Negligence / Other Injuries: Injured

Injured - The FindLaw Accident, Injury and Tort Law Blog

Negligence and Other Injuries

Negligence is the most commonly used legal principle in personal injury lawsuits. Essentially, the concept of negligence rests on the idea that the defendant owed some sort of a duty to the injured party and that duty was somehow breached. The duty is usually breached through an action or inaction of the defendant. The breach of the injury must have been the proximate cause of the injury.

There also exists an element of foreseeability in negligence. For there to be a valid negligence claim, the injury must have been foreseeable in the actions (or inaction) of the defendant and the injured party must have been within a "zone of danger". The concept of foreseeability is sometimes different among the states but the general premise is the same.


Recently in Negligence / Other Injuries Category

Every winter, when the roads get icy, accidents happen. Cars and ice just don’t mix, especially if you throw a hill into the equation.

However, when the cause of two cars colliding is an icy road, the driver that slides is likely to find out that they can blame it on the ice but they can’t escape liability (financial responsibility). This is due to the way that the legal theory of negligence works, which is the most frequently used legal theory in lawsuits stemming from auto accidents.

How to Prove Landlord Negligence

When an injury occurs, or a financial loss occurs, as a result of a landlord’s negligence, an individual will likely need to be able to prove their case in order to recover. Rarely are injuries or losses so clearly the result of an action or failure to act that the injury or loss itself is evidence enough.

Negligence occurs when one person acts carelessly, or without regard for the consequences of their actions, or if that person fails to act when they should have done something, and their action, or failure to act, causes another person to be injured or suffer a financial loss. The most common negligence cases involve car accidents, as these tend to occur due to one driver’s inattention. However, frequently, when a person is injured on the property of another, the property owner (or controller) can potentially be found negligent under the legal theory of premises liability.

When a pedestrian or cyclist gets hit by a car, it is a frightening experience. Cars are large, heavy objects that, even at low speeds, can cause severe injuries to individuals.

After a car accident with a pedestrian, it is important for the pedestrian to take a few steps to ensure that they will be able to hold the at-fault driver accountable, similarly to a regular car accident. While it may be impossible for an injured pedestrian to do anything after getting hit by a car, if they are able to do the following, it may greatly improve their legal prospects.

People slip and fall every single day. And while most falls don’t result in anything more than a bruised ego, all too often a serious injury results. Injuries can be especially serious when a person slips and falls down a flight of stairs.

Thanks to gravity, a fall in a stairway can cause a person to tumble some distance. Unfortunately for property owners, stairs can be the source of serious, and costly, premises liability claims due to the fact that the injuries tend to be rather severe.

When protesters take to the streets to have their voices heard, drivers that get stuck in traffic often suffer the consequences. While most drivers are simply made late getting to and from where they need to be, drivers that get caught in the thick of a march or protest face a much scarier situation.

In most states, even when protestors are illegally marching in the street, if a driver hits a protester, they could face both civil and potentially criminal legal liability. However, in states like North Dakota and Tennessee, legislatures are trying to pass laws that would provide limited civil and criminal immunity to drivers that injure protesters who are obstructing traffic.

When a person is diagnosed as having an illness, a doctor is generally the one who makes that decision. That’s because doctors have been specially trained to make diagnoses, are certified by medical boards, and are more often than not insured against making errors.

A lawsuit filed in Ohio last year against a cognitive clinic shows just how destructive a wrong diagnosis can be — especially for a serious illness like Alzheimer’s. The lawsuit includes 50 plus people who all allege they were misdiagnosed by the clinic. Among the most heart-wrenching tale involves one man who committed suicide after learning of the misdiagnosis, only for his wife to learn that an autopsy revealed no Alzheimer’s disease at all.

Specifically, the case alleges that the clinic’s director, while holding a PhD, was not properly credentialed, nor trained, to make diagnoses, yet he would diagnosis patients, and sometimes whole families, with Alzheimer’s. It is alleged that she abused her husband’s actual real medical licensing to order patient tests. Additionally, she would attempt to persuade patients against medications (which she couldn’t prescribe anyway) and getting second opinions from actual licensed doctors.

News of children, teens, and even adults being sexually assaulted or even raped, by religious leaders is unfortunately something that appears in the news too often. Just last week, a lawsuit was filed in North Carolina alleging that a youth counselor who was attending seminary training abused his authority and attempted to groom a teenage girl for sexual assault.

The lawsuit alleges that the counselor urged the teenager to confide in him, especially when it came to sexual urges, so that they could talk about those urges to supposedly resist them. However, when the counselor was invited into the girl’s family home for Christmas dinner, the situation quickly escalated. After eating, he took the teenager on a drive, where he parked the car at the church, then allegedly raped her. If this wasn’t bad enough, the counselor is alleged to have continued to manipulate the teenager, by telling her that people would turn against her, her reputation would be damaged, and no one would believe her, all so that she would continue to have sex with him.

While watching the latest fad internet challenge is usually exciting, one new challenge is more concerning than anything else. The salt and ice challenge should just be avoided, as it is dangerous and is practically guaranteed to lead to injury.

Unlike the ALS ice-bucket challenge, which had some rather minor liability concerns, the salt and ice challenge is a legal nightmare. Parents need to read up on this one in order to educate their children on why they should avoid this challenge. In fact, schools and anyone in contact with youngsters should be aware of the dangers of this innocent sounding challenge.

Snapchat, which achieved notoriety for its disappearing picture messaging app, has pulled off a different kind of vanishing act, but this time in court. The app company was being sued as a result of their speed filter for photos that the plaintiffs alleged encourages unsafe driving. Snapchat managed to have the case against it dismissed recently via a court motion, although the driver that caused the car accident while Snapchat-ing was not so fortunate and remains in the lawsuit.

Snapchat’s speed filter works by overlaying the speed a person is traveling on top of their snap (or photo). In the lawsuit, the injured driver plaintiff alleged that the defendant driver that caused the accident was not only using the Snapchat app at the time of the accident, but was deliberately speeding in order to take pictures using the speed filter showing a high rate speed.

Although Snapchat claims that they warn users not to “snap” and drive, the plaintiffs were seeking to hold the app maker liable, particularly because there have been other dangerous accidents caused by the irresponsible use of this particular filter and Snapchat had been put on notice of the dangers.

Jan Burgess, a Flint, Michigan resident, is the named plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed against the USA on behalf of over 1,700 residents of city alleging the Environmental Protection Agency failed to protect them from the Flint Water Crisis. Shockingly, the city still suffers from water problems today, but that has not stopped residents from seeking relief for the damages and injuries already suffered. And because they are alleging the EPA failed them, the case is against the United States of America.

The class action is seeking nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars for negligence, failure to warn, as well as a result of failures pursuant to the Safe Water Drinking Act. Emotional and physical injuries are alleged and include lead poisoning, dermatological conditions, loss of hair, as well as other injuries to both adults and children. Further damages include loss of value of real estate and personal property.