Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog

Court Dismisses Premises Liability Case Due to Plaintiff’s Knowledge of Hazard That Caused His Injury

March 2, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case that presents an important issue that comes up often in Washington, D.C. premises liability lawsuits. The case required the court to discuss the plaintiff’s own knowledge of the hazard that caused his injuries, and whether the plaintiff’s knowledge of the hazard should defeat his claim against the defendant. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff should have known about the dangers involved in moving a piece of broken glass, and it dismissed his claim.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant was a homeowner who hired the plaintiff to perform some handyman work around his home. The defendant asked the plaintiff to remove a mirror from the basement that had been glued to the wooden framing along the wall. The defendant and the plaintiff decided the best way to remove the mirror would be to use a pry bar to pry the mirror off the wooden boards.

As the plaintiff pried the mirror from the boards, the mirror broke into several sharp pieces. The plaintiff was moving the glass shards out to the trash when the glass sliced his wrist, severing his ligaments.

Court Determines Student Failed to Establish Exception to School’s Government Immunity in Recent Personal Injury Case

February 23, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Aside from providing students with an education, Washington, D.C. schools have a very important job in ensuring that students are safe during the day. When a school administration fails to take adequate precautions to provide a safe environment for students, and a student is injured as a result, the school may be held civilly liable for the injuries sustained by the student through a Washington, D.C. premises liability lawsuit.

That being said, since schools provide a government function, they may be entitled to official government immunity in some cases. A recent case illustrates how one court analyzed a student’s failure-to-supervise case that was brought against school administration.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a student at the defendant school. One day, the plaintiff was waiting in the school’s auditorium for school to begin with approximately 70 other students. One teacher was assigned to supervise the students as they ate breakfast and waited for the morning’s classes to begin.

Appellate Court Determines Teacher Was Immune from Liability in Recent Failure-to-Supervise Case

February 16, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving a student who died while the teacher was out of the room. The case required the court to determine if the teacher – acting as an official government employee – was entitled to immunity. Finding that the school’s policy regarding the supervision of students left room for the exercise of discretion, the court determined that the teacher was entitled to immunity and dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal.

The case is important for Washington, D.C. personal injury plaintiffs because it illustrates the type of analysis in which courts engage when reviewing cases filed against a government official, employee, or agency.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the parents of a young boy who died while attending school. According to the court’s recitation of the facts, the boy fell to the ground while roughhousing with another student. At the time, the teacher had stepped out of the classroom and was not present. However, she asked a teacher in a neighboring room to keep an eye on the students before she stepped out.

The Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur in Washington, D.C. Personal Injury Cases

February 9, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In some Washington, D.C. personal injury cases, there may be a lack of evidence regarding the cause of the accident victim’s injuries. However, in some of these cases, the fact that the accident occurred at all may give rise to an inference that the defendant was in fact negligent. This doctrine is known as res ipsa loquitur, which is Latin for “the thing speaks for itself.”

The classic example of a res ipsa loquitur case is when a patient finds out there is a medical instrument in their body after undergoing a surgery. In this situation, the patient would have no way of knowing who left the instrument in their body, but the fact that the instrument was present in their body – which would never be there absent some explanation – may be evidence that the doctor was negligent.

In Washington, D.C., there are three elements that must be met in order for a judge to give the jury a res ipsa loquitur instruction. First, the event must be one that does not normally occur in the absence of someone’s negligence. Second, the accident must have involved an instrumentality within the sole control of the defendant. Finally, the plaintiff’s injuries must not have been a result of their own conduct. A recent case illustrates how the court applies a res ipsa loquitur analysis.

Court Rejects Insurance Company’s Denial of Golf Cart Injury Claim

February 2, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving a plaintiff who was seriously injured when she was struck by a golf cart while walking on a pathway in a 55+ community. Although the case was filed in a Florida court, it presents a common issue that arises in Washington, D.C. personal injury cases when an insurance company rejects an accident victim’s claim. Ultimately, the court concluded that the insurance contract should be interpreted to cover the plaintiff’s claim.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was walking in the 55+ community where she lived when she was struck by a golf cart. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries as a result of the collision and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver of the golf cart.

Unfortunately, as is too often the case, the at-fault driver did not carry sufficient insurance to cover the cost of the plaintiff’s injuries. However, the plaintiff carried an insurance policy of her own, which contained coverage for accidents involving underinsured motorist protection. Thus, the plaintiff filed a claim with her own insurance company, hoping to obtain the difference between the total costs she incurred and the amount she was provided by the at-fault driver’s insurance policy.

Court Discusses “Continuing Storm Doctrine” in Recent Slip-and-Fall Case

January 23, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a slip-and-fall case discussing what has come to be known as the “continuing storm doctrine.” The case is important for Washington, D.C. slip-and-fall accident victims because the principle behind the continuing storm doctrine has been codified into Maryland law under DC Code § 9-601.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a shuttle driver for an assisted living facility. One day, while he was driving the shuttle, he stopped to get gas at the defendant gas station. At the time, it was lightly raining, and the temperature was fluctuating around freezing.

As the plaintiff exited the shuttle, he slipped on a thin layer of ice that had formed on the pavement. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries as a result of the fall and filed a premises liability lawsuit against the gas station. The plaintiff claimed that the gas station was negligent for failing to clear the ice hazard in the gas station parking area.

Product Liability Plaintiff’s Case Dismissed Based on Unreliable Expert Testimony

January 16, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case illustrating the importance of expert selection in Washington, D.C. product liability cases. The case required the court to determine if the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses was based on sufficiently reliable methodology. Ultimately, the court concluded that the testimony of both witnesses was properly excluded by the trial court.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the parents of a college student who died in a fire that started in the boy’s room. Investigators found the boy’s laptop among the debris. The plaintiffs presented two expert witnesses to testify that, in their opinion, the fire was started when the battery in the laptop malfunctioned.

The first expert had a PhD in inorganic chemistry and was an expert in battery safety. He testified that upon inspecting the batteries in the laptop, one of the three cells had ruptured. He further explained that a battery cell can only rupture in certain circumstances, including electrically abusive condition,s mechanically abusive conditions, high temperatures (such as a fire), or an internal problem with the battery.

Plaintiff’s Case Dismissed for Committing “Fraud on the Court”

January 9, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Last month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case illustrating the court’s power to dismiss a case when it determines that a plaintiff has not been truthful in her filings or testimony. The message in the opinion is an important one for Washington, D.C. personal injury plaintiffs to understand because it shows the severity of the sanctions that can be imposed for failing to be ethical.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was planning on taking a cruise and arranged to have the defendant transportation company give her a ride to the port. The shuttle arrived at the plaintiff’s home and took her to the port without issue. However, when the plaintiff was unloading her luggage from the trunk of the shuttle, the shuttle inexplicably reversed, running over the plaintiff.

It was undisputed that the plaintiff suffered a serious injury as a result of being run over by the shuttle. Indeed, she spent 10 days in the hospital recovering from her injuries, which included a fractured femur, and needed continuing physical therapy. Three months after the accident, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the transportation company.

Court Determines “Passive Retailer” May Still Be on the Hook for Dangerous Product

January 3, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Utah issued a written opinion in a product liability lawsuit discussing the liability of a retailer that had nothing to do with the design or manufacture of a reclining chair that crushed the plaintiff’s foot. The court held that, although a previous legal doctrine shielded passive retailers from liability in these circumstances, that doctrine was now outdated and no longer applicable.

The case is instructive to Washington, D.C. residents who have recently been injured due to a dangerous or defective product and may be considering a Washington, D.C. product liability lawsuit.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff purchased a reclining chair from the defendant furniture store. The chair purchased by the plaintiff came with a foot-massage feature. While the plaintiff was using the feature, the chair crushed his left foot. The plaintiff filed a product liability claim against both the manufacturer of the chair as well as the defendant furniture retailer. This appeal deals only with the furniture retailer.

Slip-and-Fall Case Against Fast-Food Restaurant Permitted to Proceed to Trial

December 26, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Mississippi issued an opinion in a personal injury case involving a slip-and-fall accident that occurred at a fast-food restaurant. As is often the case in Washington, D.C. slip-and-fall accidents, this case required the court to determine if the evidence presented by the plaintiff was sufficient to survive a summary judgment challenge by the defendant restaurant.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence gave rise to several factual issues that, if resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, could result in the restaurant being liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. Thus, the case was permitted to proceed toward trial or settlement negotiations.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was dining at the defendant fast-food restaurant with several family members. After he placed his order, the plaintiff began to walk back toward his table. On the way, the plaintiff thought he heard an employee call his name, and he turned around. As he did so, he tripped on the leg of a highchair that was obscured by a “half wall.” Restaurant employees came to the plaintiff’s aid and noticed that his legs were tangled in the legs of the highchair.