Northern Virginia Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Brien Roche Law Firm : Medical Malpractice, Product Liability, Car Accidents : Washington DC, North Virginia, Maryland

In a recent decision of the Virginia Supreme Court it was decided that wrongful death settlements must be made public pursuant to a prior decision of the Supreme Court dating back to 1988. In this particular case, even though the parties had agreed that the terms of the settlement be kept confidential the Supreme Court concluded that the public interest in disclosure of wrongful death settlements was more important than the agreement of the parties and, as such, the terms of the wrongful death settlement are to be made public.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

DOGS ATTACK NEIGHBOR: STRICT LIABILITY: FAILURE TO CLOSE FENCE: BITES: SCARRING: POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER.

Johnson v. Johnson, N.J., Essex Co. Super., No. ESX-L-6874-07, December 11, 2007.

Johnson, 14, was outside on his porch when two of his next-door neighbor’s dogs escaped from the rear yard and attacked him. He suffered about 24 bites to his arms, legs, and face, requiring surgery. One of the dogs had not been vaccinated for rabies, and Johnson had to undergo rabies treatment. He now has residual and permanent scarring and suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder, causing difficulties sleeping and problems at school. He incurred an unspecified amount of medical expenses.

The parties settled before trial for $280,000, to be paid by defendant’s insurer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

CAR CATCHES FIRE: FAILURE TO INSPECT, REPAIR OVERHEATING PROBLEM: WRONGFUL DEATH.

Mulligan v. Barrett, Ky., Jefferson Co. Cir., No. 06-CI-03827, March 13, 2008.

Mulligan, 67, had his vehicle towed to Don’s Auto Clinic twice for overheating. The second time, the repair shop owner decided to install a rebuilt engine. Two days later, Mulligan left his car idling for about 30 minutes while he was sitting in it. A fire erupted in the engine compartment, engulfing Mulligan in flames. He suffered third-degree burns over 45 percent of his body, including his airway, and died three days later. His medical expenses were about $102,000, and his funeral expenses were about $3,900. Mulligan had been a butcher earning $12 per hour and is survived by his five adult children.

The jury awarded plaintiffs $3.26 million.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

PHOTOGRAPHER REPEATEDLY SENDS DESTROYED WEDDING PHOTOS TO NEWLYWEDS: HARASSMENT: EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: VERDICT: PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

Vickers v. Elden, W. Va., Ohio Co. Cir., No. 02-C-290, November 28, 2007.

When the Vickers got married in 2000, they hired Elden and his photography studio to take the wedding pictures. They paid Elden in full for his work. The next year, however, he began sending the Vickers and the groom’s parents, the Murrays, as well as other members of the family, cut up photo negatives and photos with the faces scribbled out. He also sent shattered photo CDs. The dozens of mailings were allegedly sometimes accompanied by poetry written by Elden and became increasingly threatening and disturbing. The Vickers and the Murrays repeatedly asked Elden to stop sending the materials, but he continued. They suffered emotional distress as a result of the alleged harassment.

The jury awarded plaintiffs $550,000, including $400,000 in punitive damages. The bride was awarded $100,000, the groom $25,000, his mother $20,000, and his father $5,000.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

TRACTOR-TRAILER STRIKES VEHICLE IN INTERSECTION: FAILURE TO OBEY SPEED LIMIT: VICARIOUS LIABILITY: WRONGFUL DEATHS

Powell v. Dean Foods Co., Ill., Cook Co. Cir., Nos. 03-L-015077 & 03-L-016261, Nov. 2, 2007.

Chakonas, 17, was driving her car with two passengers in it, Kakidas and McDonald, also both 17. As Chakonas attempted to make a left-hand turn at an intersection, a tractor-trailer, allegedly traveling approximately 10 m.p.h. over the speed limit, struck Chakonas’s car. All three occupants suffered fatal injuries.

The jury awarded plaintiffs $20.2 million, finding defendants 60 percent liable. It awarded $8 million each to the Kakidas and McDonald family, and $7 million to the Chakonas family, which was reduced to $4.2 million because of the jury’s finding that she was 40 percent contributorily negligent.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

GIRL, MOTHER STRUCK IN INTERSECTION: FAILURE TO STOP AT RED LIGHT: FTCA LIABILITY: QUADRIPLEGIA: BRAIN INJURY:

Gutierrez v. USA, U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal., No. 8:04-cv-01045, September 27, 2007.

Gutierrez, 4, was with her mother in their SUV. Gutierrez was properly restrained in a child booster seat in the back seat on the driver’s side. As they entered an intersection on a green light, another vehicle going about 30 m.p.h. ran a red light and broadsided their car on the passenger side, causing Gutierrez’s mother to lose control of the car. It struck a utility pole on the passenger side and flipped over onto the driver’s side. Gutierrez sustained a disk injury at C2, causing ventilator-dependent quadriplegia. She also suffered other injuries, including a brain injury with a subarachnoid hemorrhage, traumatic instability at C6-7, a collapsed left lung, abdominal trauma, and a laceration of her spleen. Gutierrez required a total of 25 surgeries and other procedures and was hospitalized for about 250 days.

Her past medical expenses were about $3.55 million and her future life-care costs, based on a 40-year life expectancy, are estimated to be approximately $22.6 million. Gutierrez will never be able to work and claimed about $1.37 million in lost earing capacity.

After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for plaintiffs in the amount of $55.18 million, including $54.14 million to Gutierrez and the remaining amount to her mother. Defendant has appealed the portion of the judgment awarding Gutierrez $31 million in noneconomic damages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Many contracts that are entered into by consumers contain mandatory arbitration clauses. They can be found in health insurance plans, franchise agreements and many other types of contracts. Several states including Maryland, the District of Columbia, Alabama and Connecticut have introduced or passed legislation that would limit mandatory arbitration clauses or provide protections for consumers including people who are injured as a result of the conduct of corporate entities.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the Supreme Court decision of Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. the U. S. Supreme Court granted manufacturers of certain FDA approved medical devices immunity for product related deaths and injuries, finding that State law claims are preempted under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976. Dozens of members of the U. S. House of Representatives have now signed on to co-sponsor an amendment to that statute which would allow injured consumers and patients to hold medical device manufacturers accountable for defective devices resulting in personal injury.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the criminal field, there are two different types of warrants that may be issued—arrest warrants and search warrants. An arrest warrant is an order issued by a judge or magistrate authorizing the arrest of a particular person for a particular crime. A search warrant is an order issued by a judge or magistrate authorizing the police to conduct a search of a specific premises looking for specific objects. Although the police do not always need to have a search warrant before conducting a search of a premises, it is generally preferred that they do, especially if time permits. In some circumstances, however, time does not permit the police to go to the local courthouse, find a judge who has time to review the situation, and obtain a search warrant. In those types of emergency circumstances—when evidence is about to be destroyed or when the crime is in progress—the police may enter the premises and conduct a search without a warrant.

If a search warrant has been issued, then the warrant may actually indicate when the search is to be conducted. Typically, when the search warrant is to be served and executed is a matter of discretion for the police. Once the police have arrived at the premises, they are expected to announce their entry. However, if they have some reasonable cause to fear that evidence is being destroyed or that the police themselves may be in danger as a result of announcing their presence, then the police may enter without notice. Once the police have entered the premises, anyone in the premises is detained pending the completion of that search. If illegal materials or the items that are sought are found in the premises, and if there is probable cause to believe that the persons on the premises have something to do with the crime at issue, then they may be arrested and charged with a criminal violation.

Sometimes the police may request a citizen to consent to a search either of their person or of their premises. Nobody has to give such consent. If a person does consent to the search of his or her physical person or his or her home, it is considered to be a consensual search and the police do not need a warrant.

Police sometimes are called upon to utilize various types of surveillance techniques, consisting of wire tapping and electronic eavesdropping. That type of surveillance is controlled by specific state or federal statutes and as a general rule a warrant is necessary before the police can engage in that type of activity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks