A recent case that illustrates liability for further injuries that occur after an initial injury

Nebraskan's lawsuit alleges Wal-Mart's plastic bag broke, leading to fatal injury to his wife

By Associated Press

5:25 a.m. CDT, August 28, 2013

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — An eastern Nebraska man has sued Wal-Mart, saying the failure of an overfilled

plastic shopping bag led to the death of his wife.

The Lincoln Journal Star reports (http://bit.ly/17jlnjJ) that the Sarpy County lawsuit filed by William Freis, of Plattsmouth, has been moved to U.S. District Court in Omaha.

---

The lawsuit says the bag failed on April 16, 2010, outside a Wal-Mart store in Bellevue. A can inside fell onto the right big toe of Freis' wife, Lynette, breaking and cutting it. The lawsuit says the injuries led to an infection that spread through her body "and ultimately resulted in her death on March 12, 2011."

The lawsuit seeks more than $656,000.

A Wal-Mart spokesman declined to directly comment on the lawsuit's allegations.

___

Information from: Lincoln Journal Star, http://www.journalstar.com 

 

 

This article above, which was reported in KSPR abc 33 News gives a good example of a lawsuit where one injury occurs, which then leads to another injury that is possibly more serious. In this case the woman suffered a severe infection from a cut, which is rare, and not usually expected. However, it is generally the case that the person or entity whose negligence caused the harm to the person will be liable for all the injuries they suffered as a result of that harm even if the later injuries suffered after the initial injury occurred seem unlikely or are hard to predict. Basically the reason for this is that it is a good policy to hold the person or entity responsible for all injuries suffered from their negligence because otherwise the burden of paying for treatment of the injury and other aspects of the injury will fall on the injured person or society at large. Therefore, it is just fair that the person who caused the harm should pay. This policy makes sense even though it may seem a little hard to see how some harm that comes to a person after the initial injury will be part of the injured person's original case.

THE DANGERS OF BOATING

All the news recently about the Bride to be and the best man that were killed in a boating accident shows just how dangerous boating can be. Although people don't really think of boating as dangerous it definitely can be, and this is one reason why boating accidents occur. Many people think if they are just going out on the open water driving a boat it is okay to have a few drinks. These same people may not do the same when it comes to driving a car. Well the problem is that operating a boat in the water can be more tricky that driving a car in the street given how difficult it can be to maneuver, and all the hidden dangers that can be in the water.
Even though it may appear to most people that they are unlikely to hit another boat with all the open water there are so many dangers in the water that it is not any safer or easier to operate boat than a car. That is why it is never a good idea to have a few drinks before operating a boat. Accidents in lakes and oceans caused by drunk boaters occurs a lot more often than people realize, and when they do they are often very severe and end up in death or permanent injuries. Our law firm has experience with these types of cases, and we realize how serious the injuries from boating accidents can be. That is why it is important to operate boats with at least the same amount of care you would use in operating a car or other vehicle, and not let your guard down because you think it's large open water and somehow safer.

If you have been the victim of a boating accident please call me at 521-3794 or visit our website at:

www.accidentawardslasvegas.com

INSURANCE COMPANIES AND SETTLING CASES

I have noticed for some reason that many times insurance companies will not settle a case until after a lawsuit has been filed, and the case has been in litigation for a while. This seems to be a huge waste to me because after spending a lot of time and money fighting out a case in Court we often end up settling for the same amount that would have settled at the beginning of a case. Often times the client and us would have happily taken the amount we ultimately settled for at the beginning of the case. However, the insurance company will often deny liability for any number of dubious reasons, and refuse to pay us anything, so we just go ahead and file a lawsuit. If these insurance companies only agreed to settle in the beginning it would  save everyone involved a lot of time and money. This shows me that some insurance companies should definitely re-evaluate the way they do business.

If you believe you have a personal injury claim please call 521-3794 to speak to me directly or visit our website at:

www.accidentawardslasvegas.com

Automatic Door Injuries

       Injuries that come from an automatic door can be quite complex. People are sometimes injured when an automatic door slams shut on them while they are passing through. Although it seems like the building owner should be at fault for the injury, and bringing a case like this should be easy it is anything but. This is because with automatic doors and similar machinery there will almost always be different companies that installed the door, have done repairs on the door, and/ or did maintenance on the door. Then it can become a complicated issue trying to determine what caused the door to malfunction. Experts may be hired to try to determine this. Then several companies may have to be brought into the lawsuit because it can't be determined who exactly is at fault for what happened.
     Because so much is involved with these cases they require a dedicated, and knowledgeable attorney. So if an injury like this ever happens to you or someone you know be sure to give our law firm a call.

Interesting article about a man shot on a toilet

Below is a very interesting article published in The Southeast Texas Record.

Man shot while on toilet sues Remington

November 2, 2012 1:32 PM
By David Yates

A hunter who was shot while sitting on the toilet at a hunting club two years ago has filed suit against Remington Arms, alleging the rifle that shot him had misfired.

Watts

Chad and Dusky Hall filed suit against Remington on Oct. 29 in Jefferson County District Court.
According to the lawsuit, on Oct. 23, 2010, Chad Hall and Michael Biesiada were hunting at the Cedar Creek Hunting Club in Trinity County. Around 5:30 a.m., Biesiada, while in his cabin, began to check his Remington 700 to determine if the rifle was loaded.
“When Biesiada touched the handle of the bolt, the rifle discharged and the bullet traveled through the wall,” the suit states. “Chad was sitting on the commode when the bullet … exploded through the wall.
“Chad heard the explosion and glimpsed debris flying and immediately attempted to avoid injury by pushing himself off the commode … however, when Chad put his right hand on his right thigh, (the hand) entered a hole in his right quadriceps that extended from nearly his knee to his torso.”
Chad was rushed to hospital and underwent multiple surgeries.
He currently suffers from nightmares and flashbacks about the shooting, resulting in depression and lose of hope for the future, the suit states.
The suit further alleges Remington is strictly liable to the Halls for designing, manufacturing and placing into the stream of commerce a defective rifle.
On top of exemplary damages, Hall is suing for his alleged past and future medical expenses, mental anguish, pain, impairment, disfigurement and lost wages, plus all court costs.
Houston attorney Joseph Watts of Adair & Myers represents the plaintiffs.
Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, is assigned to the case.


This article touches on a controversial area of the law, which is lawsuits stemming from guns mis-firing. It can be difficult to prove that the gun misfired rather than someone just mis-used the gun.This can be especially true for cases involving more powerful guns and attachments. That is why these cases will often come down to the testimony of a gun expert. This case also shows that an injury can occur anywhere, even where you least expect it. So be careful out there!

Case No. E193-495

Medicare Liens

When a person is injured and they have Medicare coverage it can make for a difficult situation. That is because Medicare is entitled to be reimbursed for any expenses it paid for the medical expenses of someone who is injured and is covered by Medicare. The problem with is that Medicare often tries to claim that it is entitled to far more expenses than it ever actually paid for an injury. Often times when somebody is injured they may have other health problems as well that are not related to the injury, and continue to treat these problems along with their injury. It seems common for Medicare to then try to claim that it should be reimbursed for all medical treatment given to the person at a certain time even if it is not related to their injury. Medicare has no right to do this, and is only allowed to be reimbursed for the medical expenses incurred as a direct result from an accident or injury. However, Medicare will still make these claims, and then these claims must be disputed. It is a long arduous process disputing these claims with Medicare because of the size of this agency, and the long slow process you must go through. Although negotiating the lien amount with Medicare is a difficult and very time consuming process, at Reed & Mansfield we will go through this process, and make every effort to keep the lien as small as possible so that our clients can ultimately get more money from their case.

Why trying to handle a car accident case by yourself is not a good idea

It seems like more people are trying to handle car accident cases on their own because they think that they can get the same result that a lawyer can. Well this is a big mistake for several reasons.
The first reason is that many people severely underestimate how much is actually involved when negotiating a settlement with an insurance company stemming from a car accident. When you negotiate one of these cases with an insurance adjustor you need to be able to present your case properly, and with the constant threat that you will bring a credible lawsuit if a decent settlement is not reached. Without an attorney an insurance adjustor may offer you something out of the fear that you will come back with an attorney and be able to present a credible case. However, the insurance company will offer you a much lower settlement amount than if you had an attorney. I have spoken to people who have taken what the insurance companies have offered in these kinds of situations when they did not get an attorney, and the amount offered by the insurance company is a mere fraction of what they would have been able to get if they had an attorney represent them. The ironic thing is that people actually think they are saving money by not getting an attorney, and giving up a percentage of their settlement to an attorney. What they don't realize is that they would actually end up with more money in their own pocket if they hired an attorney because the much higher settlement, or award if a lawsuit is filed, that an attorney would be able to get in the end will net the person significantly more money even after the attorney's fees are taken out of the settlement.
This is true considering that most attorney's take a 1/3 contingency fee for a car accident case. However, this is especially true when a client comes to us because we will only take a 25% fee for a car accident case where the police report states that the other driver is fault. This 25% does not go up if we file a lawsuit either.
Overall, when an insurance company deals with someone without an attorney they know that they will have to pay much less than if the person has an attorney or even nothing at all. They also know that the person will be stuck with whatever they offer because if that person ever tried to file a lawsuit on their own, the insurance company knows that they will almost certainly lose. Filing a lawsuit, any lawsuit, is a complex process that a non-attorney should never try on their own. When a lawsuit is filed there are so many procedures and rules that have to be followed correctly that someone without the proper legal training would not be able to follow these properly and have the lawsuit dismissed on technical grounds.I suspect that some people watch t.v. and think that the court cases they see on t.v. where witnesses are presented at the day of trial, and everything is slapped together at the last minute are an accurate representation of how real lawsuits are handled. Well nothing can be further from the truth. Most of an attorney's time when litigating a case is just preparing the case, and gathering and presenting evidence properly. For each hour an attorney will spend in a Court arguing a case, at least several more hours are spent preparing the case properly. All the while all the rules and proper procedures must be followed strictly. Someone who thinks that they can just stand up before a judge or arbitrator, and make a pretty speech and win a case will be in for a quite a shock.
On the other hand if a person has an attorney and the insurance company is not offering a fair settlement then the attorney can just file a lawsuit, and often times get much more money in the end than what was offered by the insurance company. For someone without an attorney this is almost certain to not be the case. Therefore, there is really no good reason not to get an attorney, and getting an attorney will almost certainly get you more money in the end. This is especially true if someone comes to our law firm, The law firm of Reed & Mansfield, with our 25% contingency fee for auto accident cases where the other driver is found to be at fault.