Washington DC Injury Lawyer Blog

Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy Detected in College Athlete

March 16, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) has been making headlines for the past year or so, as it was detected that this tragic degenerative brain disease has been affecting professional athletes. CTE has recently begun to be studied in-depth by many doctors and scientific researchers throughout the country. CTE is a progressive degenerative disease that generally affects individuals who have incurred a significant amount of trauma to their head. Although CTE has just recently been garnering national recognition as a serious disease, it has actually been detected in professional boxers as early as the 1920s. However, recent studies focusing on the brains of deceased football players revealed that these players’ brain structures were severely damaged and included a build-up of abnormal proteins.

Unfortunately, individuals experiencing this trauma often suffer significant and life-changing experiences. Some common symptoms that people report are depression, anxiety, aggression, memory and cognition problems, lack of impulse control, and impaired judgment. There have been tragic instances where athletes have committed suicide and it was later discovered that they were suffering with CTE.

The New York Times recently published an article focusing on a college football player who was discovered to be suffering from CTE. The football player was an offensive lineman for the University of North Carolina and was by all accounts a well-adjusted individual. However, after sustaining repeated injuries he ended up homeless, addicted to drugs and alcohol. His family noted that he often complained that he felt that he was different and that “something was wrong with his brain.” The young college athlete ended up riding his bike straight into oncoming traffic and was killed after being hit by a car. His mother argued that she is sure that his actions qualify as suicide.

Jury’s Verdict for Plaintiff in the Amount of Zero Dollars Upheld on Appeal

March 9, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a Nebraska appellate court issued a written opinion regarding an appeal filed by a personal injury plaintiff who was awarded a zero-dollar award after a jury trial. In the case, Lowman v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company, the court determined that, while a zero-dollar award normally requires clarification from the jury, in this case it was clear what the jury intended, so no clarification was necessary.

The Facts of the Case

Lowman was a passenger in a car being driven by her husband when the car was struck by an uninsured driver. The Lowmans’ uninsured motorist carrier was State Farm, so they filed a claim with the company. State Farm admitted that the uninsured driver was liable but disputed the issues of causation and damages. The case proceeded to trial on these two issues.

During the pendency of the trial, the Lowmans withdrew their claim for lost wages and admitted that all medical bills had been paid. Thus, the only claim remaining was that for her pain and suffering. At trial, Lowman’s attorney told the jury “If you think [Lowman] is exaggerating, there should be no verdict. If you think she’s a liar, a cheat and a fraud, there should be no verdict.”

Plaintiff’s Product Liability Case Against Rifle Manufacturer Revived on Appeal

March 2, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower state court decision, allowing the plaintiff in a product liability lawsuit to proceed toward trial despite the defendant’s challenges to the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony. In the case, Seamon v. Remington Arms Company, the plaintiff was the wife of a man who had died while hunting alone with his Remington Model 700 bolt-action rifle.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff’s husband left to go hunting by himself back in November 2011. He had an elevated stand up in the trees from which he would hunt. However, after several hours of failing to return text messages from his family, they called police. Police found the man dead in the elevated tree stand, with his rifle 13 feet below. There was a rope attached to the rifle’s scope, the safety was off, and there was a spent shell in the chamber. There was no gunshot residue on the man, leading investigators to believe he was at least five to 10 feet away when the gun fired. No one witnessed the shooting.

The man’s wife filed a product liability case against the manufacturer of the rifle, claiming that her husband died as a result of a defect in the gun. The plaintiff had an expert testify that, in his experience, the trigger mechanism in the Model 700 rifle was subject to sporadic firing. He testified that in cases of sporadic firing, there are usually some deposits in the fire control housing of the gun. He further testified that upon examination, the gun the plaintiff’s husband was using had deposits in the fire control housing. This led the expert to believe that the gun may have accidentally fired without having the trigger pulled.

Court Finds Little League Not Liable for Dangerous Conditions on Field

February 23, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Rhode Island Supreme Court issued an opinion in a case, holding that a little league association was not liable for a parent’s injuries sustained when she fell and broke her leg in three places after stepping in a divot in the field. In the case, Carlson v. Towne of South Kingstown, the court reasoned that the little league association was not the owner of the land and did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care to inspect the field prior to its use.

The Facts of the Case

As noted above, the plaintiff was injured when she stepped in a divot in the grass, directly adjacent to a playing field where her son’s little league game was held. After her injuries, she filed a lawsuit against several parties, including the little league association.

The plaintiff presented a witness who was familiar with the field. The witness, another parent and a former assistant coach of the team, testified that divots were a routine problem on the field. He also explained that the divot was not actually on the field itself but was off to the side of right field, on the way to the dugout.

Lessor of Crane Involved in Serious Accident Found Not Liable for Plaintiff’s Injuries

February 16, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, one state’s supreme court heard a case brought by a man who was injured by a crane when an intermittent malfunction caused the crane to shift forward, crushing the man’s foot. In the case, Carson v. ALL Erection & Crane Rental Corporation, the court determined that, while the lessor did have a duty to inspect the equipment prior to leasing it to the plaintiff’s employer, that duty did not require an inspection so exhaustive as to discover the difficult-to-discover defect.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the “eyes and ears” for a fellow employee who was the designated crane operator. The plaintiff and the crane operator were instructed to move the crane a few miles from its current location. Along the way, the two encountered a section of road with overhead wires, and precautions were taken in crossing the road. However, as the crane was taken out of drive, it shifted forward, causing wood planks underneath where the plaintiff was standing to rise unexpectedly. The plaintiff slid down the wooden planks and under the crane, where his foot was crushed. It was later amputated.

After the accident, the crane was inspected by both ALL Erection, the defendant lessor, as well as the plaintiff’s employer. Ultimately, the crane was repaired. It was determined that the cause of the crane’s unexpected shift was “a failure of the solid‐state electrical circuitry.” However, it was not until a very thorough examination that the error was found.

Court Dismisses Premises Liability Claim Based on Validly Signed Waiver

February 9, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier last month, an appellate court in Delaware heard an appeal of a personal injury case filed by a man who was injured while working out at a Planet Fitness facility. In the case, Ketler v. PFPA, LLC, the court ultimately affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case, based on a valid waiver of liability form signed by the plaintiff prior to incurring his injuries.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs in the case, a man and his wife, became members of Planet Fitness back in 2010. As a precursor to their membership, the facility asked that the couple sign a membership agreement. Included in the membership agreement was a clause releasing Planet Fitness from liability for any injuries that may occur while using the company’s equipment. This included injuries that were caused by the company’s own negligence, as well as the negligence of its employees.

Fast forward to 2013, when a cable on the rowing machine that the husband was using snapped, causing him injuries as a result. Both the husband and the wife then filed a lawsuit against Planet Fitness, claiming that the husband’s injuries were due to the negligence of Planet Fitness, specifically for not properly maintaining the exercise equipment in a safe and responsible way.

Affected Families Push the Supreme Court to Reconsider “Feres” Doctrine

February 2, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Normally, when a patient is injured due to negligent medical care provided by a doctor, surgeon, or nurse, the injured patient is able to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit against the allegedly negligent medical professional, seeking damages for what they have been through. However, under an old legal doctrine called the “Feres” doctrine, military personnel can be denied the ability to recover damages based on injuries they sustained while on active duty.

The Feres Doctrine

The doctrine was first announced in the case of Feres v. United States, which was a United States Supreme Court case decided back in 1950. The case actually combined three individuals’ cases and decided them in one written opinion. The Court was able to do this because each case presented a similar legal issue: whether the United States government could be held liable for injuries suffered by active military personnel while they were on active duty.

The Court ultimately determined that the government should not be held liable for any injuries that were caused, even if the injuries were caused by a government official’s own negligence. The rationale behind the opinion is that the government should be more worried about big-picture concerns in times of war rather than worried about avoiding potential liability for the actions of its officials. While the basis for the decision arguably makes sense in some spur-of-the-moment battlefield decisions, it has recently been applied to situations that seemingly stray from the heart of the doctrine’s rationale.

Which Jurisdiction’s Law Applies in a Personal Injury Case?

January 26, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The United States has two separate sets of laws that govern the citizens of each state. There is federal law and state law. Each state has their own law, and as long as it does not conflict with the federal law in that same area, the state law will apply to many cases. This is especially true in personal injury cases, since most personal injury cases do not give rise to federal court “jurisdiction.”

The term “jurisdiction” essentially means the power to hear a case and impose judgment over the parties to the case. For example, a court in New Mexico will not likely have jurisdiction over a case arising between two Marylanders who get into an accident on a Maryland road. In that case, Maryland would likely be the most proper venue for the lawsuit.

As noted above, each state has the ability to create its own set of laws, and it stands to reason that the law in every state will be a little bit different. This can create major consequences for accident victims in certain cases because under one state’s law a victim’s case may be strong, but under another state’s law the case may be much weaker. This also can have implications regarding the applicable statute of limitations, or the time in which the accident victim has to file their lawsuit against the defendant.

Slip-and-Fall Plaintiff’s Case Against Federal Government Allowed To Proceed, Despite Immunity Claims

January 19, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case that may have wide-ranging implications for slip-and-fall plaintiffs injured on government land. In the case, Gibson v. United States of America, the court determined that the federal government’s normal sovereign immunity from tort lawsuits did not attach, and the case should proceed to trial.

Gibson v. United States: The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, Gibson, suffered a fractured leg while he was on federal government property inspecting Federal Emergency Medical Association (FEMA) trailers that were scheduled to be later sold at auction. The evidence presented indicated that the trailers were on a several hundred-acre, fenced-in lot containing hundreds of trailers.

On the day in question, the plaintiff was with a FEMA employee inspecting the trailers. Some of the trailers had pull-out steps to assist with entry and exit, while others did not. For those that did not have steps, the FEMA employee had her own step ladder she carried with her. She would set up the step ladder along the side of the trailer and would enter and exit that way.

Dangerous Products and Product Liability Lawsuits

January 12, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Manufacturers, regardless of the products they make, are required to ensure that the goods they release into the stream of commerce are safe for normal use or consumption. When a product causes an injury or death, the manufacturer may be liable to those injured as a result of their product. In some cases, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers of a dangerous product may also be held liable. These lawsuits are called product liability lawsuits.

Product liability lawsuits break down into three categories: negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability. Negligence claims rely on the fact that the manufacturer was somehow negligent in the design or production of the item. These claims also include a manufacturer’s failure to warn about the dangerous propensities of a product.

Breach of warranty claims arise when there is an express or implied warranty that a product is safe for a certain kind of use, and that turns out not to be the case. These cases are brought under a breach-of-contract theory because the plaintiff is alleging that the manufacturer failed to “live up to their end of the deal.”