four remaining lawsuits, two for wrongful death and two for injuries sustained in the crash, are expected to go to trial.

The crash occurred just after 5:00 p.m. on June 22, 2009. A faulty circuit in the automatic train control system failed to detect a train on the track. It directed Car 1079 into the parked train at full speed. Car 1079 was pushed up onto the other train before coming to rest. Nine passengers died in the crash, and dozens were injured.

An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) scrutinized WMATA and the Tri-State Oversight Committee, which has responsibility for monitoring safety. The NTSB concluded that the control system’s failure directly caused the crash, and that WMATA had “failed to prioritize safety at all levels.” Multiple WMATA officials left or were reassigned. All trains have been operated manually since the crash, while they develop new safeguards.

Families of each of the nine people who died filed wrongful death lawsuits against WMATA and several of its suppliers. People who were injured in the crash also filed lawsuits to recover for their injuries. The recent settlement news resolves all but four of the lawsuits. The remaining suits are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The admissions of liability from WMATA and the other companies will make the trials go more smoothly. In a court filing, they say that they are stipulating to liability in order to “avoid the significant risks and costs” involved with a courtroom fight over the issue. The only issue for trial in the remaining cases, therefore, is the amount of compensatory damages each plaintiff should receive.

The day after the announcement of the settlements and the admission of liability, the judge presiding over the cases issued a gag order preventing the parties from discussing it publicly. A pretrial conference was reportedly scheduled for March 1. At least one of the cases, a wrongful death claim brought by the mother of victim Lavonda King, is scheduled for trial in mid-March.

Continue reading "Washington DC Metro Settles Seven of the Nine Wrongful Death Lawsuits Brought Over 2009 Red Line Crash" »

A seven year-old student died at her Richmond, Virginia elementary school in January after she ate a peanut that a classmate gave to her. The girl, Amarria Denise Johnson, had a severe peanut allergy. She had an immediate allergic reaction and was taken to the school clinic. She then went into cardiac arrest and died.

Although the school was reportedly aware of the child’s allergy, the classmate was not. An investigation by police concluded that the actions of the classmate did not rise to the level of criminal negligence, nor did the actions of the school and the child’s mother. A determination by law enforcement that no crime occurred does not preclude a civil case for wrongful death, although it raises the question of who has a duty to guard against injury from a food allergy.

A Chicago lawsuit deals with a similar situation. On the last day of the fall semester in December 2010, a 13 year-old girl, Katelyn Carson, died after going into anaphylactic shock when she ate some Chinese food at school. The girl had a severe allergy to peanut oil. Her teacher was aware of the allergy, so when he ordered Chinese food for an end-of-semester party, he reportedly requested that the food be prepared without any peanut products. Lab testing on samples of the meal found trace amounts of peanut products.

The girl’s family filed a wrongful death suit against the restaurant, Chinese Inn, in March 2011, claiming $100,000 in damages. The board of Chicago Public Schools, partly in response to Katelyn’s case, voted unanimously in January 2012 to spend nearly $200,000 to stock schools with Epi-pens, which can stop people with certain allergies from going into anaphylaxis.

Continue reading "Elementary School Student Dies from Peanut Allergy" »

Families of the victims killed in a tragic helicopter crash near Las Vegas, Nevada have filed two lawsuits against the company that operated the sightseeing craft. The crash occurred the afternoon of December 7, 2011 in the Lake Mead Recreational Area near the Hoover Dam, about twelve miles east of Las Vegas. The helicopter, a Eurocopter AS350, was owned and operated by Sundance Helicopters, a Las Vegas-based tour company. Sundance conducts sightseeing tours of the area surrounding Las Vegas. Five people lost their lives in the crash, two married couples and the helicopter pilot, Landon Nield.

The specific cause of the crash remains unknown. Radar tracking data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reportedly showed that the helicopter entered an “erratic and abnormal flight pattern” just before it crashed. The pilot did not make an emergency call. The NTSB has determined that the helicopter did not lose power before crashing. The agency is conducting its own investigation into the crash, but it may not have a final report or a determination of what caused the crash for some time.

The first lawsuit came within days, filed on December 13, 2011 in Clark County District Court in Las Vegas. The plaintiffs are family members of Lovish Bhanot and Anupama Bhola, newlyweds from New Delhi, India who died in the crash while on their honeymoon. The suit alleges negligence against Sundance and demands unspecified monetary damages.

A second lawsuit followed on December 29, filed by four children of Delwin and Tamara Chapman of Utica, Kansas, the other victims of the crash. The Chapmans were in Las Vegas celebrating their twenty-fifth wedding anniversary. This lawsuit also claims unspecified damages against Sundance. The same attorney is representing both sets of plaintiffs. He told the Associated Press that he will do joint discovery in the cases but wants to conduct separate trials.

The lawsuits, according to news reports, allege negligence and make claims for wrongful death. Wrongful death is a civil legal claim seeking to hold a defendant liable for the death of a person, usually as part of a negligence claim. Unlike criminal legal matters, which seek punishment like fines or imprisonment, a wrongful death claim only seeks monetary damages.

Continue reading "Two Lawsuits Filed Over Las Vegas Tour Helicopter Crash" »

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recently released its report on a deadly gas pipeline explosion that ravaged a neighborhood outside San Francisco and killed eight people last year. The NTSB, after reviewing data and testimony presented at a meeting in August and over a year-long investigation, concluded unanimously that fault for the explosion lies with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), one of the largest gas companies in the country. The 140-page report issued by NTSB contains thirty-nine safety recommendations directed not only at PG&E, but also pipeline operators and government regulators. Lawsuits related to the explosion are also preparing for trial next year.

The accident occurred in the early evening of September 9, 2010 in the San Francisco suburb of San Bruno, when a ruptured natural gas pipeline owned by PG&E exploded with sufficient force to make some first responders, residents, and media think an earthquake or plane crash had just occurred. The explosion caused a fire that destroyed thirty-five houses and damaged many more. Three more homes were later deemed too badly damaged and were demolished. The blast created a crater 72 feet long, 26 feet wide, and 40 feet deep. In all, eight people, mostly neighborhood residents, died in the explosions or from burns.

The NTSB’s report describes a “litany of failures” by PG&E and failures in oversight by government regulators, according to a Bloomberg report. It says the problem began over 50 years ago, when PG&E installed substandard pipe with poor welding, then subsequently failed to conduct tests and inspections that would have identified problems in advance. It further blames an inept response by PG&E for the severity of the destruction. PG&E control room operators allegedly did not relay information on the source of the fire to emergency responders or 911 operators, causing responders to still think they were dealing with a plane crash. The absence of emergency shut-off valves on the pipeline also allegedly prolonged the fire considerably.

PG&E’s problems with pipeline explosions do not end with the San Bruno incident. The California Public Utilities Commission approved a record $38 million fine against the company last week for a Christmas Eve 2008 explosion in Rancho Cordova, outside Sacramento. That blast killed one person, injured five, and destroyed a house. A utility employee and a firefighter were among the injured. The fatality was the elderly owner of the destroyed home. The owner’s family reached a confidential settlement with PG&E in 2009. An investigation found that, during a repair in 2006, PG&E installed the wrong kid of pipe in the gas line. It also found that PG&E responded too slowly to a report of a leak the day of the explosion.

Continue reading "NTSB Issues Findings on Deadly 2010 Gas Pipeline Explosion" »

The federal government has agreed to pay $2.5 million to Maureen Stevens, a resident of Lantana, Florida, to settle her lawsuit arising from the 2001 death of her husband, Bob Stevens, in the anthrax attacks that occurred in various cities that fall. The $50 million lawsuit claimed negligence by the government for failing to prevent the attack that killed her husband, citing evidence that a government insider obtained the spores used in the attacks from an Army lab. A settlement was first announced in October, but details only recently became public.

The anthrax attacks occurred in the fall of 2001, a few weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11. Bob Stevens was a 63 year-old photo editor at American Media, Inc. in Boca Raton, Florida, the publisher of the National Enquirer and other tabloids. He died on October 5, 2001, a few days after opening a letter addressed to the publisher that had been laced with anthrax spores. Bob Stevens’ death was the first of five resulting from similar letters.

Maureen Stevens filed her lawsuit in a Florida federal court in 2003, claiming $50 million in damages for her husband’s death. She alleged that the government negligently failed to secure anthrax spores at the laboratory where they originated, the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland. She claimed that the Institute had a history of failing to track pathogens and of missing microbe samples dating back to at least 1992. In essence, she alleged that the government had a duty to adequately safeguard dangerous pathogens in its possession, particularly ones known to be deadly to humans, and that the government breached its duty by allowing anthrax spores to fall into the hands of the perpetrator of the attacks. This led directly to Bob Stevens’ wrongful death, according to her lawsuit.

The Justice Department, arguing on behalf of the government, disputed her allegations. It claimed that she failed to prove a direct causal connection between the government’s actions, even its lack of security precautions, and Bob Stevens’ death. The Justice Department at one point unsuccessfully argued to the Florida Supreme Court that the government could not be held liable even if it had allowed the release of dangerous materials. Discovery in the case led to many revelations about security at the Maryland research site and the role of various government employees and officials. Only some of these have become public. The case was set for trial in January 2012 when the settlement was announced.

Continue reading "Government Settles Lawsuit over 2001 Anthrax Attacks" »

The parents of Michelle Fournier, a woman killed in a hair salon shooting that left eight people dead and one wounded, have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the alleged shooter. The alleged gunman, Scott Dekraai, is Fournier’s ex-husband. The lawsuit asks the court to freeze Dekraai’s assets. According to the family’s attorney, their goal is to obtain compensation for Fournier and Dekraai’s eight year-old son, who is left effectively orphaned by the incident.

The family of another woman killed in the salon, Christy Wilson, has also filed a lawsuit for wrongful death against Dekraai. Her husband alleges in the suit that she “lingered for a ‘significant’ period of time before she died,” and seeks compensation for hospital and funeral costs and loss of “love, care, companionship.” The two lawsuits will likely proceed alongside, but independent of, the criminal prosecution.

Dekraai had taken Fournier to court to modify their child custody arrangement, hoping to get more time with their son. A court-appointed psychologist recommended that the court keep the existing custody plan in place. On October 12, 2011, Dekraai allegedly drove to the salon in Seal Beach, California where Fournier worked, armed with three handguns and wearing a bulletproof vest. According to police and Dekraai’s own statements to police, he shot eight people in the salon, killing seven, including Fournier and Wilson. He then shot and killed a man sitting in a car in the parking lot, telling police later that he thought the man might be a police officer reaching for a weapon.

Police arrested Dekraai shortly after he left the salon. He reportedly offered a full confession to investigators, admitting to all of the shootings and offering explanations for his actions. Prosecutors have charged Dekraai with eight counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, one for each shooting victim. They have announced that they will seek the death penalty. His arraignment is scheduled for November 29.

There are several key differences between the criminal and civil ases. The claims brought by the families for Fournier and Wilson seek civil damages for wrongful death. The criminal case, brought by prosecutors who work for the state of California, seek to punish Dekraai in the criminal justice system. The desired outcome of a wrongful death lawsuit is always monetary damages, while a criminal prosecution seeks fines, imprisonment, or sometimes the death penalty.

Continue reading "Family of Shooting Victim Sues Gunman for Wrongful Death" »

Over the past year, our Washington DC personal injury law firm has written about the civil lawsuit between Kathy Wone and Victory Zaborsky, Dylan Ward, and Joseph Price. Wone is the widow of Robert Wone, a Radio Free Asia attorney who was fatally stabbed at the DuPont Circle residence shared by the three men in August 2006.

Although the Zabrosky, Ward, and Price were acquitted of charges of obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and evidence tampering related to Robert’s death (they have always maintained that he was killed by an unknown intruder), Kathy went ahead and pursued the men in civil court. Now, she and the three men have settled the DC wrongful death lawsuit against them for $20 million.

The outcome of this civil case is an example of how even if an acquittal is the outcome of the criminal case, you can still hold the parties that you believe are liable for your loved one’s death in civil court. Granted, a jury might have awarded Kathy a larger monetary sum if she had decided to go to court. However, in an interview that she gave this week Kathy explained that even if the case went to trial, she didn’t think more information would be shed on what happened to her husband (the three defendants had refused to answer a lot of questions that were posed during deposition). She has also decided to start focusing her energy on moving forward with her life and using some of the settlement money to go toward the causes that her husband believed in.

Who killed Robert remains a mystery. However, court documents reveal that it was likely that the then 32-year-old attorney was drugged so that he became paralytic and then sexually assaulted. He was also stabbed in the chest three times.

Wone family settles $20 million lawsuit against three former D.C. roommates, The Washington Post, August 3, 2011

Acquitted, But Not Exonerated, Metro Weekly, July 1, 2010

Related Web Resource:
Who Murdered Robert Wone

More Blog Posts:
Judge Refuses to Dismiss Washington DC Wrongful Death Lawsuit in Robert E. Wone Case, Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog, December 9, 2010

$20 Million Washington DC Wrongful Death Case is Next for Three Men Acquitted of Covering Up Dupont Circle Murder, Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog, July 19, 2010

$10M Prince George’s County Wrongful Death Lawsuit Seeks Damages Over Man’s Fatal Stabbing, Maryland Accident Law Blog, February 28, 2011