Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog

Court Determines Warning Outside Dog Park Was Insufficient to Protect Dog Owner from Liability

April 10, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing whether a dog owner could be held liable for injuries caused by her dog in a public dog park. The court ultimately held that, under the state’s strict liability statute, the warning sign posted outside the dog park was not sufficient to preclude liability. Thus, the court reversed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiff’s case.

The case presents an interesting issue for Washington, D.C. dog bite victims because, although Washington, D.C. does not employ a strict liability analysis in dog bite cases, courts will consider similar factors to those discussed in the case below when weighing the negligence of the parties.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a volunteer at a local dog park. Prior to volunteering, the plaintiff signed a release waiver with the owner of the dog park, indicating that she was aware of the possible injuries that could occur while volunteering in the park. Additionally, outside the dog park was a warning sign, explaining that anyone who enters the dog park does so at their own risk.

Appellate Court Discusses Plaintiff’s Punitive Damages Claim in Recent Dog Bite Case

April 3, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case discussing under which circumstances punitive damages are appropriate for a jury to consider awarding to an accident victim. While the case arose in another state court, it is illustrative to accident victims in that it shows the type of factual scenario necessary to sustain punitive damages in a Washington, D.C. dog bite case.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was walking her son’s five-pound Yorkshire terrier to the neighborhood dog park. When the plaintiff arrived at the park, she saw that the defendant was inside the fenced-in park with her two dogs, a 75-pound Rhodesian Ridgeback and a 40-pound Beagle/Lab mix.

Apprehensive to let her son’s small dog inside the park with the much larger dogs belonging to the defendant, the plaintiff asked the defendant if she would be leaving the park soon. The defendant did not respond verbally but shrugged her shoulders. A few minutes later, the defendant began to leash her dogs to exit the park.

Court Resolves Insurance Dispute in Plaintiff’s Favor in Recent Car Accident Case

March 27, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving a motorist who was injured in a car accident while riding in the car of an acquaintance. The case required the court to determine if the insurance company could refuse to cover the accident based on an argument that the driver was using his vehicle as a “public or livery conveyance.” Ultimately, however, the court concluded that was not the case and found in favor of the plaintiff. The case is important for Washington, D.C. car accident victims because it illustrates a common exception in many insurance policies.

Public or Livery Conveyance

Insurance is designed to cover the costs of an accident. However, the policy language governs which types of accidents are covered. Many insurance policies have a “public or livery conveyance” exception, meaning when the driver is using the vehicle to transport people or goods for money. For example, an accident involving a taxi-cab may trigger this exception.

The Facts of the Case

One day, the plaintiff offered a ride to an older woman who was walking into town. The plaintiff had previously provided the woman with rides into town for $7. This time, however, the woman did not reach out to the plaintiff in advance; he just noticed she was walking as he drove past and stopped to see if she wanted a ride.

Court Dismisses Premises Liability Lawsuit Against Coffee Shop, Finding Parents Bore the Responsibility to Keep Children Safe

March 19, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion in a premises liability case presenting an interesting issue for those who have a child who has been injured in a Maryland slip-and-fall accident. The case required the court to determine if a parent’s responsibility to keep their child from playing on and around the heavy metal stanchions precluded the defendant store owner from being held liable. Ultimately, the court concluded that the parents did have a responsibility to protect their children and keep them from playing on the stanchions.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs visited the defendant coffee shop with their two sons. After placing their order, the family went upstairs to use the restroom. As they were exiting the store, the parents heard one of their sons screaming. As they turned around, they saw that a metal stanchion had fallen on their son’s hand.

The young boy’s finger ultimately had to be amputated, and the plaintiffs filed a premises liability lawsuit against the coffee shop, claiming that the shop failed to maintain a safe area for customers and that minor children would not be able to recognize the dangers of the stanchions.

The Importance of Connecting the Dots in a Washington, D.C. Medical Malpractice Case

March 11, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When someone is injured due to the negligence of a medical professional, they may be able to secure compensation for their injuries through a Washington, D.C. medical malpractice lawsuit. However, due to the complex nature of these lawsuits, there are often multiple experts involved. Often, these experts are called to establish the element of causation.

Causation in a medical malpractice case is a critical element that must be established by the plaintiff. In order to successfully prove causation, a plaintiff must present some testimony establishing that the defendant’s actions were the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Thus, it will not be enough for the plaintiff to establish that the defendant medical professional was negligent; it must also be shown that the defendant’s negligence resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries. A recent case illustrates the consequences one plaintiff suffered after failing to connect the dots in a medical malpractice lawsuit.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff had a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed by the defendant doctor. During the surgery, the defendant perforated the plaintiff’s bowel, and despite checking for any injuries before finishing the surgery, he did not notice the perforation. After the surgery, the plaintiff was experiencing abdominal pain and difficulty urinating.

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.